Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I find it strange that it's being said that this is going to help everyone. There have been claims made that everybody is going to be better off under this schedule. There will be people who will be worse off. That's the point about this whole schedule. That's why we are seeking to disallow the whole schedule, to knock off the whole schedule. It is because people will be—

Senator Burston interjecting—

Don't get ridiculous!

The CHAIR: I remind senators to speak through the chair.

Sorry. Through you, Chair, I'm saying to Senator Burston: don't be ridiculous! The point is that people will be worse off under this overall schedule.

We've just heard from Senator Hanson and Senator Burston about how people in bereavement are obviously going through a really, really hard time—and they are. That is why we supported the ALP amendment last night to disallow it. At the time I said I had an amendment, too. I will be moving it because the situation with this schedule will be different if this amendment gets up. Senator Burston, you will have the chance to actually make sure nobody will be worse off because we will have the opportunity to vote down that schedule. I'm hoping you will lend support to my amendment that says: 'Let's get rid of this schedule because it is cruel to people who would have been able to access this allowance when they were in fact bereaved. They will now be excluded.' It is a fallacy to say that no-one will be worse off. It's too cute by half to say that when you are supporting a schedule that means that people will no longer be able to access this allowance.

Let's be really clear. If Senator Hanson can't provide the numbers for those who will be better off in terms of getting more money than they would have—that is what I understand Senator Hanson to have said—is the minister or the government, who have indicated support for this amendment, able to tell us how many will be better off or getting more money than they would have both under the original allowance and under the process that was passed previously by the Senate in the amendment? Does that make sense?