Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It's been introduced in the other place. That was the plan, for it to be introduced in that place, and I know that because we dealt with the issue in the Labor Party caucus meeting recently. It was the due and proper process. You're going completely at cross-purposes by seeking to move amendments to a different bill that really should be dealt with in the bill that has just come to the other place.

I call on the Greens and I call on those opposite: let's deal with these issues sensibly. Please deal with them sensibly. We cannot and we should not second-guess what is going on in the other place. It is entirely inappropriate that we do that. We have careful protocols in this place to ensure that we wait for a message to go from one place to the other so that when a question is determined it reflects the will and the endorsement of both houses. I'm really not sure what the state of confusion would be if you had an amended, or not amended, bill coming up this way at the same time that this chamber was making a change to an entirely different piece of legislation that intersected with the other bill.

Let's be clear. We're talking about the bill to change the income threshold for pensioner healthcare cards. That is the legislation that is before us today. It is keenly awaited by retirees, who face cost of living pressures because they cannot access the cheaper medicines, for example, that pensioners and other concession cardholders can access. It fits in very nicely, frankly, with this government's decision to lower the price of medicine for all Australians. We are going from $40 a script, where a script is above that amount, down to $30. This is a very good step forward, but for retirees, who are under real income pressure, we are very pleased to be prioritising in this legislation today the needs of retirees and their ability to access more-affordable health care and more-affordable medicine. Instead, we have from the opposition, including Senator Dean Smith, an attempt to subvert the outcome of a bill that is still before the other place and that is still to come to us.

We can't predict whether the other place might make amendments that usurp the amendments that have been moved by Senator Dean Smith on the amount a pensioner can earn before their pension is affected and starts to reduce based on the fact that they have earned $7,800 within 12 months. That is in the legislation before the other place and is due to be lifted to $11,800. What Senator Dean Smith is trying to do is change the income limit here and now in a completely unrelated bill while the House of Representatives is still dealing with that question. It is patently ridiculous for that to be the case. These are separate pieces of legislation, and these amendments should not be moved here and now. That, in and of itself, provides good reason for the Labor Party not to support the amendments, quite apart from the policy questions and our policy position and policy debate on that legislation, which is proceeding with the minister introducing that legislation in the place. That legislation is to be announced and proceeded with in the other place. (Time expired)