Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Evans. On what basis does the government claim that the advice of the Clerk of the Senate on the constitutionality of the Urgent Relief for Single Age Pensioners Bill is wrong?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for her question. I also indicate that the Clerk of the Senate and I are not related at all, so I have no difficulty in saying that on this occasion we disagree with the advice of the Clerk of the Senate, Mr Harry Evans. We have advice, both legal advice and advice from the Clerk of the House of Representatives, that to initiate the bill in the Senate is unconstitutional. It is an appropriation bill and it seeks to ask the Commonwealth to expend funds. I think even in the papers supplied by the opposition they admit that it is going to cost $1.4 billion or so. We think they got their figures wrong. Nevertheless, they concede that it will require the appropriation of funds. Traditionally and constitutionally, it has been recognised that that is not the role of the Senate. We have not had the capacity to introduce and pass appropriation bills in this chamber. That has been reserved for executive government and the House of Representatives. As I said, we have advice to that effect, we advised the Senate of that yesterday and we argued our case. But we did not seek to delay the Senate. We sought to get on and debate the bill rather than relying on procedural questions.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz interjecting—

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz, I know you have spoken a lot on the luxury car tax but I have never heard you speak on the pensioners, but that is a decision for you. We know what your priorities are. What I can say to Senator Troeth, through you, Mr President, is that we have advice both in terms of—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you want us to speak more, we will.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz, if you are threatening me—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Evans, resume your seat. Senator Abetz and Senator Evans, it is disorderly for comments to be going backwards and forwards across this chamber during question time. Senator Abetz, I have been very tolerant of your interjections over a long period of time and I am also tolerant of some of the responses. I would ask senators to act in an orderly manner in this chamber. The questioner is entitled to be heard when asking the question. The responder is entitled to be heard, without interjection, when responding—and that also includes help from the chorus that might be in the background.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Under no interpretation could the comment of Senator Abetz be interpreted as a threat. That was just to go in Hansard. It was an outrageous allegation and it should be withdrawn immediately.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. I am happy to indicate that I was referring to Senator Abetz interjecting that, if I made comments like this, they would delay the bill by speaking more. I am saying that sort of approach will not work. I am happy to respond to the primary question, which is whether or not the government accepts that the Senate has the right to initiate appropriation bills. We do not. We made that very clear. We have made it clear for days, perhaps weeks, now. We have legal advice and we have the advice from the Clerk of the House of Representatives. The Clerk of the Senate has provided different advice. I respect his role and his experience, but on this occasion the government and I personally have a different view. That is competent for us to do that. The House of Representatives will deal with the message of the bill by whatever means it decides to do today. That is obviously a question for it. But, yes, we do have the view that it is not constitutional. We have sought and received advice on that. We maintain that is correct and, as a result, the House of Representatives will reflect that view when it is brought before the House of Representatives, I think, today.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I request that Senator Evans table the advice that he has received. I would also like to mention that I have in front of me advice from the Clerk of the Senate addressed to Senator Minchin dated 15 September which says, ‘There is no barrier to the introduction of such a bill in the Senate.’ And later on it says, ‘A bill to increase the rate of age pensions does not need to contain an appropriation of money.’ So I ask Senator Evans, noting that he again seems to think that the House of Representatives is more important than the Senate: why do the government seek to hide behind their own flawed view of the Constitution rather than simply introducing the Urgent Relief for Single Age Pensioners Bill themselves, thereby guaranteeing justice for pensioners?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Troeth for the supplementary question, although it seemed to be a bit more of a speech than a question. We have advice which we rely upon that it is unconstitutional for the bill to be initiated in this way. In terms of Senator Troeth’s remark, ‘Do I think the House of Representatives is more important than the Senate?’—yes, I do. That is where government is formed, Senator Troeth, through you, Mr President. The party that wins the majority of seats in the House of Representatives forms the government. We have a very important role in the Senate and I have always respected that, but in terms of the initiation of appropriation bills the Constitution makes it clear that ought to occur in—

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order, Mr President. I am not so sure that it would be right, fit and proper for any senator to say that the House of Representatives is more important than the Senate.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on Senator Fielding’s point of order: I make the point that I have noticed over the years that senators seem to say what they like.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps a sobering thought for the opposition is to count the number of senators they have here, realise they have a lot more than the government has and wonder why they are in opposition. That is role of the House of Representatives. (Time expired)