Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

In doing so, could I say how disappointing today is for 57,000 people who expected that this fair indexation bill would go through this chamber. I thank those who have contributed positively. I thank those who have contributed positively. I thank the member for Fadden, the shadow minister, who has worked tirelessly to ensure that this bill got to this place. Those who oppose it stand condemned for not providing fair indexation to those 57,000 men and women. You will stand utterly condemned from now on, for time immemorial, for doing so. I thank Senator Fielding for having the intestinal fortitude to take on those who are trying to force him to oppose this. Thank you, Senator, for agreeing to this bill.

I say to the Greens: you cannot say on one hand that you will do something and then, when it comes to the crunch, do another. There is another senator here, whose name I will not mention, who has done exactly the same thing, and she will stand condemned in the community of Canberra. I say this finally: the Australian Labor Party cannot effectively vote for a motion in the House of Representatives and then come back into this place and vote against it. It is utterly duplicitous behaviour. You are not prepared to test the floor in the House of Repre­sentatives, and you came up here because you knew you had the numbers. You stand utterly condemned. On behalf of this chamber, I apologise to those 57,000 people who have been, quite frankly, utterly let down by this parliament.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can only reiterate that had Senator Ronaldson and the opposition voted for the Greens amendment to fund this legislation when it came before the chamber in March, there would be a different outcome today. But they did not.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We take upon ourselves the responsibility in this chamber to fund the measures we put through. The shadow minister, Mr Robert, has been a very good liaison point. He came up with a good idea for funding this legislation. It was then found that that option was not available, because it had already been taken up by the government in prior budget considerations. That left the Greens option on the table, and the opposition voted that down; otherwise, we would have a different outcome. The opposition needs to look at that. I reiterate that the option put forward is a Treasury backed option for funding social measures as well as many other measures. The opposition is putting its head in the sand. Not only does it not want to fund this legislation; it wants to cut income to the Treasury. You cannot expect to be seen as fair dinkum with legislation like this. Vote for the Greens financing option and be responsible, and you will get the right outcome.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was not going to speak on the third reading, because we wanted to deal with all of the divisions quickly, but, given that Senator Ronaldson has chosen to do a bit of grandstanding, I think a few facts in reply would be useful.

For those coalition senators who have recently entered the chamber, you are now about to vote for a bill which you have not funded, which has a fiscal cost of $1.7 billion.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Rubbish.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You cannot say 'rubbish', Senator. Those are the facts. Secondly, it has an underlying cash cost of $175 million over four years and would increase the Commonwealth's unfunded liability by $6.2 billion. That is just this bill.

Those of you who are supporters of Senator Minchin might want to be aware of his comments on this bill. At a meeting of coalition senators considering this bill he warned his colleagues about this move. When confronted by arguments that the move would be very popular, he told his younger colleagues that such a proposal 'risked being the thin end of the wedge'. The coalition 'had to protect its credentials as fiscal conservatives', he said. Senator Minchin is not in the chamber today, but he is at least inside the coalition arguing for a fiscally responsible position, and it is very interesting that no-one has answered his criticisms of this legislation.

Senator Bob Brown put it well when he asked whether the coalition was fair dinkum on this issue. I again say this: if the coalition were serious and fair dinkum on this, they would have done something in government; they never did.

In 11 years, you never—it is very quiet now—found the money to fund this. In your election policy you did not fully fund this, and you are not fully funding this now. You only care about this issue when you do not have to find the money to fund it. That is the reality and it is shameful.

The government is being consistent on this position. We are very clear. We have to take a fiscally responsible approach. We agree with Senator Minchin, unlike many of his colleagues.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I reiterate that the responsible thing to do, the best thing to do, is to go through a process in the next six to 12 months to see what savings can be made from Defence. I have had discussions with Senator Ronaldson, Senator Johnston, the govern­ment and my crossbench colleagues in relation to this. Let us go through the process of seeing what savings can be made—thoroughly, forensically, robustly—with the Defence Materiel Organisation and the Department of Defence. That is the best way of dealing with this. There are live issues in relation to the Government Actuary with respect to this. I want to get a long-term sus­tainable outcome. The best way to do this is to work through that process, and I look forward to working with the government, the opposition and my crossbench colleagues to achieve that outcome.

Question put:

  That this bill be now read a third time.

The Senate divided. [11:38]

(The President—Senator the Hon. JJ Hogg)

Question negatived.