Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 18 November, from Senator Moore:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The Government's unfair pay deal for Australian Defence Force personnel which cuts real pay and takes away vital Christmas and recreational leave".

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

"The Government's unfair pay deal for Australian Defence Force personnel which cuts real pay and takes away vital Christmas and recreational leave".

I rise to support this urgency motion. It is an urgent matter that this government be held to account for its disgraceful decision to cut the real pay and conditions of our servicemen and women. It is being condemned for this. This government is being justifiably condemned across the country, across the defence community; it is right that it also be condemned in this parliament.

This disgraceful decision will see more than 55,000 ADF personnel take a real pay cut every year for the next three years. And what do they get in return? They have to give up—that is right, Mr President, give up—leave and other entitlements. This includes Christmas leave and five other days of leave. Christmas is when all of us spend our time with our loved ones. This time is precious. It is particularly precious for our ADF families, whose fathers or mothers can be away for so much of the year. They are away from home serving our country, keeping our country safe. What kind of government thinks that this type of deal is acceptable? What kind of values does a government have when it thinks a deal like this is acceptable? It should hang its head in shame, and each and every one of those opposite who is not prepared to vote in support of this resolution should hang their head in shame as well.

There has been community outrage at this decision. The Defence Force Welfare Association has condemned the government's pay offer. One soldier said this deal is:

… essentially a kick in the teeth to every Soldier, Airmen, & Sailor.

A petition on Change.org for a better deal has more than 22,000 signatures. And people are right to be outraged because before the election, in a speech to the RSL National Conference, the now Prime Minister—that serial liar, Mr Abbott—said this—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order, Mr President.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not need a point of order. Senator Conroy, you have to withdraw that.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. This is what the now Prime Minister said to the RSL:

A “fair go” is the least a grateful nation can offer to serving and former military personnel.

That is what he said. Where is the fair go in cutting the real pay of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and women? Where is the fair go for ADF families in the cuts to leave and other entitlements? This is, yet again, another government broken promise, another government lie. And that tally is mounting up: already today we have discussed three or four others. To promise a fair go for our military personnel before the election, then slug them with a real pay cut after the election—'no surprises' the then opposition leader said before the election. There will be no excuses, no blaming the others, no blaming anybody else; no surprises for the Australian public. Well I have got to tell you: there are 55,000 bloody surprised service personnel in this country today!

This is, unfortunately, a pattern of behaviour when it comes to this government. The first decision, the very first decision, taken by this defence minister was to cut the pay and conditions of ADF personnel serving in Afghanistan and the Middle East. And now in the first chance they get to put in place an ADF pay deal, the Abbott government cuts the ADF's real pay and conditions again.

This is despite—and here is where the real deceit comes into play and not one of the speakers who are going to follow on the other side will be able to explain this—in the 2014-15 budget already having allocated funding for a fair pay deal for ADF personnel. So they put in the budget four per cent. It is in the budget papers. It does not add to the deficit. It does not add to expenditure: it is in the budget. What do we see? A pay increase of 1.5 per cent already allocated, already decided, but they budgeted for up to four per cent. So they cannot try and blame previous governments. They cannot try and blame the deficit. They cannot try and blame all of the expenditure on other programs in their own budget: they allocated for up to four per cent. They are just being mean, tricky and deceitful.

I spent weeks exposing the fact that it is a real pay cut. I have had the minister saying, 'It's not a pay cut at all; they are getting a pay rise.' They are all playing with words and semantics. It is real pay cut—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a 1½ per cent pay rise.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank you Senator Macdonald. Come on in, spinner; come on in. He wants to try and pretend that if you give someone a 1.5 per cent pay increase in nominal dollars and inflation rises three per cent, that that is not a real pay cut. That is what those opposite are going to stand up here and try and argue today.

What is the situation when it comes to hypocrisy and inconsistency from those opposite? When Labor was in government over the past three years, ADF pay increased by an average of three per cent—double what you are supporting today. What did the Liberals say when Labor was putting in place a three per cent pay increase? They railed against it. The now assistant minister for Defence called it 'outrageous'—three per cent was outrageous. If a three per cent increase is outrageous, what does the assistant Defence minister call a real pay cut—which is what he is handing to our serving personnel? It is disgraceful. It is an absolute disgrace what has gone on and the hypocrisy, the attack and the criticism of just three per cent, keeping up with inflation, but then offer a real pay cut.

This motion is urgent today, because if the government wanted to, if those opposite had the guts to stand up on behalf of Defence personnel, if the minister and the assistant minister had the guts, they would vote for this. It is time the Prime Minister showed some leadership, because the clock is ticking. The government has until 1 December to ask the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal to reconsider its determination and, in doing so, the government is able to set out the grounds on which the reconsideration is being sought.

Tell the truth: we budgeted for up to four per cent; we can afford to do it. Given the outrage within ADF ranks, their families and the wider community, there are undoubtedly sufficient grounds upon which to appeal this decision. In particular, the government should set out for the tribunal that its original offer was unfair and wrong, particularly in the light of the budget allocation. They could set out that it is affecting morale and is likely to affect recruitment. They could set out that it has caused a backlash across the whole ADF—servicemen and women and their families—and the wider community. It should be changed to ensure a fair deal for our ADF personnel. (Time expired)

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What confected outrage we have just heard from a failed shadow minister for Defence—outrage, as he goes on about members of the Defence Force before he leaves. I will tell him about outrage: they were outraged when that man there, with his back to us now, this failed shadow minister for Defence, abused a general of the Australian Defence Force and when called out, refused to apologise—even when his leader called him to apologise he didn't; a failed shadow minister for Defence, when in government, who did not support military superannuation et cetera.

I will come back and allow the Labor Party to burn slowly over the next few minutes, because what an opportunity has been given to me by Senator Moore, for which I thank her, in which you are asking us to debate the government's unfair pay deal for Australian Defence Force personnel. I will come back to the actions of the Labor Party both in government and in opposition.

I speak as I rise as a very proud member of the Defence family. I was a very modest junior officer years ago but I am the father of a combat officer who fought with distinction as a lieutenant in Iraq and equally with distinction as a captain in Afghanistan. I can assure you, as I can assure Senator Moore and those on the opposite side, that I did have and continue to have a very, very keen interest in aspects associated with Defence Force remuneration et cetera.

But because there has been so much confected confusion about rates and what people actually enjoy or the service facilities that they get, I thought there would be some value in the wider community understanding exactly what our Defence Force do receive—I will be the first one to say that I think they thoroughly deserve it. On top of a base pay, which is around $45,000 for someone who has been 12 months in the service, going up of course to a higher remuneration in the higher ranks, each person in the ADF uniform personnel receives a service allowance of some $13,118 per annum. On top of that, if they are in the field, under fairly harsh conditions, they get a further $57 a day or, if they are in reasonably generous camp conditions, $33.50. At the same time, for every 10 days in the field they get another day of leave.

Our uniformed personnel get a uniform-maintenance allowance. Those of them in the north of the country—for instance, in Darwin, Townsville, across the north and in the Pilbara—receive a district allowance of some $280 a fortnight. In remote areas they also get remote locality leave, travel allowance, which includes for the member of the ADF plus their partner and dependants an annual flight and which is a variable figure. One that was quoted to me from Darwin was about $1,170 a year. That is what ADF personnel receive when they are in Australia on service.

I turn now to the conditions that service personnel have when they are deployed overseas, because it is important that the wider community has this understanding. I repeat my comment that I believe they richly deserve it. First of all, they continue to receive all of the payments to which I have referred: base pay, service allowance, field allowance and uniform allowance. The only difference is that, because they are overseas, those allowances are tax-free. They are not taxed on those payments while they are away. Of course, all their leave continues to accrue, including the one day of leave for each 10 days in the field. Depending on where they are, according to the degree of risk associated with the combat zone or the overseas warlike area they might be in, they receive a further allowance. For example, in Operation Slipper in Afghanistan the allowance was $200 per day, tax free, or $6,000 per month, tax free. That figure goes down according to the level of risk.

I want the community to understand the conditions under which ADF personnel are employed and deployed. Those in the special forces get a higher allowance of about $40,000 a year. Those on submarines get a different allowance of about $17,000. If you are at sea you get an allowance of $11,000 and if you are a member of a boarding party—for example, in the Timor Sea at the moment—you get $63 a day. Paratroopers are paid a different daily rate as are others associated with deep diving or other activities.

The point that I make, as the Deputy Chief of the Defence Force has made, is that our forces are at least the highest, second-highest, or third-highest paid military personnel in the world. We will not listen to the nonsense that is being handled by Senator Conroy on behalf of the Labor Party about the role of our ADF or the respect with which the coalition deals with it.

On the question of Christmas stand-down and the day that is lost in these proposals, let me make very strongly the point that there is no day lost between Christmas and New Year in the proposed arrangement. No stand-down day is lost between Christmas and New Year. Let us debunk that lie if we can.

I turn to the circumstances associated with the Labor opposition. When Labor went into government in 2007 this country had a $20 billion surplus and no net debt. We had $50 billion in the bank earning interest. In the middle of September 2013 we had a debt that was galloping towards $600 billion, a debt that we are repaying at the rate of $1,000 million every month. We are borrowing that money not to repay the debt, not to try to pay down deficit and not to try to ensure that we have adequate funds for ADF personnel and other people. We are borrowing that billion dollars a month to pay the interest on the debt that the Labor government accrued. Senator Conroy comes in here and starts talking about the sorts of pay levels that the Labor government were able to offer at a time when they enjoyed that surplus, leaving us with the degree of deficit and debt they have. Indeed, Senator Conroy was the architect of so much of that debt with his failed NBN scheme. It is absolutely remarkable that Senator Conroy could have such poor understanding of the budgetary process that he could talk about percentage figures in the budget and have such a lack of understanding about what components go where from budget allocations. It is absolutely remarkable but not surprising to me, because it speaks to the failure of this man in so many areas, not least in his role as shadow defence minister.

Let me debunk another point in all the emails that I too have been getting in relation to parliamentarians' and senior civil servants' salaries. They were frozen, as we know, but I did not hear one word of objection from anybody in the parliament. Our salaries were frozen on 1 July 2014 for two years. On top of that, as I understand it, we have had a two per cent impost put on us. For those among my old friends and others who have said, 'What about you mob? What about politicians?', there is the answer. We have had our salaries frozen and we are paying a further two per cent for a couple of years to try to get on top of Labor's debt.

I ask the question, since Senator Conroy raised it: where was Labor when it came to military superannuation? This government introduced new indexation for all DFRB and DFRDB recipients aged 55 years and older. It was opposed by Labor in opposition. It came to government telling us it was going to maintain a generous military superannuation program, promising but failing to deliver a program for people older than 65 years of age. Let me go on about the generosity of this government on ADF family health care, which protects military personnel and their families. I hope that conditions return so that we too are out of debt and can return to those levels of generosity. (Time expired)

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the opposition for bringing this important matter forward. I believe that this parliament owes and has a twofold obligation to our service personnel. The first is that we should never put them in harm's way without very good reason. I believe that the government has failed this test. The second is, if they are deployed, pay them what they are worth, equip them properly and ensure they are covered by appropriate legal protections—in other words, the other half of that twofold obligation is to look after them, both when they are on deployment and when they return.

In the same month as this government deployed special operations forces, Air Force personnel and support personnel into one of the most violent places on earth, we had this insulting pay offer, and then the government had the nerve to turn around and blame its budget position. This is a government that has spent the last 12 months stamping around the place cutting taxes. Does that sink in for you, just for a moment—that you have the nerve to blame the budget for this humiliating position that you have put serving ADF personnel and their families in, after you have been going around cutting taxes and doing everything you can to worsen the Australian budget position?

There are no shortage of photo opportunities for the Prime Minister, the defence minister or anybody else who wants to get the photo opp surrounded by people in uniform or flashy military hardware. It is no problem at all to get a coalition spokesperson or the Prime Minister to turn up to those photo opps. What we are noticing—and this is a pattern of behaviour that the former government is guilty of as well—is that they are stepping up for these flashy hardware announcements, where cost is no problem: $40 billion worth of new submarines and $12 billion for Joint Strike Fighter aircraft that cannot be put to air, and another $12 billion to keep them maintained into the indefinite future. There is no problem at all in forking out gargantuan amounts of money to American defence contractors. But when it comes to the human beings who keep this machine in motion—who this parliament, unfortunately, does not have the ability to exercise any decision about whether we deploy them and to where, because that decision is still held in the Prime Minister's office—this government, after splashing billions of dollars around the place, taking the photo opportunities, surrounding themselves with people in uniform, makes this insulting below-inflation pay offer.

These are people who cannot go on strike. They cannot take industrial action. They do not have a union organiser at the other end of a phone line. They have to be very careful about what they say about their employer, the ADF, and I guess all of us, in the public domain. Contrary to what Senator Back said, it is worth taking a look at people in this place, who also work long hours and who are very committed to their work. But, let's face it, having spent a very brief period of time in Afghanistan a couple of years ago as a guest of the ADF on the ADF exchange program, our job is nowhere near as arduous, hazardous, risky and downright stressful as the job of the people that we send forward into theatres of war. Yet our pay has gone up by more than 140 per cent over the last two decades. In exchange, we offer those service personnel and their families effectively half of what they were expecting. As the Acting CDF on the day said, this is basically half of what was expected. They do need to be very careful about what they say in the public domain, but the fact is that this government has touched off uproar. I think it is more than optics to say that in the same month as you deploy them into a conflict zone you are offering this insulting pay offer.

I hope the government is ashamed of itself and I hope it goes back to take a look at how much damage it has done to the budget position before it comes back in here again moaning about a budget emergency that is largely of its own making. If you are so concerned about the Commonwealth's budget position that you would do this to the ADF, then maybe let's have a more intelligent conversation about the taxes that you have been cutting at the top end of town because you do not have the spine to stand up to those special interests, so you are taking money out of the pockets of people who cannot even call a press conference and explain what their grievance is. It is the kind of vast absence of courage and heart and compassion that this government has shown to people right across the Public Service and right across our society, not least our service personnel.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of this motion on this matter of urgency before us today, the topic being the government's unfair pay deal for our Australian Defence Force personnel. In my electorate of the Australian Capital Territory there are around 5,230 people in the Army, Navy and Air Force. Like them, I and many thousands of people across the Australian community were shocked and dismayed when the detail of the government's recent pay offer to our Defence Force personnel was made public.

What this government offered was an effective pay cut and a loss of compensatory Christmas and recreation leave. Given the unique, demanding and often dangerous roles performed by our service men and women and the extensive time they are often required to spend away from family, this decision was particularly insulting. Despite allowing for a pay increase of nearly four per cent per annum in the 2014-15 budget, the government has made a pay offer of 1.5 per cent a year for three years—less than half the amount budgeted for and well below the consumer price index, the CPI.

All ADF personnel have been asking for is a fair and equitable pay rise commensurate to the projected increases in the CPI. The insulting pay offer did not come close to that projected CPI increase over the next three years. In fact, by 2016-17 the offer on the table for a service men and women will see salaries 2.66 per cent less than a pay offer in line with projected CPI increases would have delivered. That is the effective pay cut.

It is not just the effective pay cut that has the Australian community seething. The current offer also sees a loss of conditions, and I will go through the loss of conditions now: removal of one day stand-down at the end of the working year; the cessation of extra recreation leave to account for work outside of usual hours; an increase to the minimum qualifying period for higher duties; raising daily driving limits, of course leading to OH&S concerns; removal of food allowance that could see some families losing over $4,000 per year; and the reduction in motor vehicle allowance rates. I have listed all these things and yet those opposite must have been hiding under a rock not to hear the public outcry both from ADF personnel and the broader Australian community about the outrageous cut and loss of conditions for our servicemen and women.

In an unprecedented way, soldiers are trying to make their views known. Whilst I acknowledge what Senator Ludlam said about our soldiers not having a union to represent them and not being inclined, as they are bound to do, to speak publicly about this matter, one soldier has said something and I would like to quote him:

… the government that I have sworn to protect and serve, and that up to this point have been enormously proud to do so, has signed off on a deal that is essentially a kick in the teeth to every Soldier, Airmen, & Sailor.

…    …   …

My own government disdains me and my fellow serving members, and it disdains us publicly and with thinly disguised contempt.

Whilst this is a lone voice, it is not a lone sentiment. I, along with my Labor colleagues, have been inundated with correspondence from constituents expressing disgust at the decision to cut the real pay and conditions of our ADF personnel.

My community—the Canberra community—understands only too well that they do not have a public voice, and yet an enormous proportion of people living here in Canberra are either related directly to or have close friends in the ADF. With over 5,000 serving members here it is not surprising that the vast majority of my constituency would have firsthand experience of what the working life is of serving ADF personnel. They are highly motivated to lodge their complaint about this decision, and we have been hearing from them. As my colleague Senator Conroy said, over 22,000 individuals have signed the Change.org petition opposing this effective pay reduction. Thousands have voiced their concerns on social media and the Defence Force Welfare Association's Facebook page has been inundated with complaints and comments.

These are real people—real families—who are giving up family life to serve the country. One woman wrote:

I saw my husband for 55 days in total last year and this is what we get.

This is a decision from a government that is asking our ADF personnel to defend our country, risk their lives, put their families on hold and make sacrifices to protect our national security.

To add to this government's hypocrisy, the minister yesterday admitted that his government's pay offer represents an 'undervaluing' of our ADF personnel. He said in this place:

The new Australian Defence Force pay arrangements in no way reflect the value that the government places on ADF personnel …

This comes after the minister ardently defended the pay deal during Senate estimates, describing it then as 'fair' and 'not a real pay cut'. I believe the minister should stand up for our servicemen and women. I believe that is his role in the executive, and he has failed in that role. But every member of the cabinet of this government shares in that failure. They are co-owners of this decision, as they have been party to making it.

The 2014-15 budget allocated the funding for a fair pay deal for ADF personnel. I do not accept the minister's shallow exercise in deferring responsibility somehow to the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal. He is hiding from the simple fact that the funding was in the budget and that they are able as a government to advocate for a fair deal. Under the Defence Act 1903, section 58H, the government is able to request the DFRT to reconsider its determination. In doing so, the government is able to set the grounds on which the reconsideration is being sought. The government has until 1 December—that is, 28 days of the determination—to make this request. There are undoubtedly sufficient grounds upon which to seek reconsideration from the DFRT.

Perhaps in requesting the DFRT to reconsider its decision the government should advise the tribunal that the government's original offer failed to provide for a salary increase that would keep pace with the cost of living; it falls well below expected inflation outcomes. It was particularly unfair in light of the 2014-15 budget allocating funding for an above-inflation pay rise for ADF personnel. Perhaps they could say that it does not reflect the community expectations concerning appropriate pay and conditions and that it is affecting morale, and that it has the potential to affect retention and recruitment in the ADF. And perhaps they could say that it has caused a serious backlash amongst ADF servicemen and women, their families and their wider communities, and that they do not deserve this treatment from this government—a government that has made a lot of noise about the ADF and the role it plays over successive terms of parliament. And rightly so, but why now turn their backs? Why now? It is shameful, it is hypocritical and it is unacceptable.

If those opposite truly valued the contribution of our service men and women, they would pay them appropriately. They would honour the pay rise that was contained in the budget, and they would rectify this error on their part immediately. I have over 5,000 constituents directly affected by this decision. Their families, their children and their parents are all affected by this decision. (Time expired)

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, too, rise to address this urgency motion. Firstly, I would like to address some of the comments that have been made by members opposite about the provisions in the budget. The pay that is made in the ADF obviously has annual increases. I notice, going back to ASPI's figures, that the increases have ranged over the last decade from a high under the coalition of around 6.1 per cent. The figure of 1.5 per cent has, in fact, occurred previously as well, and there has been a range in between. The interesting part in the ASPI figures is that in net terms the increase of pay continues over that decade, and it has been in the order of 110 per cent over that decade, well above the CPI increase of 75 per cent—or roughly 75 per cent—over the same period.

The reason I want to bring that out is that the provisions that have to be made for the increasing wage bill for the ADF are not just a matter of the increase to the base wage. If you look at the pay rates in the ADF, not only is there a base wage but there are increments of pay depending on time of service and seniority, and also as people gain additional qualifications there are increments, such that between pay group 1, for a private—which is around $43,700—through to pay group 10, as they get additional qualifications or experience, that goes up to $78,799. So there are a range of factors that influence every year the growing wage bill that has to be provided for by the government. The indexation of wages, the base rate of wage, is purely one. I wanted to take the time to address that point because it has been raised by a number of speakers opposite, and they clearly do not actually understand the construct of the ADF pay system and why certain provisions are made. That growth provision is not all related to the base wage and the indexation.

I would also like to address the concerns that have been raised in a number of emails that we are cutting the pay of people who are putting their lives on the line. People who are deployed are still in receipt of the allowances that they receive, recognising not only their base wage but also the fact that they have been deployed, particularly those who are deployed into a warlike situation. We have our intelligence organisations that make an assessment of the level of threat, such that somebody who has been deployed, for example, on Operation Slipper receives an additional $200 a day while they are there, ranging down to people who are supporting operations in Ukraine, for example, who receive around an additional $137 a day. For those who are in a warlike situation, not only are those additional payments made but they are tax free while those people are deployed. So we are recognising in a very tangible way—and this has occurred under governments of both persuasions, so there is no politics in this—when people are doing things that place them at an elevated risk.

It is not only those who are deployed. People who remain here in Australia often undertake dangerous work, so the ADF pay structure makes suitable allowance for them. For example, for somebody in the Special Forces, just having an SAS qualification, there is an additional $38,000 that is paid to them for having that qualification. It is likely that someone who is a clearance diver would receive an additional $20,000. Somebody who is in the explosives special duty area, particularly if they are in the render-safe area, would have an additional $14½ thousand that is paid to them in recognition of the fact that they are doing duty over and above the ordinary day-to-day work that they are required to undertake.

I would like to talk quickly about the terms of this urgency motion, which talks about the reduction of conditions. Defence have looked at these conditions in saying: how can they increase productivity with minimal impact on people? For some of the things that we are looking at here—for example, the threshold for getting HDA—less than one per cent of the claims for higher duty allowances were for periods of less than five days. The vast majority were in excess of the 10-day limit. And yet the ADF has sustained two systems, which has cost through the administration. By rationalising that, which has a very small impact of less than one per cent, you achieve savings. Some of these measures that have been criticised as a dramatic reduction in entitlements for people are not as dramatic as they are seen to be.

One that I do want to raise though—and I have raised concerns about this with the assistant minister—is those who are married with dependents on a separated posting. I have a constituent in South Australia who is in the situation where she and her husband, who is a serviceman, made a decision as a family, based on the pay and conditions that were available at the time, to accept a posting where he was separated from his family. I have been in that situation myself in my service life where I have taken a posting away from family. You make decisions about your ability to be reunited, to travel and to go back and see your family based upon what you are going to receive in allowances. Under the current arrangement, a family in that situation will actually see a reduction in income.

Defence has a system in place. Chapter 3, part 2, division 5 of the PACMAN looks at salary non-reduction provisions. In paragraph 3.2.39 it says the purpose of this is to set out 'the way a member's salary rate can be preserved for a period when it would otherwise be reduced.' My strong contention here is that this is a classic case where Defence needs to apply these provisions they already have such that a member and their family who have made a decision around postings and geographic locations for a period of a posting, if they are impacted by this change, will receive a non-reduction allowance so for the period of that posting they will be no worse off. At the end of that posting, they can make their decision then whether they wish to relocate together or go through under the new arrangements; but, given that decision was made under existing pay and condition arrangements, I would be strongly encouraging Defence to apply an NRA. I do not believe they have actually made a decision on whether or not it will be, but the PACMAN certainly allows for it. I think it is a very clear case where the existing provisions should be applied so that no member of the Defence Force is worse off in that tangible way because of this pay outcome.

Glenn Lazarus (Queensland, Palmer United Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Palmer United Party is deeply concerned and distressed by the Abbott government's decision to shaft Australia's defence personnel with an insulting pay deal. As we all know, the Abbott government is putting in place a pay deal with Australia's defence personnel which will in real terms reduce the take home pay of our Defence Force. The lowly pay deal involves an annual pay increase of only 1.5 per cent, which is below inflation and clearly well below the increasing cost of living. It is a pay deal which is insulting and, I think, unAustralian.

It is a pay deal that according to the Abbott government is absolutely necessary due to our country's budget emergency, and yet our country has just spent upwards of $400 million on the G20 and our country continues to give Indonesia hundreds of millions of dollars each year in foreign aid—and yet Indonesia has a bigger military presence than Australia. Does this sound like a country facing a budget emergency? I do not think so.

And the insults and stupidity do not stop there. Not only is the Abbott government cutting the take-home pay of our military personnel; the Abbott government is also making cuts across the Australian Defence Force in other areas. Leave entitlements and allowances are being reduced. I am not sure whether people quite understand the sacrifices that our Defence Force personnel make for this country, but not only do they put themselves in harm's way to keep us safe; they also live a very challenging life being moved from state to state every few years and being posted away from their families for long periods of time. Serving your country is stressful for a whole range of reasons.

And the cuts do not stop there. Cutbacks are also being made in training and in operations. The Abbott government is shafting the very people who put their lives on the line to keep our country safe and secure. On a daily basis, Australia's defence personnel are involved in dangerous activities. They are involved in front-line action, peacekeeping activities which often do not involve peaceful operations, border protection and security for local and national events. For example, for some six months explosives and bomb experts from the ADF were involved in G20 preparations to ensure the event and all those involved were safe from harm.

The Abbott government thinks it is appropriate to treat the brave men and women of the Australian Defence Force as mere public servants who just happen to wear camouflage clothing and carry guns. The Abbott government needs to understand that, if it was not for the brave men and women of our Defence Force, our country would not be as a safe and secure as it is today.

Other service professionals across Australia are still being given reasonable pay deals, so why is the Abbott government so intent on shafting our Defence Force personnel? For example, the Queensland Police Service finalised a new pay deal in 2013. The Queensland Police Service a pay increase of 2.2 per cent each year. Yes, police services are very important, but why does the Abbott government think that the Australian Defence Force is less important than the police service? I think the Abbott government has taken advantage of the Australian Defence Force because they do not have a union or an independent association to speak out for them. The ADF cannot respond publicly to pay deals, so the Abbott government thought that it could get away with shafting our defence personnel with an insulting pay deal in order to save a few dollars.

The Palmer United Party is determined to see this insulting pay offer reversed. The Abbott government still has a window of two weeks to renegotiate this pay deal disaster and fix this mistake. I call on the Abbott government to put their pride aside, listen to the people of Australia and show our Defence Force personnel the respect they deserve. Improve the pay offer, reinstate benefits and entitlements and say you are sorry. Australia's defence personnel deserve better. They deserve our support. They deserve a better deal. This is a matter of public importance and it needs to be fixed now. Palmer United will continue to lobby the government and keep this issue in the public domain until it is fixed. Together, as a team, working with all involved in this issue with the support of the Australian general public, we can achieve a better result for Australia's Defence Force personnel. My warning to you Mr Abbott is clear: this issue will bring down your government and continue to cloud all government issues and decision making until the Defence Force pay deal is fixed.

Greatness is not achieved by living with mistakes. Greatness cannot be achieved by ignoring mistakes. Greatness can only be achieved by fixing mistakes. (Time expired)

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this matter of public importance today, and I must say it has been absolutely amazing to listen as government senator after government senator gets up and tries to defend the indefensible: the appalling, disgraceful pay offer made recently to the Australian defence men and women. And what is the Abbott government's real agenda around this appalling pay deal to the Australian defence men and women? It is a shocking deal by any definition. By Minister for Defence Senator Johnston's own admission yesterday in this place, it is not worthy of the work of our defence forces. Wage increases of 4½ per cent over three years for defence forces deployed to all parts of the world—to northern Iraq, to peacekeeping missions and to other activities. Four and a half per cent to put your life on the line. But paltry offer does not even keep pace with CPI.

But wait; there's more. Defence Force men and women have to sacrifice their Christmas and recreational leave for this paltry increase. It does not stop there, as Mr Abbott has collapsed up to 17 existing Defence Force entitlements and pushed them into base pay—entitlements such as separation, hardship, overseas and skill-specific allowances.

The Abbott government may well get away with his paltry offer because, of course, the ADF cannot be union members and are prohibited from speaking out or taking industrial action over this paltry pay offer and loss of their conditions. But, as Labor knows, with the Abbott government there is always an ulterior motive, another sneaky deal and a backdoor way of operating. This disgraceful pay deal for the ADF is also about the whole of the Public Service where there is a union and where the government is making no headway at all with its mean offer to public servants. It thought it could put pressure on the rest of the Public Service by starting with defenceless Defence. We know this is the Abbott government's real plan. The PM said so when he told public servants, the very people who work in his own office, in my office and in the offices of all the members of parliament, that they should not expect more than the Defence offer.

But that failed too because public servants in the largest government agency, the Department of Human Services, have just voted in one of the largest industrial action ballots ever to take place in this country—and 95 per cent have voted in favour of taking industrial action. Senator Abetz described that threat of industrial action as irresponsible. What is irresponsible is the disgraceful pay offer to cut the work conditions of public servants for a less than one per cent increase. It is the absolute right of union members to take industrial action. There has been a vote, and the overwhelming response has been 'yes' to the question of industrial action. This is absolutely legal. There is nothing irresponsible about it at all. It is legal to the letter of the law.

The time has well and truly come for the Abbott government to start to take responsibility for their own actions in their disgraceful offer to the ADF personnel and in continuing to deny hardworking public servants the right to a pay offer. Some of those people have not had an increase for more than 12 months. The very people who work in the offices of all of us who operate in this place are also part of that group. It is time for the Abbott government to take responsibility to fix the Public Service offer to a decent level and to certainly fix the disgraceful and indefensible offer to the Australian Defence Force personnel.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As always, I will try to bring a reality check to this debate. I am not going to indulge in the populist political rhetoric that all others on the other side have engaged in in this debate and which one particular senator continually engages in. I want to bring reality back to the situation.

On Remembrance Day, I attended a lunch at the RSL in the garrison city of Townsville, the home of Australia's biggest army base and a place where there are more than a proportionate number of veterans living. I spoke to people at the dinner about this particular issue because I, like everyone, was a little concerned about it. The people at the dinner—admittedly, senior officers and heads of organisations—said to me, 'We, the senior officers, understand the reason for this. We understand that the government has no money and that the government is borrowing $1 billion every three months to pay interest on Labor's debt. We understand that this is not a time for a big increase in pay.' They also said to me—and I agree with them on this—'But if public servants and politicians are going to get an increase beyond 1½ per cent then there will be an uprising in the streets.' I said to them, as I say now, 'I will be part of that.' If politicians and public servants get an increase above what has been offered to the Defence Force then we should all protest—and I will. I make that very clear now.

We all have to play our part in addressing Labor's approaching $600 billion of debt which costs us $30 million a week in interest. We all have to play our part. When I raised this with some of my colleagues, they said, 'You will recall, Senator, that your pay was frozen on 1 July.' I must say that I had not focused on that. I had not realised it. But politicians have been told that they are accepting a pay freeze for one or two years. I am not quite sure which it is. You can look it up yourself. But politicians are getting a zero per cent increase—

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Two years.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

for two years. Thank you, Senator Ludwig. So the politicians are doing their bit in not accepting increases.

My Labor their friends have talked about the Public Service union and their outrageous decision to strike on Friday because they want a 12 per cent increase over the next three years, well beyond inflation. They are not prepared, it seems, to play their part in addressing Labor's debt problem. This government has to do it. Why? It is not because we want to be martyrs in fixing Labor's problem. It is because, every time we borrow money for pay increases for the Public Service, politicians, judges and the Defence Force, we are borrowing against our children's future. And it is our children and our children's children that have to pay back the money we will borrow to pay for increases in pay for politicians, our defence forces, judges, agency heads or the Public Service.

That is why most in the defence forces that I spoke with do not like it. I did not like it when I heard of their predicament. As I said, coming from Australia's garrison city, I hear these things. I was concerned. But I understand and I appreciate that most of the leaders of our defence forces understand. And I am sure the troops also understand that, as well as defending their country, they have to do something for their country with this financial mess we are left in by the previous government.

This is something costing them. It is not me or the government. The government does not have money; they only use the money of ordinary citizens of Australia. It is the ordinary citizens of Australia that have to eventually pay back the borrowings and to pay back the $30 million a week that we borrow to pay interest on money we have already borrowed.

I know the defence forces when this is put to them will realise that they not only have to defend the country militarily but—like politicians, judges and, I hope, the Public Service—have to do their bit to protect the country from the ravages of continuing to borrow to pay interest on borrowings by Labor to meet Labor's insatiable appetite for borrowing money for give-away projects. I hope that makes it realistic.

I understand, perhaps more than most, the disappointment of the defence forces. I claim, coming from the garrison city, to get a fair appreciation of these sorts of things. But most people will understand that we have a crisis—not a military crisis, but a crisis of a financial type—caused by the previous Labor government. It has to be addressed. Politicians are doing it. I hope judges and agency heads—and others who the government has suggested should not get increases—play their part.

I certainly hope the Public Service play their part. I will be devastated if they get a 12 per cent increase over the next three or four years. If that happens, I will be out there with the troops. They are a very important group of people, who do more for our country than almost any other group. I well appreciate that. And I will appreciate their anger—which will be mine, if we succumb to union pressure for a huge increase for unions or judges or politicians. But the politicians have stopped; there are no increases for politicians. That has been agreed. I will be very disappointed if the unions get that and our defence forces do not. We all have to play our part in defending our country from Labor's profligacy.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Palmer United Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President Smith, I seek leave to make a 30 second statement.

Leave granted.

Given my statements both inside and outside this Senate, many ADF members will be surprised that I did not contribute to the urgency motion regarding the government's unfair ADF pay deal. I wish to inform those ADF members that I tried to secure a speaking opportunity but I was denied time to speak. For the record, I fully support the motion.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Lambie. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Conroy be agreed to.

Question agreed to.