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

A letter has been received from Senator Lambie:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

The Coalition Governments failure to debate in the House of Representatives private members legislation that has been passed by the senate guaranteeing future pay rises for member of our ADF are linked to the pay rises of members of parliament or CPI whichever is highest.

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.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today's matter of public importance is an exciting opportunity for Prime Minister Turnbull to show the Australian people that he is different from the old PM and that he truly cares for the men and women of our defence forces. As most people will recall, the former Prime Minister liked getting his photo regularly taken with members of the Australian Defence Force. But, despite his apparent affection, the former PM betrayed and used our diggers when he failed to deliver a fair pay rise to them. This injustice was partly remedied after an extra pay rise was reluctantly offered to our defence community, but only after a big public backlash and my threat to block all legislation until the Australian Defence Force received a fair pay rise.

As well as our Australian Defence Force still being left out of pocket, this shameful incident proved that we needed to find a better way to guarantee that our diggers receive a fair pay rise. I offered the Senate a solution to the Australian Defence Force pay crisis, in the form of a private member's bill which automatically linked Army, RAAF and Navy pay rises to the pay rises of politicians or the CPI, whichever was the higher amount. After debate this Senate voted on and passed the Defence Amendment (Fair Pay for Members of the ADF) Bill 2014. This bill now sits in the other place—the House of Representatives—awaiting a final debate, vote and passage to the Governor-General for the signature of assent.

Through this discussion on today's matter of public importance this Senate is again able to remind the Liberal and National parties about unfinished business they have with regard to our diggers' pay. If the Liberals and Nationals follow their old path of never giving an inch to the crossbench senators and not listening to reason and common sense then there is no point in changing Prime Ministers. I know that this new PM has genuine respect for and close links with our Australian Defence Force. I ask him to seriously consider the message that this Senate has sent—not only once but, including, today twice—to this parliament and the Australian government.

In closing I want to counter the misleading comments and arguments that the National and Liberal party members made in this Senate when they opposed my private members bill. The Australian people will not stand for Liberal and National members hiding behind nitpicking, sly and false arguments when it comes to fair pay rises for members of our Australian Defence Force. Linking Defence Force wage rises to the wage rises of politicians—or the CPI, whichever is higher—will not mean that our Australian Defence Force members receive less pay. That is rubbish. Parliamentary Library research reveals that the average yearly rise in defence pay over the last 10 years is only three per cent. This stands in stark contrast with the average yearly rise in politicians' pay, which since 2004 is almost seven per cent. The calculations include the politicians' pay rise in 2012 of 34.3 per cent and the last two years when politicians' pay has been frozen. The weighted median figure for the CPI is 2.4 per cent.

On Wednesday 4 March former PM Abbott asked the Chief of the Defence Force to take a proposed pay increase of only 0.5 per cent to the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal, making for a total Australian Defence Force pay rise of two per cent. In 2000 the Chief of the Defence Force received $305,000 per annum. The latest figures show that the Chief of the Defence Force in 2014 took home $764,000 that year. That means the person asked by Mr Abbott to increase ordinary diggers' pay, by a mingy 0.5 per cent, in the last 14 years had his own pay increased by almost $460,000, or 250 per cent. It is clear that if the private members bill regarding Australian Defence Force pay is passed by the House of Representatives our diggers would be guaranteed a fair pay rise over the next 10 years without having to be subjected to the current flawed and biased Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal, which has betrayed them while tribunal members have enjoyed pay rises of 250 per cent over the last 10 years. This unjust system must be changed for the better—and the Prime Minister has the power today to deliver justice and fair pay finally and once and for all to our Australian Defence Force families.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this matter of public importance because I spoke against Senator Lambie's original bill when it came into this place. My reasons for opposing her Defence Amendment (Fair Pay for Members of the ADF) Bill then have not changed. It is important that we do get some facts on the record. I do not for a moment doubt Senator Lambie's absolute commitment to the men and women of Australia's Defence Force, or the commitment of those on both sides of this chamber. Those men and women do an amazing job serving our country and they do deserve fair pay. In many instances the pay rises that they have had have been more than competitive with rises in other arenas in the public sector. To labour the point about Senator Lambie's pay rises for politicians, if you exclude structural adjustments, where we have seen the incorporation and rolling in of various entitlements into a single wage structure, there has only been a 0.4 per cent differential between politicians' and ADF pay. So we have to get the facts on the record.

The purpose of this place is to pass legislation, to pass bills, to reduce complexity and make government much more efficient in many instances. The bill that Senator Lambie is seeking passage of is unnecessarily complex and it does have a number of consequences, which were highlighted to Senator Lambie when it was debated in the Senate. They were probably unintended consequences. The bill may appear straightforward, but it is actually not straightforward. There are many and varied differentials in the comparisons between parliamentarians' and ADF remuneration and entitlements. A case in point is that the ADF has more than 1,300 pay points across more than 500 employment categories,. The bill that Senator Lambie introduced did not link them in a successful manner and many of the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal functions would have been negatively affected under her proposal.

Of course pay in the ADF is not linked to inflation movements up or down, and the government requires pay rises for ADF members to follow the same general pacesetting principles that apply to other government employees and to the wider community. I made the point then, and I make it again now, that over the past decade ADF wage rises have outpaced inflation by over 13 per cent. Under the government's current policy of providing a two per cent pay rise to ADF personnel for each of the next three years, once again ADF pay will both exceed current parliamentary pay increases and increase more than the expected CPI.

ADF pay is currently determined by the independent Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal, in accordance with section 58H(2) of the Defence Act 1903. This was formally established in 1984 under the then Hawke Labor government. It comprises three members: a president, who has to be a deputy president of the Fair Work Commission; a person experienced in industrial relations matters; and a person who was but is no longer a permanent member of the forces.

They determined the first pay case in 1985. The ADF is represented before that tribunal by the Defence Force Advocate. In accordance with section 55 of the Defence Act this person is skilled in industrial relations matters and has intimate knowledge as to the nature of service in the Defence Force. That is important because it means that there will always be a contemporary perspective put into the Defence Force remuneration determinations. That means it is not subject to the whims and whines of people in this place, who may have a longstanding knowledge or history; also, as they leave the Defence Force their knowledge cannot be as intimate as it was when they were there. I think it is very important that we maintain the current circumstance where those who have a thorough understanding of the Defence Force, the nature of service and the determinations can make these assessments. Thus, I would advocate continuing with the current scheme.

The nature of military service is in itself unique. These are people who voluntarily enlist. They do it for myriad reasons. I do not know a single service man or woman who says they joined up for the money, because it is perhaps not the most lucrative career. But it is an absolutely vital career for us and we are very, very thankful that they are prepared to serve in whatever capacity, whether at home or abroad, defending our freedoms, keeping us safe and providing an essential service. As valued employees, as valued service people and as valued servants of the country they deserve a fair go—absolutely. No-one is going to quibble about that. But the fairest and best method for them to get a fair go, to get appropriate remuneration, is through an independently assessed criteria, not subject to linking it to inflation or another measure. I think that is the most positive thing we can do for the service men and women who do such a sterling job for us.

Returning to the bill, I recall the explanatory memorandum was very brief but contained a number of factual inaccuracies, which I believe were explained to the Senate at the time. However, if you are going to perpetuate factual inaccuracies and then continue with your bill, I think we are entitled to repeat them and say, 'They're wrong.' Because if you cannot rely on the integrity of what is said in this place in respect of legislation we will face some great difficulties.

The EM states, if I recall, that members of the ADF have their pay assessed arbitrarily by the Minister for Defence, under section 58B, and the minister's decision cannot be appealed. As I have made it very clear, that is actually not true. The Minister for Defence does not make determinations on ADF pay. In relation to appeals, the Defence Act actually provides mechanisms for the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal to review ADF pay.

The powers of the minister in respect of ADF remuneration under section 58B of the Defence Force Act relate to determinations regarding conditions of service for ADF members, other than salary. These include housing benefits, relocation support, leave entitlements, family healthcare programs and other non-salary allowances.

If you cannot get that right, do you really think we should be pushing through a bill, through the other place, that I would argue will not only disadvantage service men and women but is actually entirely flawed in its premise and in the explanatory memorandum. This is the great problem and that is why these longstanding remuneration arrangements should be maintained rather than being at the whim of some well-meaning senator.

I am very fortunate in that I have the power of a large party organisation behind me, in which we can distil the essence of good and bad policy. I can rely on my colleagues with respect to their unfettered loyalty in supporting my goals and aims through the parliament. Senator Lambie, unfortunately, does not have that same support network, if you will, so we need to ensure that we can get decent legislation through this place that is accurate. (Time expired)

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

I rise today to speak on Senator Lambie's matter of public importance. In March this year the Senate passed Senator Lambie's Defence Amendment (Fair Pay for Members of the ADF) Bill 2014. This bill linked, as a minimum, ADF pay to either an increase to CPI or parliamentary allowances, whichever is the highest. Since then this government has failed to allow that bill to be debated in the other place. Australia's new Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, should now do the right thing. He should do what his predecessor would not and allow this bill to be debated in the other place. This is an important issue and parliament should have an opportunity to debate the matter.

Earlier this year the former Prime Minister was dragged kicking and screaming to increase the government's measly pay offer from 1.5 per cent to two per cent. Two per cent is higher than current inflation. Labor welcomed that increase, but it is important that parliament examines a way to ensure that ADF personnel never have to go through that pain again. Senator Lambie's bill proposes a mechanism that would ensure that if inflation moves ADF personnel will not be worse off.

A future Labor government will undertake a full review of the process for determining ADF pay to ensure that it is effective and transparent and properly takes into account the unique nature of military service. It is worthwhile going through some history here to understand Labor's position. After promising not to cut defence funding before the election the coalition government cut ADF pay at the first opportunity. They also sought to cut ADF Christmas leave and other allowances while they were at it. Worse than that, they did it in November, not long before Christmas.

In October last year reports began to emerge that the government was offering an unfair and below inflation increase of 1.5 per cent a year across the three-year agreement. This disgraceful deal was explained away by the former Prime Minister as a way to drive down the pay and conditions of all Commonwealth public servants. He was using our Defence Force personnel as a battering ram in his ideological crusade against the Public Service. That is right—he was using the pay and conditions of our serving men and women as part of his political strategy to hurt all Commonwealth public servants.

ADF personnel have long held a special place in our society. ADF personnel undertake unique, demanding and often dangerous work. They put their lives on the line with dedication and courage to ensure Australia is safe. They do this on behalf of all Australians. Today we have ADF personnel deployed all over the world. Most notably, they are in the Middle East supporting the international effort against Daesh and the Taliban. They are also working on the high seas against piracy and drug traffickers.

Australians instinctively understand the sacrifices our ADF personnel make. That is why we saw such community backlash when the government sought to cut the pay of our ADF personnel. Senator Lambie in particular was extremely vocal in her calls for the government to pay the ADF more. Other crossbenchers also spoke out. The RSL and the Defence Force Welfare Association pushed hard against the pay cut. The new Prime Minister should do the right thing and allow this bill to be debated in the other place.

In 2012 former Prime Minister Abbott told the RSL national conference that 'a fair go is the least a grateful nation can offer to serving and former military personnel'. Prime Minister Turnbull should heed his predecessor's advice and give our ADF personnel a fair go. It is embarrassing that those opposite unanimously supported this—every single coalition senator supported this. Only when the pressure built, as outrage flooded social media pages and the petition was collected, did the craven members of the coalition decide they had to protect serving personnel's pay and conditions. Let no-one on the other side of the chamber pretend that they were there when it counted in this debate, because they were not.

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

I support this matter of public importance and I support Senator Lambie's Defence Amendment (Fair Pay for Members of the ADF) Bill 2014. There is an important principle here. This bill ought to be debated. If a bill has been passed, particularly by this place, it ought to be dealt with and debated in the other place, one way or the other. People need to nail their colours to the mast—do they support this bill or not? To leave it in the never-never is fundamentally wrong. It needs to be dealt with. This bill passed the Senate in March and has been stuck in the lower house ever since. Now that the government has changed leadership I hope it takes note of this matter of public importance debate and brings this bill on in the lower house as a matter of urgency.

Members of the Australian Defence Force are called upon to carry out a huge range of challenging and at times life-threatening duties here at home and overseas. As Senator Conroy pointed out, we have members of the Defence Force deployed throughout the world. They are doing things as grave as fighting the evil that is Daesh and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Signing on to be an ADF member could see you involved not just in wars in far off countries but in drought, bushfire, flood and natural disaster relief and peacekeeping.

The sense of duty and loyalty of our Defence Force members to this country is incredibly strong and has been so for well over a century and must remain so. Senator Lambie's bill goes a long way towards this aim. It is about having fair pay increases for the ADF. ADF employees are not like other workers. They cannot go on strike; they cannot decide to not do their duty because of an industrial dispute. They are in a unique position in the sense that the ordinary rules that apply to other workers cannot apply to them because of the very nature of their duties. That is why there needs to be a better way of setting their pay. The proposition in Senator Lambie's bill does provide a mechanism, because they do not have the same rights as other workers. Therefore, this bill has a lot of merit.

When this bill was being debated the government was embroiled in a bitter and drawn out pay dispute with the ADF's almost 60,000 full-time members. It was stubbornly sticking to an offer of 1.5 per cent—below the CPI of 1.7 per cent and well below the significant pay increases parliamentarians have had in recent years. Senator Lambie's bill would guarantee that all future ADF pay rises would never fall behind either the cost of living, the CPI, or the pay rises of those of us here in parliament—whichever is greater. It focuses the mind on how we have a mechanism that is fair and equitable for members of our defence forces.

The government settled its pay dispute with the ADF in June, providing for a two per cent annual increase up to November 2017, but this bill forces us to consider a fairer mechanism of pay increases for members of the ADF. This MPI is essentially about having this bill debated in the other place. If a bill has been debated and dealt with in this place then there ought to be a mechanism to ensure that it is debated in the other place. To ignore this bill is completely disrespectful of not only Senator Lambie but the entire Senate, given the passage of this bill in the Senate. That is why I support this MPI.

I urge the Turnbull government to consider this bill, have it debated and come up with a better mechanism of dealing with pay increases for ADF personnel, because they do not have the same rights as others in the workforce because of the very precious nature of the vital duties they perform in the national interest.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on Senator Lambie's matter of public importance and also to remind the Senate of my original objections to the bill in question. First of all, I again commend Senator Lambie on the intention behind the MPI and also the Defence Amendment (Fair Pay for Members of the ADF) Bill 2014. The intent reflected in the title is entirely laudable. Senator Lambie is absolutely a passionate advocate for past and present service personnel, but unfortunately the devil is always in the detail and it resides within this bill.

Unfortunately, despite the laudable title of this bill, the practical operation of this bill does precisely the opposite of what the title suggests it would achieve. If passed by the House of Representatives, this bill would result in a significant decrease not only to the base pay of ADF personnel but also to their service allowances and entitlements. It is for that reason alone that it is inconceivable to me why the ALP and the Greens would have voted for a bill that will have a significant decrease for Defence personnel from the current two per cent.

By way of a quick history, the government's move to increase the ADF pay offer from 1.5 per cent to two per cent since March this year has provided a higher pay increase for the ADF personnel than that provided for by Senator Lambie's bill. As I said, though my colleagues and I applaud Senator Lambie's intent, after the first decision—

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

CPI was 2.4 per cent! You are misleading the Senate!

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If Senator Lambie gives me time, I will explain exactly how, in great detail, this is a retrograde bill.

Following the announcements, Senator Nikolic, myself and other colleagues quietly but very persistently advocated to the minister and the Prime Minister that we thought the initial 1.5 per cent pay increase was insufficient. We also worked with them very hard to find where the additional $200 million would come from out of the Defence budget. Once we had done that and we had found the money, we also put another very persuasive argument to government about why this was equitable. The reason was that, under the last government—the Labor government—the wage increase of ADF uniformed personnel lagged behind those of the APS by 25 per cent. We believe, therefore, that this recommendation was not only appropriate but that we had found the money to pay for it. Subsequently, on 4 March, the Prime Minister announced the government's intention to seek a variation to the ADF Workplace Remuneration Arrangement—the WRA—to provide an increase to the pay to two per cent per annum each year over the three-year life of the arrangement. The cost of the existing WRA is $634 million over the life of the agreement, and, as I said, the increase was an extra $200 million that has now gone to our ADF personnel.

The DFRT endorsed the government's new proposal when it handed down its determination on 9 June 2015 and the additional increase was reflected in ADF pay packets from 30 July and it was backdated to 12 March this year. Importantly, the DFRT decision kept ADF pay well above the current annual inflation rate of 1.5 per cent, which, in fact, as we have just heard from the speakers opposite, is what ADF pay would drop to under Senator Lambie's bill—not two per cent but 1.5 per cent.

There are three major reasons why I believe this is a very well-intentioned but ill-drafted bill and it would have devastating consequences on the incomes of our Defence Force personnel. The first reason is the linking of pay rises for members of the ADF to one of two things: either to CPI or to MP's salaries—option A or option B, and nothing else. Let's have a look at these options. Option A is tying it to politicians and senior public servants. The fundamental flaw in this is that we have all had our salaries frozen to zero, so option A that is proposed under the bill is zero. I am assuming that the drafter did not realise this when this bill was drafted. So, option A is zero per cent and is tied to politicians. Option B under the bill is tied to CPI, which, as we know from current CPI figures is well below the current two per cent. In fact, it is about 1.5 per cent. So it would be either option A or option B—zero per cent or 1.5 per cent.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. When this pay rise was disputed and done last November, the CPI was 2.4 per cent, so let's get some facts in here, please.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order.

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

Senator Reynolds, thank you very much for your assistance—

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a debating point.

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

Senator Reynolds! I do not need your assistance. I have listened to Senator Lambie. I say to Senator Lambie that there is not a point of order. Senator Reynolds, ignore the interjections.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have option A—zero per cent—and we have option B, which is currently 1.5 per cent. The bill is very short and it is very clear, as has been confirmed by the speakers who preceded me. That is the first reason why it is a bad bill, because it will clearly reduce the salaries of ADF members.

The second reason I think this is a well-intentioned but bad bill is that under the bill the members of the ADF will have their pay assessed arbitrarily by the Minister for Defence under section 58B of the Defence Act. I argue for this reason alone that the entire premise of this bill is not correct. The Minister for Defence does not and should not make determinations on ADF pay. In fact, under the Defence Act the power is reserved specifically for the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal—the DFRT—pursuant to section 58H(2)(a) of the Defence Act. Unlike what is said in the explanatory memorandum, the powers of the minister in relation to ADF remuneration of the Defence Act relate to determinations regarding conditions of service to ADF members other than salary—that is, not pay. In the past, these determinations have included housing benefits, relocation support, leave entitlements, the Abbott government's rollout of the National ADF Family Health Program and a range of other nonsalary related allowances.

In fact, the Hawke government, in the Defence Legislation Amendment Act 1984 established the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal, which now comprises three independent members: the vice-president of Fair Work Australia, a person experienced in industrial relations matters and a person who has been a member of the ADF—a truly representative tribunal. This is a fundamental and critical fact that this bill has ignored and which I therefore believe actually renders it invalid. The DFRT determinations are to be made by already taking into account the special skills and capabilities required of ADF members and their unique employment circumstances. This bill, and the wording of it in relation to the tribunal and the minister would itself not only invalidate it but it would also effectively abolish the DFRT.

The third reason that this is a bad bill, well intentioned as it is, is that the definitions in it are far broader than just for the increase in pay rates. When you actually have a look at the Defence Act and you look at the tribunal details, it is very clear that this will not only apply to Defence pay but will also apply to all other meanings of 'salary'—all salary related payments and not just the base pay rate.

As I outlined in my speech on this bill, the proposed section 58ZC would introduce a mandatory formula into all Defence Force pay determinations, and not just those suggested in the bill. In making any salary determination the tribunal would need to include a calculation that converts any amount it decides upon into a percentage increase for the purposes of working out a minimum salary increase, using the new amount and rate of comparison as set out in the proposed new section 58ZC contained in this bill.

What does that actually mean? It is a bit bureaucratic and technical, but—

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don't worry! We'll understand it!

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Senator Gallacher, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Additionally, as the WRA also applies to relevant allowances determined by the tribunal, it includes service allowances, and there is no requirement to apply clause 58ZC to that part of ADF remuneration. Therefore, not only could the bill potentially cause additional distortions to the current ADF remuneration arrangements it would actually mean an effective decrease to 1.5 per cent—the current inflation rate—not only for ADF pay rates but for all their service allowances and other conditions of service. So when you look at the detail of this bill, it could reduce ADF pay rates from two per cent to 1.5 per cent and that would actually be across all the other thousands of conditions of service and entitlements.

While I absolutely support the intent of the bill—and I know that Senator Lambie has put it forward with absolutely the best intentions to look after our service personnel—when you actually have a look at the detail of this bill it absolutely has the opposite intent to what she intended—absolutely. It was for those reasons that I could not support the bill then and I cannot support it now. I would urge those opposite, before they continue to ask for this to be debated in the House of Representatives, to actually go back and have a look at the implications of this bill, because it is very clear when you look at the bill, the relevant act and the DFRT guidelines that this would, if passed in the House of Representatives, send our ADF pay back from two per cent to 1.5 per cent and take all of their service allowances and conditions with it.

It is for those reasons that I support the intent of this MPI and the bill that sits behind it, but it is absolutely a most retrograde step for all our men and women in uniform. Thank you very much.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution in this debate and, unfortunately, just following on from Senator Reynolds.

I think Senator Reynolds failed to listen, which is probably not all that unusual in this chamber—sometimes it gets a bit noisy. This bill linked, as a minimum, ADF pay to the higher of either an increase in CPI or parliamentary allowances. So, a minimum of—not 'to'. Also, she has very carefully picked out a statistic that, not surprisingly, was the best possible statistic for her case. So, the June quarter 2014-15 was 1.5 per cent. But, hang on, that was 2014-15. What about 2012-13? That was 2.4 per cent. What about the three per cent before that?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not relevant!

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will tell you why it is relevant, Senator Canavan. The reason it is relevant is because for about 22 years I used to negotiate pay rises. What we used to do was to put the CPI in our back pockets. We used to go to the employer and say, 'This is what the CPI says.' And you know that when you examine what the CPI from the-Australian Bureau of Statistics is, it is a measurement of household expenditure. You only have to wander around the newspapers to find a decent article in The Sydney Morning Herald which lists every category of expenditure. I am sure that Senator Canavan, with his Productivity Commission hat on, knows how carefully it is constructed to give a representative view of what the expenses of a household are in the six states and two territories.

We know—well, I think—that the ADF actually get paid prospectively rather than retrospectively. So we are actually going to try to guess what is going to be in the second and third years. We are not going to pay them retrospectively; we are going to say, 'Okay, we think the CPI for the last three years has done, not 1.5 per cent, but 2.3 per cent.' Senator Reynolds said that people would have got a decrease, when common sense would tell you that you average it over three years if you are doing a three-year agreement—you would have a look at the last three, and the last three were 2.3 per cent. You could articulate that it might be more going forward, or you could articulate that it might be less, but it is a bargain.

The real problem here is that the ADF do not have the same pay structure as people in the wider community do. The ADF serve; they serve this country and have served overseas for 10 or more years in active service. They should not really be put under the pump and worry about their families paying the electricity, the school fees, the petrol and the public transportation costs that they have seen increase. They should not have to worry about that. The finance minister, Senator Cormann, can get out there this morning and say, 'I am open and ready for business. Trust me, Prime Minister, I am as loyal as they come!'

But we all know that the cigar and the glass of wine and the tune Best Day of My Life was the genesis of this episode when they sat down in the May 2014 budget and wrecked the place. They never sat down and said they were going wreck the ADF pay increases, but that was the implication of their terrific—in their view—budget.

It started to filter out and it filtered out to the ADF. Rightly, Senator Lambie and others took the government to task. They absolutely took them to task, so much so that the bill went through the Senate, and it has been put on the backburner because amongst those 150 representatives in that other chamber you are going to struggle to find a lot of people who are going to stand up and do a Senator Reynolds—distort the fact and figures—and try to say that this is a bad deal.

This is putting a base into the argument. They should have the CPI in their back pocket every year because that is what happens on a base. Things go up—transport goes up, education goes up, electricity goes up. I know lots of people in the community who say that the CPI is not enough and that it does not keep pace with actual inflation. I do accept that the Australian Bureau of Statistics does a job, a very thorough job, in trying to get all of the cost-of-living items into a figure, but my contention is that that is a base figure. Most groups in the community want to put that in their back pocket and go for a bit more.

I commend Senator Lambie in her endeavours to shine a light on this despicable effort by the coalition government to save money in these areas. These are people who serve the country and, as Senator Lambie has stated, there are plenty of people, maybe even reservist brigadiers, who get paid very well and who can probably forgo a pay increase. Do not tell me that the grunt, the bloke on the ground, someone in 7RAR, someone who is a sapper with three kids at home, and might be posted in Afghanistan or wherever they are posted, has to worry about whether their family has enough to make ends meet. Do not tell me they should wear any of this nonsense; they should not. They should be paid respectfully and commensurate with their loyalty and service for Australia. Their loyalty and service for Australia should be recognised with a fair and just pay offer each and every year that they serve.

There are a couple of inquiries that I have been involved in, and we know that the Army, the Navy and the Air Force do fantastic work. We know that people are loyal to their service to the Defence Force, to the government and to the service of Australia. We also know that should be enhanced and continued. I would be surprised if any defence minister was not bitterly disappointed at this miserable effort from Senator Cormann and the honourable Joe Hockey when they sat down in May and concocted the best day of their life when they got their cigars and their glasses of wine out. I am sure that they did not actually envisage that they were going to have to eat a bit of humble pie later on by backing down on the effect of their awful work. I am not surprised that Senator Cormann, today, is waiving all that and airbrushing it into history. 'I'm open for business. I'm free. I'll serve any Prime Minister.' I think this Prime Minister would probably have to have a bit of a think, if that was the architect of this Prime Minister's demise and the absolutely humiliating backdown that they have had to cop.

Then we compound it. They will not even debate it in the other place because we know what happened in the debate here. You cannot find anybody who is against Senator Lambie's proposal. I am not against it. I am sure no-one in the chamber it. No-one has spoken against it. If it ever sees the light of day in that other chamber, there will not be too many coalition or Labor people coming out against it. So maybe, just maybe, Senator Lambie has hit the nail right on the head in her attempt to advocate for defence personnel, which I know she is truly passionate about. I have had to endure her arduous questioning of a number of senior defence officials at a number of hearings. Her passion will not go away. The issue will not go away. They should debate it in the other chamber.

They do not think defence people are worth the CPI—that basket of consumer goods that you need to feed your family. If they do not think they are worth that, then say so. Let those thousands of members of the Australian Defence Force hear it in the chamber. But do not come in and be tricky and use one year at 1½ per cent. Go back over the three years when it was 2.3 per cent. Anyway, we are guessing about what it is going to be in the future.

As I said, Mr Acting Deputy President,—I am sure you are aware of it because you did it thousands of times yourself—when you approached negotiations you have the CPI in your back pocket and you went for a bit more. I believe the CPI and a bit more is what defence personnel should get in reward for their loyalty, their service and their dedication to this country. They are often maintaining two households. They are not always at home; they are often deployed. We take care of them as best we can when they are deployed. It is not easy when you are bringing up a family at home and your husband might be doing six months in Afghanistan, or six months in Timor, or working on the floods in Queensland. In the last round of meetings that we had in Queensland, there was a unit that was deployed for the Queensland floods, they had two weeks off and then went to Afghanistan for six months. That family has to make ends meet. They need a car to get around to drop the kids off at school. CPI and a bit better would be very, very handy.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will have some of what he has had, please. That was a very good speech, and I commend Senator Gallacher on his passion. In fact, I think you should frame that, Senator Gallacher, if that is possible with words. That was a really good speech.

I just want to get up-front and on record that the Greens have the utmost respect for our Australian Defence Force personnel. We respect their service, we respect the sacrifices they are prepared to make and do often make. Most importantly we want to make sure that, if they are to be sent into harm's way, the parliament debates the merits of these missions. This, too, for the Greens is a matter of respect. Of course, we have had this debate in the last week in parliament about war powers legislation. The Greens support Senator Lambie's bill to peg the indexation of Defence Force pay to CPI or to parliamentary pay. My colleague Scott Ludlam rose in this chamber and made a contribution to the second reading debate on this legislation. Senator Lambie's bill would ensure that a prime minister or a government of the day, faced with budget circumstances entirely of their own making—especially one that is impotent in actually raising revenue in this country—could not take for granted a cohort of people who from time to time are called on to risk their lives or serious physical or mental injury in the line of their ordinary course of duty and who do not have industrial representation. It is very important to stress that our Defence Force personnel do not have a union that can get out in front and protect them and their families and their working conditions. They cannot go on strike. They basically have no real recourse in this country. This bill would ensure that the kind of errant approach to their rights that we saw in the first year of our former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, never happens again.

I would also like to raise the bigger issue, while we are discussing Defence personnel pay and conditions, and that is that the Greens would also like to see all public servants get fair pay and conditions. We need to be cognisant of the fact that public servants right across the board do a good job for all Australians and they deserve fair pay and conditions. We do not like to see unnecessary cuts to both workforce numbers and fair pay and conditions, especially when we have the ability to raise revenue in this country if we make some hard decisions around tax reform.

It is also worth throwing into the mix, in the very few minutes that I have left to speak, that this government spends tens of billions of dollars on the acquisition of Joint Strike Fighters, new submarines and all sorts of other military hardware, and what we are talking about is small bickies. Indexing someone's pay to CPI is small bickies compared to what we go out and spend on defence hardware. It is personnel versus hardware, when of course the most important thing about our Defence Force is the people—the people who actually serve, who go off to war or on peacekeeping missions, to provide disaster relief and to give aid.

I take the opportunity today to note that, for many ADF personnel, life after service is often when they are in most need of government support. Senator Gallacher mentioned some of the inquiries he has been at recently. Senator Lambie was in Brisbane with us only a few weeks ago when we heard some heartbreaking stories from young veterans who have done multiple tours of Afghanistan and who are suffering terribly. They moved the whole committee to tears.

The Greens supported the government when it introduced a bill originally to index veterans' benefits to CPI, but we opposed it when the government tried to cut income support to the children of veterans. This regulation was ultimately disallowed by the Senate.

In the last 55 seconds of this contribution, I also raise the subject of commemoration of service—and, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, you and I both share an interest in commemorations—and the fact that up to $150 million has been spent on commemorations, while in real-time we are talking about cutting Defence Force pay. It is a bit rich. It is also a bit rich when we are seeing cuts right across the board to the Public Service. So, while we need to commemorate the service of our defence forces, we need to commemorate for the right reasons. It is very important that we put into perspective the amount of money that is being spent in this country on defence hardware and commemoration and that spent on Defence personnel.

The Greens will be supporting Senator Lambie's bill, and I hope that we can carry this forward and actually get some legislation enacted. Congratulations, Senator Lambie.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the matter of public importance introduced into this chamber today by Senator Lambie. At the end of the day, this is a very simple debate. This is about one thing, and that is allowing this bill to be debated in the House. That is all anyone is asking for. We are asking that people either put up or shut up, that they be prepared to defend their positions publicly, on the record.

I see my good friend Senator Canavan sitting opposite. Senator Canavan is an incredibly impressive man. Through one or two small negotiations with the government, he was able to get somewhere between $2 billion and $4 billion out of them. So I am urging Senator Canavan to use his new-found will, his new-found power, his new-found dominance of the Liberal Party to get this problem fixed. Frankly, all it is going to take is one phone call from Senator Canavan to get this problem fixed! So, if, by 5 pm today, this matter has not been resolved, we all know who we are going to hold responsible! We are going to be holding Senator Canavan responsible for this!

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a heavy burden, but I'm prepared to carry it, Senator Dastyari!

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Canavan, with great power comes great responsibility!

Senator Lambie has been a proud and consistent supporter of the Australian Defence Force since long before she entered this place. I respect her service and I respect her commitment to her former colleagues. In March this year, the Senate passed Senator Lambie's Defence Amendment (Fair Pay for Members of the ADF) Bill 2014 and it proposed a measure that would ensure that, if inflation increases, ADF personnel will not be worse off. The bill links ADF pay rises, at a minimum, to either an increase in the Consumer Price Index or increases in parliamentary allowances, whichever is the higher. Since then, however, this government has refused to allow this bill to be debated in the other place. I think that is what is so appalling about this. What is being asked for here is not necessarily that everyone agree or even that the bill be agreed to by the House. People are entitled to debate it. But you have to be prepared, you should be prepared and you should be willing to be prepared—

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What's your view?

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I take the interjection from Senator Canavan, the mouse who is now roaring! I am a big supporter of any measure that is about making sure that public servants are given fair pay for the work that they do. Senator Lambie at least has had the guts to put up a proposal and a model and a measure. People can debate the exact details of any legislation, but, frankly, I am going to have a lot more respect for someone who is prepared—you know that saying, put your money where your mouth is? I would say, 'Put your bill where your mouth is.' Senator Canavan, where is your bill on this? Where is the National Party on this issue?

You are running the government now. We have seen it. It is impressive, I have to say. In one fell swoop, you are effectively holding the government to ransom on so many issues. You can hold the government to ransom on just one more and do the right thing by ADF personnel

The men and women of the Australian Defence Force provide an essential and often dangerous service to all of us. Their work is demanding and, as we know, far too often life-threatening. They put their lives on the line, with dedication and courage, to ensure Australia is safe. Today, more than 2,500 Australian Defence Force personnel are on deployments around the world. We have more than 1,500 personnel in various operations in the Middle East, including Operation Okra, Operation Accordion and Operation Manitou. In Afghanistan, 900 personnel are involved in Operation Highroad. There are Australians deployed in smaller operations in the Sudan, Egypt, Israel and Lebanon. And, as we know, they are deployed on 'on water' matters around Australia.

All Australians recognise the sacrifices that our ADF personnel make. What we are saying in this motion is simply allow them the respect and decency to have a proper, frank and fair debate about their pay. What we are asking for is a government that is strong enough and proud enough to be prepared to have the debate—and that is what this government is not prepared to do.

Glenn Lazarus (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take great pleasure in talking about the MPI for today. I am very disappointed that the Abbott government has disregarded the will of the Senate by ignoring Senator Lamble's bill in relation to ADF pay. I married into a military family so I do understand the sacrifices our military make to keep our country safe and secure. They spend long periods of time away from their family. They miss key family events and endure postings in extreme and difficult conditions. On a daily basis, the Australian men and women of our Defence Force put their lives on the line to keep our country safe and free.

There is a common term used by many and one which I believe in, and that is that freedom is not free. It takes the sacrifice of ordinary men and women who do extraordinary things to keep our country safe, secure and free. Sadly, this sacrifice often includes loss of life, physical injury, mental injury and post-traumatic stress. Freedom is not free because there is also a financial cost, because we need to adequately acknowledge and reward our people for their commitment to keeping our country safe and free, both while they are serving and once they retire.

What cost can we put on the safety, security and freedom of our nation? I am of the view that it is priceless. Most Australians go to work and come home every day, without having to worry about their personal safety. Our Defence Force, our military personnel, go to work every day knowing that their personal safety is not assured. Our military risk their lives to keep our lives safe. It is only fair that the pay and conditions of our military should be linked to the pay and conditions of politicians.

My home state of Queensland is home to many different Defence Force personnel on bases across the Navy, Army and Air Force. Unlike many people in the workforce, our military do not have the support of a union to represent them, nor are they able to speak out in relation to issues involving pay and conditions. When existing mechanisms designed to act in the best interests of our military fail—and I include the Abbott government and the tribunal in this category—the Parliament of Australia should be the voice of our military to ensure they are appropriately supported and remunerated. It is for this reason the Senate supported Senator Lamble's bill to link the ADF to the pay rises of members of parliament or to CPI, whichever is highest. I reject ill-informed arguments put forward by coalition senators that this is a bad bill. If the coalition think there are issues with the bill then they should act in good faith by suggesting improvements rather than trying to get out of paying our ADF more. I am hopeful, given that the leadership of the government has now changed, that government's operating style will now change and the lower house will actively seek to deal with this important bill as a matter of haste.

I am encouraged by some of the comments made by Malcolm Turnbull. Our new PM assures us that his government will deliver a consultative and collaborative style of government that respects the intelligence of the electorate. I am sure all people across the electorate of Australia want the government to appropriately reward our ADF for their invaluable contributions to this country. Accordingly, I hope our new Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Turnbull, ensures this bill is given the priority it deserves. I, along with other senators, who have already spoken on this MPI, including Senators Conroy, Lambie and Xenophon, call on Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to respect the wishes of the people of Australia and the Senate chamber by dealing with the bill before the last sitting period this year so that our ADF can move forward, knowing they are respected, they are appreciated and they are valued and that they are going to receive the pay and conditions they so justly deserve. I congratulate Senator Lambie for standing up for Australia's ADF. It takes courage to do what is right.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for the discussion has expired.