Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services) Share this | Hansard source

The opposition intends to support these amendments on the basis that they do make a meaningful impact on the lives of charitable workers and that this was indeed an unintended consequence. But in doing so I support the statement of Senator Boswell, that the government does need to take responsibility for this. They have had the full resources that come with the department, going through this process. There seems to be something quite disingenuous about the process in that we have been advised information was received in early May and yet nothing was really done about it until mid-June. Whilst we do support these changes because they will benefit Australian workers and Australian families, we do so mindful that the government needs to improve its process and transparency. I seek leave to move opposition amendments (1) to (3) together.

Leave granted.

I move opposition amendment (1), which has been circulated:

(1)    Page 4 (after line 8), after clause 3, insert:

4 Review of operation of amendments

        (1)    The Minister must cause an independent review of the operation of the amendments made by this Act to be undertaken and completed by 30 June 2010.

        (2)    The persons who undertake the review under subsection (1) must give the Minister a written report of the review.

        (3)    The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review under subsection (1) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of the day on which the report is given to the Minister.

        (4)    The review must be conducted by a panel of not less than 5 persons, of which at least:

             (a)    3 persons must be nominated by relevant key stakeholder organisations; and

             (b)    2 persons must be nominated by the Minister.

The opposition also opposes schedules 3 and 5 in the following terms:

(2)    Schedule 3, page 20 (line 2) to page 23 (line 24), TO BE OPPOSED.

(3)    Schedule 5, page 32 (lines 2 to 13), TO BE OPPOSED.

I was interested to hear Senator Stephens acknowledge that this is a very complex area. Accordingly, it needs continual monitoring and review. Amendment (1) moved by the opposition is for a review of the operation of the amendments that are contained in this bill. There is a particular delight in ensuring that by 2010 there will be some consideration of the effectiveness of the bill. It is a very important amendment considering that this bill was indeed cobbled together quite hastily and is going to have such a significant impact on Australians.

We have heard that there has been no modelling done by the government. This has been acknowledged not only in the senate committee hearing but in the speeches in the second reading debate here today. It quite clearly needs to be looked at. There does need to be effective modelling done on the impact on families. We have had a number of different numbers circulated both by the minister and in the reference to the Senate committee. We need to ensure that the bill does not have adverse effects and continuing adverse effects. This simple amendment, our first amendment, will enable parliament to monitor exactly how the amendments in this bill will affect Australians.

The other two simple amendments are pretty straightforward. This is about a government that did not go to the Australian people fully disclosing what they intended to do. There was no mention of changes to the Seniors health card. There was no mention of changes to the partner service pension. In fact, for a leader of a government who is widely purported to be a control freak, Mr Rudd, the Prime Minister, was not even aware that he was cutting the entitlement to the partner service pension for spouses of Australian veterans who can no longer work. How do I know this? Mrs Bronwyn Bishop, the member for Mackellar, asked this of the Prime Minister. His answer was quite simply:

I am unaware of the measure to which the honourable member refers.

This is an appalling state of affairs. Even though members of the government may say only 930 people or thereabouts will be affected by this measure, it has an enormous impact on the individuals concerned and it is amazing that the Prime Minister does not know what is in his own budget.

The third amendment that we are moving is in relation to the seniors health card. Once again, the government did not go to the Australian people with a full and open acknowledgement of the changes they were intending to make to the Commonwealth seniors health card. These are permanent changes; they are not a one-off review to clean a list or anything like that. There are 27,000 people expected to be affected over the next two years. It could be considered a de facto means test. It is a means test that was never talked about. People are going to be affected in a whole range of areas. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, as we have talked about, bulk-billing and other allowances will all be affected by this decision.

I make the point once again: we cannot support this because the Labor Party simply were not straight with the Australian people. The ALP did not show their hand before the election and it is likely that many more people than we have already indicated will be affected by this legislation in the future. We are a country that should be looking after seniors. We should be acknowledging their contribution to our country, to building our nation, just as we should veterans and their families. These two measures actually undermine that. They undermine the very substance of what a good government is meant to be. It is meant to look after those who have served the nation so well and those who are amongst the most vulnerable in our community.

In moving these amendments, I stated quite clearly what the coalition’s position is and I would hope that the government will look at them favourably in the interests of Australian families, Australian veterans’ families and Australian seniors.