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

by leave—After some discussions with the minister, I also move amendments (2) and (3) on sheet 7037 revised together:

(2)   Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit "Schedule 1", substitute "Schedules 1 and 2".

(3)   Clause 3, page 2 (line 11), after "members", insert "and Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Scheme members".

Amendments (1), (2) and (3) are the enabling provisions for proposed schedule 2, or amendment (5), which is to bring the DFRB scheme into this bill. There was a drafting error and these amendments seek to address that so that the DFRB and the DFRDB will be dealt with by this bill.

Quite rightly, there is a very strong view in the community that this is a fair, just and equitable indexation outcome. There is a very strong view amongst those on this scheme that they are currently being un­reasonably dealt with. They have made it quite clear, and I and the coalition fully support them. How can it be that they are treated differently from age pensioners? How can that be fair or just? Clearly, it is not. I say to the chamber today that there is a huge obligation on us to ensure that people who have served this country are appropriately dealt with. How can it possibly be that this chamber can tolerate differential treatment of people in this situation? Are we now to throw out once and for all the notion of the uniqueness of military service? Effectively, if this bill is not supported today, we are removing something that has underpinned this parliament and this country for decades. On a bipartisan basis we have supported the notion of the uniqueness of military service —and, if this bill is not supported, it will be unique for all the wrong reasons. It will be unique because fair and equitable indexation will not be provided.

When the CPI was first used as the measure of indexation decades ago, it was a reasonable measure, but it is no secret, and nor should it be, that age pension indexation was changed because the CPI no longer reflected what was reasonable indexation. It no longer reflected the maintenance of purchasing power—and that is the very reason that age pensions were altered.

I look back at this debate over the last 12 months and at those who have supported it. Senator Lundy will come in here today and vote against this bill given her previous comments and those of many of her colleagues. I have with me a letter that was written by Senator Lundy and those who supported her. They were the former member for Fraser, Bob McMullan; the member for Canberra, Annette Ellis; the member for Wakefield, Nick Champion; the member for Eden-Monaro, Dr Mike Kelly; and Senator Lundy. They said that, by failing to act, the government had gone back on an election commitment made in 2007.

The letter was written to Lindsay Tanner, the former finance minister, after the release of the now severely tarnished Matthews report, which I do not think anyone supports in any measure at all. I know for sure that the RSL does not support it. I note that Rear Admiral Ken Doolan AO RAN (Rtd) and Les Bienkiewicz, who is from the Defence Force Welfare Association, are here. I do not think any of their members thought for one minute that the Matthews inquiry was a reasonable inquiry; no-one supports it, and nor should they, because it has been completely tarnished. In the letter Senator Lundy and her colleagues said:

Understandably, there is a huge disappointment in both the findings and the government response announced on the same day. It had been widely expected that the recommendations would have supported a change to the method of indexation of these pensions to that of which is high, MTAWE or CPI, consistent with the pension, following the earlier Senate and other inquiries. Significantly, many people genuinely believe that prior to the 2007 election the ALP had committed to determining a fairer method of indexation, and a review would provide the direction. So the immediate acceptance of the recommendation of no change in government response is being seen as a reversal of the pre-election position espoused by the ALP …

So how could Senator Lundy possibly come in here today and oppose this? This is longstanding ALP policy, and quite rightly, because the differential is unfair and unreasonable. How can the government come in here and use as their only method of defence the fact that it is fiscally irres­ponsible? No doubt the finance minister will also do that. It is complete and utter bunkum. How dare this government oppose this equity measure, this fairness measure, on the back of some quaint notion about fiscal irres­ponsibility!