Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:

Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Amendment Bill 2006

Parliamentary Superannuation Amendment Bill 2006

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

The Greens do not support the Parliamentary Superannuation Amendment Bill 2006 being subject to the cut-off order. It is a matter that should be publicly discussed; it is a matter that ought to have been to a committee. I note that the bill is listed on the Notice Paper for discussion later in the day. It reminds me of 1987, I think it was, when my colleague Gerry Bates was out of the Tasmanian chamber for a few minutes and I was up here on parliamentary business. The two parties in the Tasmanian parliament managed to get through a 15 per cent pay rise in six minutes. I have often thought I should have submitted that piece of self-invested rearrangement of parliamentary business to the Guinness Book of Records but it does seem that it is untoward, to say the least, that we see a bill coming in, a cut-off and a discussion on the same day in relation to parliamentary superannuation. It should be going through the usual course of events.

If the government can explain why this should have priority over other legislation and the business of the nation, then let it do so. My understanding is that this will increase the top-up from taxpayers to new members of parliament to 15 per cent. That is a matter that the government has the numbers on, and it will no doubt get its way, but this clearly is a case of the government running from a public debate on the matter. It ought to be publicly debated. Ought not everybody in the community be getting an equal top-up of their superannuation?

The Greens will oppose the legislation. The process, though, is worse—it is not responsible, and it is not paying due honour to the electorate of Australia. It is not fair to the Australian electorate that, while this piece of legislation will give what could be argued from a number of different points of view a fair advantage to newer members of parliament, it is something the Prime Minister repudiated in the run to the last election; therefore it is an effective dishonouring of an election commitment to the people of Australia that this should be rushed through here in the same day from go to whoa. In fact, I have been here 10 years and I have not seen this process before. And it is what comes of there being a government majority in the Senate. It is an abuse of the Senate, and this process should not be permitted.

Question agreed to.