Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:07): I seek leave to move the following motion: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent notices Nos 1 and 2 private members' business, relating to the disallowance of the following, being called on immediately and considered together, with separate questions being put on each at the conclusion of the debate: (1) the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act Education and Training Scheme (Income Support Bonus) Repeal Determination 2014 made under subsections 258(4) and (5) of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, and (2) the Veterans' Children Education Scheme (Income Support Bonus) Repeal Instrument 2014 made under subsections 117(2) and (3) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. Leave not granted. Mr SHORTEN: I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent notices Nos 1 and 2 private members' business, relating to the disallowance of the following, being called on immediately and considered together, with separate questions being put on each at the conclusion of the debate: (1) the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act Education and Training Scheme (Income Support Bonus) Repeal Determination 2014 made under subsections 258(4) and (5) of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, and (2) the Veterans' Children Education Scheme (Income Support Bonus) Repeal Instrument 2014 made under subsections 117(2) and (3) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. The proposal of the government to target cuts to the orphans of veterans is a terrible mistake, and this is an arrogant government which can never admit that it is ever wrong. I understand that deep down there would be many members of the government who probably think: 'My goodness! Why are we doing this to a group of 1,200 orphans?' The Prime Minister used an expression earlier today about 'the figures which reverberate around the House'. Well, let me talk about some figures which reverberate around this House: $211 going to 1,239 orphans or children whose parents have either been severely incapacitated or died in the service of this country. That is the number that matters to this side of the House: $211 going to 1,239 people, kids, which would cost the government $260,000. And the number which reverberates around that side of the House shows that they are a government of the wrong priorities. They would say, and they would have you believe, that somehow there is more integrity in providing millionaires with $75,000 each extra, which they have not asked for, rather than giving the children of veterans $211. The reasons that we seek that this be disallowed are (1) the decision is just not worth the pain you are inflicting on people and (2) it is a shifty decision. It is a decision which, despite too much protestation of the Prime Minister, who could not be bothered staying in the parliament to defend his attack on veterans' orphans—too busy, no doubt, looking for more gold plated schemes for people who do not need the money—is a shifty measure. The third thing is— Ms Henderson interjecting— Mr SHORTEN: Oh, there is the member for Corangamite. She has not fought for the job of any worker at Alcoa or Blue Circle; now she has plenty of advice to give. You just wait till the next election. The third reason why this is a bad decision is that it is poor priorities. Ms Henderson interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Corangamite will desist! Mr SHORTEN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. These are poor priorities. What I do not understand is what sort of twisted priorities could come up with the idea—and I can just imagine them high-fiving in their depleted Expenditure Review Committee. Why on earth are we making a decision where we will give $5.5 billion in a paid parental leave scheme which— Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is a debate about why standing orders should be suspended—in other words, why there should be no more debate on the government's program until this matter has been dealt with. This is a debate about a suspension of standing orders; it is not a debate about the actual measure that the Leader of the Opposition is talking about. I have been very generous for the last four minutes, but he needs to actually explain why standing orders should be suspended. Mr SHORTEN: I thank the Leader of the House for the point. When we look at why— The SPEAKER: Well, that is good, because I am upholding it. Mr SHORTEN: we should be suspending standing orders, it is because the decision to go after veterans' orphans is shifty, because the figures do not add up and because it reflects poor priorities, and it also is not the desired position of all of the people who, day by day, stand by veterans' orphans. This is not just a question of Labor being critical of the government. I look at what the Prime Minister said to Legacy on 18 October. That champion, then, of orphans said 'the orphans of those who have paid the highest possible price in the service of our country' should be cared for. And then he said, later on: 'But we were prepared to put tough policies up front.' Where on earth did the government, when they were in opposition, ever say that they were necking the benefits to go to veterans' orphans? That document does not exist. They know they never spelled it out. But I do quote here Don Rowe, the president of the New South Wales RSL. He captures it articulately in two or three words: 'absolutely disgusted', 'mean-spirited', 'penny-pinching exercise'. Then I look at the Defence Force Welfare Association spokesperson, who said he was—and I quote him—'bloody stunned'. He said: There's a lot of things that can be ripped away— and he does not even like the mining tax. 'But,' he said: … to target kids, and only about 1,200 of them, over something that costs so little, seems a bit petty to us … That is why we should suspend standing orders. Legacy Australia, who could not shake Tony Abbott before the election, said: Legacy would be disappointed if any of the welfare payments are cut to the families of deceased or incapacitated veterans. Dave Spillman, president of the Kwinana branch of the RSL, said: 'We're shocked that our Prime Minister would cut something that helps the kids of RSL members.' That is why standing orders should be suspended. Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, I rise a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition is making no attempt whatsoever to explain why standing orders should be suspended. Instead he is debating the substance of the motion that he wants to debate if standing orders are suspended. He is putting the cart before the horse. The SPEAKER: I say to the Leader of the House that it has become a tradition in this place that a wider interpretation is given on suspension motions. But there is still a requirement on the person moving the motion to refer to the suspension and the reason for the need for the suspension. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to do so. Mr SHORTEN: This decision to suspend standing orders is important because we believe fundamentally that veterans' orphans should not be political targets of this government. I get that the government has different priorities from those of many Australians. I get that. But when this government can dream up a scheme which takes $260,000 from 1,200 veterans' orphans, this is a government who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. The reason we should suspend standing orders is that this proposition on veterans' orphans that the government is carrying out is a sign of a bigger malaise in this government. This is a soulless government who will undermine everything that we hold dear in this country. That is why we should suspend standing orders. They have never seen a group of the vulnerable that they are not interested in kicking. They will pick on the unemployed, they will pick on the disability pensioners. They will undermine Medicare, they will attack the minimum wage. This is why standing orders should be suspended. They are not interested in equal pay for women, they are not interested in supporting a more positive relationship with our near neighbours. This is a government who deserve to have this motion disallowed, and that is why we should suspend standing orders. We all know that they have got 900 pages of cuts which they will not reveal to us—900 pages of the same DNA as that which will see the government attack veterans' orphans. That is why standing orders should be suspended. The real problem with this issue is that we have a government who is not interested in standing up for all Australians. They are only interested in standing up for some Australians. On the issue of the veterans' orphans they say that veterans' children will be receiving payments anyway and they will not notice this $211 gone. The only people who could say that are people who have never tried to make ends meet on the existing pensions and entitlements and who believe that $211 is nothing at all. They are wrong. It is something. I believe that when Australia's defence personnel serve overseas they should have the peace of mind of knowing that when they come home—or if they come home severely injured or totally and permanently disabled or, indeed, if they make the supreme sacrifice—that they have a government and a parliament who have their back. There is no test in this country which this government can pass about priorities when it says, 'We've got your back but, by the way, we're going to chop $211 from your children who you love very much.' This is not adequate policy from this government. That is why we should suspend standing orders. I make this point: if the children of parents who have made significant and supreme sacrifices for this country cannot trust a government, how can the rest of us? The problem with this government, and the reason we should suspend standing orders, is that they have the wrong priorities. They want to whittle this country down, they want to divide this country, they want to attack the vulnerable, and they are too arrogant to admit when they get it wrong. (Time expired) The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded? Mr Burke: I second the motion. The SPEAKER: I give the member for Watson the call.