Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP (Mackellar) (10:08): In rising to speak to the motion as to whether the bill should be brought on, I think that the points made by the Attorney-General need to be answered. Standing order 179 deals with a bill which deals with a tax matter. Clearly this bill does not deal with a tax matter and it is for that precise reason I did not include in the bill a provision that would enable any superannuation payments made to a person over the age of 75 to become a tax deduction. Instead, I am proposing to move that as an amendment to an existing government tax bill, as I am entitled to do, which would grant a tax deduction for that payment. As the law currently stands, when an employee turns 70, the employer may elect to pay or not pay the superannuation guarantee charge. I believe that to be ageist and sexist as well because it does apply very often to women in that context. But the ageism is very patent. The fact of the matter is that every employee in paid employment should be treated exactly the same and not be disadvantaged because of their age. As the law currently stands, when one turns 70, as I said, the employer does not need to pay the superannuation guarantee charge. If the employer elects to do so then it is a tax deduction up the age of 75. Thereafter, it is illegal to pay the superannuation guarantee charge and therefore there is no provision for it to be a tax deduction. My proposal is that the age limit of 75 be abolished on the basis that it is discrimination against people on the basis of age. This government are introducing a commissioner for ageist issues, so they are being hypocritical in the extreme in trying to vote down this bill. As I said, the question of tax deductibility for the very small number of people who presently are in that category of working over the age of 75 will be dealt with by amending one of the existing government tax bills. But now I go to the question of why the existing bill is not a tax bill. I will go to some advice which I have received from the Parliamentary Library. I will direct your attention to the questions that were dealt with in estimates. Nobody in the library is prepared to pay a registration fee for their practising certificate. Although they are qualified lawyers, they do not hold practising certificates and therefore they give advice on legal matters without determining it to be legal advice. I will read out the advice I was given. They were asked whether in their view this was an appropriation bill. The advice was given by Morag Donaldson from the library. She said: 'It does not appropriate revenue or money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the ordinary annual services of the government. It simply abolishes the age limit of 70 years from the calculation of the shortfall component which is used in assessing superannuation guarantee charge payable when an employer fails to make superannuation payments by repealing paragraph 27(1)(a) of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992.' This advice, like many legal authorities, says that the bill is not a tax bill. It does not change the scope or any charge. While the bill may have consequences for the revenue, it is only if the government is to pay moneys to meet the shortfall in superannuation payments. On the face of it, the bill does not impose, increase or decrease a tax or duty. It specifically says that, because the bill is not an appropriation, section 56 of the Australian Constitution does not apply. Just to remind people, section 56 says that a vote, resolution or proposed law for the appropriation of revenue or money shall not be passed unless the proposed purpose of the appropriation has in the same session been recommended by a message from the Governor-General to the House in which the proposal originated. That has not occurred. To state again what this bill is about: it is a question of age discrimination. The law currently says that for someone between the age of 70 and 75 who is in the paid workforce their employer is not obliged to pay— Honourable members interjecting— Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: Perhaps we could have a little attention. The SPEAKER: Order! Those conferencing in the aisles will resume their seats. Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: That does include the Leader of the House, who is lobbying instead of being a member. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Mackellar has the call. Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: Thank you very much. I will simply say to the Independents on the cross bench, who have a very important decision to make on the question of ageism, that this bill is about precisely that. It is about abolishing a requirement in the law that disadvantages an employee on the basis of age. If it were a law that was disadvantaging an employee on the basis of race, I bet nobody would hesitate to vote for it. If it were a disadvantage on the basis of sex, I bet nobody would hesitate in voting for it. But because it is a disadvantage on the basis of age, the government is working overtime to persuade the members on the crossbench that they should be supported and that the crossbenchers should not support the bill to abolish this disadvantage to employees on the basis of age. I have said over and over again in this place that I want ageism to be considered just as offensive as sexism and racism. It is not reasonable, in a country that says it is inclusive and that it wants every individual to matter and be important, to have on our statute books a provision that disadvantages an employee just on the basis of that person's age. If the crossbenchers were to agree to the government's persuasions and knock it out, it would be a vote against people on the basis of age. I really do not think that as a group of people they would find that accepted. The government will try and the Attorney-General has tried to say it is a constitutional issue. Let me give you the background to the way the bill came forward. I asked the clerks to draft the bill. The clerks did draft the bill. It went into the process, under the new paradigm, of giving each member their right and entitlement to bring forward matters of importance to the people. Subsequent to the bill going into the process, I got a note from the Clerk's office that said, 'Some people have been asking: is this an appropriation bill?' On further investigation I was told it was the government that was asking—wanting to knock it out. So there was no problem when the bill was drafted; there was no problem when it went in. It all happened post facto. Suddenly, the government wanted to knock it out. I then went and sought other advice. When I was heavied by many people to try to amend my bill to say that it would only come into effect when the government introduced an appropriation bill, I refused to do so because that would have made the bill null and void—it would not come into effect. I was urged to do that as recently as today. I say to you, Mr Attorney-General, that if you feel so passionately about this issue then here is a proposition: let the bill have a second reading and, when we go to the consideration in detail, you move amendments and give an undertaking that you will bring in an appropriation bill to effect what I want to do and remove age discrimination. That would be a fair and reasonable way for you to proceed. But to try and knock the bill out on the basis of it being against the Constitution when it is giving every single Australian the right to be treated equally and not discriminated against on the basis of age, I find appalling. I find it appalling that someone for whom I have a good respect would want to argue in that way. So I say to you: I have given you a proposition; I have given you a way forward. You could give it a second reading. You could then move your amendments and give an undertaking that you would bring in an appropriation bill to give effect to my private member's bill and then agree to my subsequent amendment to the tax bill to grant the tax deductibility. That would give us a way forward and it would remove the age discrimination that is currently in our law and totally unacceptable. I go back to first principles. We have about 100 people in the Public Service who are over the age of 70, and my understanding is that the government, as the model employer, does not pay these people the superannuation guarantee. That is unforgivable. I say to you: if you accept what I put forward—that you give the bill a second reading, that you then move the amendment that it will only come into force when you bring in the appropriation bill and that you give an undertaking that it will do so, and that you will accept the amendment to allow tax deductibility for people over the age of 75 where the employer is then enabled to pay that superannuation guarantee charge—we would have a fair solution and a resolution which ought to satisfy your concerns. It certainly would satisfy mine, because it would be bringing justice to the people who are currently disadvantaged. That includes your own employees. Let me it say again: there are Public Service employees under this government right now and that is why it is important that we deal with this as a question of suspending the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Order! The member will make her remarks through the chair. Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: I would be very interested to hear whether or not the Leader of the House or the Attorney-General will agree to the proposition that I have put forward. And if you do not agree to the proposition that we are putting forward then give us the reasons. Mr Turnbull: Robert spoke very broadly on this issue. Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: Robert spoke very broadly on this issue. I am only answering the points he raised. The SPEAKER: The member will refer to members by their parliamentary titles. Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: I will indeed. I apologise—the Attorney-General. Mr Albanese: You wouldn't know what he said. Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: Well you would not—you were having caucus up the back. You would not know what was said. The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. The member for Mackellar will ignore interjections. The member for Mackellar has the call. Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. He is rather easy to ignore. The SPEAKER: The member for Mackellar will refer to the motion. Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: If I could just make that point again. There are currently employees of this government in the Public Service who are not being fairly remunerated because they are being discriminated against on the basis of age and are not being paid the superannuation guarantee charge. As the model employer, the government has an obligation to act like a model employer. Allowing this bill to go into effect, either by passing the bill and letting it become law now or by accepting the proposition that I have put to you, would mean that that discrimination will come to an end. If you insist on having this bill voted down— The SPEAKER: The member will refer her remarks through the chair. Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: Through you, Mr Speaker, if the government simply wants to stonewall and not find a solution to this problem and its own proposition is that only changes should be made affecting people between the age of 70 and 75, it will do nothing about removing the absolute age discrimination of 75. If we are to be truly inclusive in this country, if the government establishing a commissioner against ageism is to have any meaning, then this bill needs to go forward. I say to the crossbenchers, to the people who are independent: you are at a critical time. You have the opportunity to say that you want ageism to be as unacceptable as sexism and racism. Then you have the opportunity to give this bill a second reading. In speaking on the suspension motion, we are at a crossroads as to whether or not the government is fair dinkum about wanting to end ageism. We on this side of the House certainly are. It is a strong and principled bill and I would seek the government to either allow it to pass or seek the solution to their difficulty as they see it that I have put forward.