Ms MACKLIN(8.24 p.m.) —For a minute I thought that the government was not going to accept the Senate's recommendations and was going to continue to pursue the sunset clause, but I am pleased to see that it is going to accept the amendments and remove the sunset clause. It is significant that the sunset clause has been removed. Had it not been removed we would have had a very half-hearted commitment to the government benchmark in pensions.

Mr Truss —That's still more than you've ever done.

Ms MACKLIN —I will make some remarks about what Labor achieved as I go on. I commend the government for accepting both of these amendments because it is very important that we have the benchmarking of pensions to male total average weekly earnings.   However, I would also take the opportunity to inform the House of the amendments made by the opposition which the government did not accept and which were defeated in the Senate. The first set of opposition amendments tried to ensure that people on allowances—that is, unemployed people and their partners, people caring for children at home, widows and people who cannot work temporarily because they are sick—had the same legislative protection as people on pensions. Labor was seeking to give all of these people the same sort of protection that the government is giving to people on pensions. However, the government refused to give these groups of people this protection.

The government does have funds in the contingency reserve to cover the cost of some of these flow-ons, but it is not prepared to put its money up-front to legislate for these flow-ons. The government has not put aside money to flow on benchmark increases to single people without children or to young couples without children, and these people will fall further and further behind over time. They are already over $13 a week behind. For those opposite who may be interested, Labor was attempting to address this appalling situation by ensuring that benchmark increases flowed on to these people. It is our strong view that people on allowances should be offered the same legislative protection as people on pensions. Obviously the government is prepared to go some of the way but not all of the way.

It is particularly critical in the climate created by this government, where we have had massive cuts to social security and where $10 billion has been cut from health, housing, education and social security, that we see some commitment to protecting those who are the most disadvantaged in our community. A member opposite said that he would like to know what Labor did when it was in office. I will just mention how we got to the situation where a government could commit itself to benchmarking pensions at 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings.

When Labor took office in 1983, the coalition had left the single rate of pension at 22.7 per cent of male total average weekly earnings. Between 1983 and 1991 we progressively increased the rates until in June 1990 the single rate of pension exceeded 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings for the first time—as measured against male total average weekly earnings for the previous quarter—and again in September 1990, as measured against male total average weekly earnings for the same quarter. The single rate of pension stayed at or above 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings—as measured against that indicator for the same quarter for every subsequent quarter—until Labor left office except on one occasion in June 1995 when it fell below by approximately 15c.

Labor's second set of amendments to this legislation tried to ensure that pensions would be at least 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings at all points in time, not just when measured against male total average weekly earnings in the previous quarter. The coalition's formula ensures that pensions will never be 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings when the current rate of pension is measured against the current rate of male total average weekly earnings. (Extension of time granted)

If the pension remains at 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings it will be because of the coalition's good fortune and not because of any action on the part of the government. I say that it will be because of the coalition's good fortune because pensions will only remain at 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings if wages remain constant or fall. This is not good fortune for the workers of Australia and of course would not be good fortune for pensioners. The likelihood of wages falling under a coalition government is very high. Let us make this position very clear: pensions will only remain at 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings if wages do not rise over time.

The coalition voted against these two sets of amendments. They refused to guarantee benchmark increases for allowees, even those which they say they will pay for from the contingency reserve. The coalition also refused to benchmark pensions on estimated male total average weekly earnings for the current quarter rather than male total average weekly earnings for the previous quarter, therefore ensuring that pensions do not ever remain at 25 per cent of the benchmark unless wages are constant or fall.

The Australian Council of Social Service has already described the coalition's position as `a benchmark for bad policy' and as `little more than a trick to create lower payments for people receiving allowances'. I could not have said it better myself.

Question resolved in the affirmative.