Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2005 and also to particularly address my comments to the second reading amendment moved by the member for Wills, which reads:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for allowing Ministerial standards and accountability to decline at the same time as Ministerial salaries are increasing”.

The explanatory memorandum to the bill, under the heading ‘General outline’, states:

This bill amends the Ministers of State Act 1952 to increase the limit on the sum appropriated from the Commonwealth Consolidated Fund in 2005/6 and beyond in respect of the salaries of Ministers of State. The increase is necessary following a determination of the Remuneration Tribunal with effect from 1 July 2005 that increased the base salaries of all Senators and Members. The additional salaries of Ministers of State are set as a percentage of the base salaries of Senators and Members, so when the base reference point increases for Senators and Members, so too do the salaries of Ministers.  

And, under the heading ‘Financial impact statement’, it states: 

The effect of the amendment is to increase the total sum available to be appropriated for Ministerial salaries by $400,000 in financial year 2005/2006 and beyond. 

I do not bemoan ministerial salaries, or indeed parliamentary salaries, but I think they need to be looked at in globo, because there are a lot of benefits that flow with them. Some years ago we had a celebrated debate that concentrated on superannuation. I must say that, from a personal view, it has quite wrongly resulted in a marked differentiation between the salaries of newer members who were elected at the last election and existing members. It is my view that there are a lot of other things that could have been concentrated on which were let through the net. If you pay people and you pay them properly then they also have to be accountable, as the second reading amendment says. In the last number of years, we have seen ministers who have not been accountable to the extent that they should have been.

A very interesting publication was produced by the Parliamentary Library, called That’s it—I’m leaving. It traced resignations of ministers—some forced, others not forced—way back to 1901. There were a couple of resignations in the Fraser period. On 20 April 1982, the Hon. Michael MacKellar, the member for Warringah, resigned as Minister for Health over his nonpayment of duty on a colour TV set he imported and the submission in his name of an incorrect customs declaration form. The Hon. John Moore, the member for Ryan, resigned as Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs on 20 April 1982 over deficiencies in his handling of the payment of duty on the colour TV set imported by the Minister for Health, Mr Michael MacKellar. They were but two of the resignations throughout the period, but there were appropriate standards applied—as there should be, because, when you are in public office and receiving public money, in my view there needs to be a proper level of accountability.

In the first couple of years of the Howard government, which this week celebrates 10 years, we saw the forced resignation of five ministers and two parliamentary secretaries in the years 1996 and 1997. Since then, there has been zip. Basically, the shutters went up and, irrespective of the merits of particular cases, we have seen a redefining of ministerial accountability. That does none of us any good. I have an old-fashioned view of accountability and propriety. It was fascinating to read about a number of ministers in the early years resigning because of differences within cabinet about their policies, and other ministers being forced to resign in relation to articles that were published that were seen to be in breach of the position of the then government. That is all in that wonderful publication from the Parliamentary Library. So, when it comes to the Ministers of State Amendment Bill and remunerations, I have no problem in supporting increased remuneration to ministers, but we need to not have a shifting set of values when it comes to ministerial responsibility, because that diminishes us all.

The other thing that I think we need to look at, as members of parliament and as ministers, is proper savings to offset some of these salary increases. We demand productivity increases of the general community—and, indeed, in negotiations over their salary packages under the new regime, many workers in this country will be required to forfeit standards and conditions that they have held over a long period of time. Yet, as members of parliament and, indeed, as ministers, we have seen—I will have had 16 years in this place next month, on 24 March, and I have seen it—year in and year out, remuneration or entitlements creeping up and up.

The only time there was a retrograde move was the one I mentioned earlier in my speech, to do with parliamentary superannuation. That was an easy one for some members of the community and some on our side, I concede, to go after, but I think—with the greatest of respect—that it was the wrong thing to go after. I have no problem with proper community standards applying to us, but the nine per cent, in my view, is below the community standard. Fifteen per cent is more appropriate for the newer members, and we will see what transpires over time in relation to that.

There is one entitlement that ministers and former members have that I think should be withdrawn immediately. I am only speaking for myself here; I am not speaking on behalf of the opposition or the Labor Party, but these are some of the chestnuts and some of the things that I have a bee in my bonnet over. I think that, if they were looked at, they would give us more credibility. That entitlement is the gold pass for former members for parliamentary travel. For the January-June six-month period of 2004, that cost taxpayers $397,000. From July to December 2004, it was $497,000. From January to June 2005, it was $557,000. And, as I said, this appropriation to do with the bill before the House is for $400,000 in a financial year.

I cannot see why members of parliament or ministers, if they serve a particular period of time, should have a life gold pass ad infinitum for themselves or for their widows and spouses. I think it is an anachronism that diminishes all of us. I have no problem with former prime ministers—I put them into a separate category—some of whom are obviously required to travel the country because of their former position. In my view, they should continue to be able to travel on life gold passes. But if I am elected at the next election, which will be my seventh term in this place, I will be entitled to travel till the day I die—25 trips a year at taxpayers’ expense. What for? What other employer is required to pay for continuing travel entitlements for their employees?

I can see an argument where ex-ministers might have to discharge their functions, so you make an allowance in relation to some of this. Or you might have a celebration within parliament where you want to bring former members together. But even then I have a query on that. I think it is an indulgence that we have been given that is not deserved. So, when we talk about the ministers of state and their salaries—salaries for the Prime Minister, for ministers and indeed for backbenchers—I have no problem in altering their salaries and at the same time getting rid of these lurks and perks and still bringing in savings for the members of the public.

I think it has all been one way. When I first came into parliament the printing entitlement for members of parliament was $25,000, I think. It is now $125,000 per year. There was a disallowed instrument in August 2003 where the government wanted to increase it to $150,000 and, indeed, roll over 45 per cent of it. In my view, it is unconscionable. We do not need that amount of money to communicate with our electorates. But let’s say we do. What I think is highway robbery and extremely unconscionable is that, if I seek re-election as a member of parliament, I can use that printing allowance for my re-election. We are talking about many millions of dollars here. In any given financial year the possible expenditure by members of the House alone is $18,875,000. My view is that at the very minimum that should not be able to be used for re-election purposes. Indeed, quite frankly, I think an amount of $50,000 would be reasonable. We also have a situation where our $28,000 postage allowance has now increased to 50c per elector, which takes me from about $27,000 to $42,000, and 100 per cent of that can be rolled over.

In my view, what we are doing is corrupting the system. We are giving such an advantage to sitting members of parliament. At the moment the government have that advantage. Eventually they will get tossed out. That time will come; we do not know when—the sooner the better for some of us. Then the advantage will be Labor’s. In the state of Queensland, where the opposition only has six out of 28 members, we are really going down the American path of entrenching incumbency unless a big swing is on.

The Ministers of State Act 1952 requires increases to the limits when they are appropriated out of the consolidated revenue. There is nothing unreasonable in what the parliament is considering this evening, but overall what we have to do, if we are to maintain credibility, is look at these other entitlements that we get as members of parliament, ministers of state or whatever. I do not want to bag the VIP jet and the jet fleet. The thing I am filthy on is that when the government upgraded the fleet they purchased smaller jets, which meant that parliamentary committees could not use those services to go to remote and rural Australia for parliamentary committee inquiries. Basically, by the way those jets were ordered, they booted off backbenchers and backbench committees.

I think there is a real problem here, which is why there is such cynicism in the community. We have seen the debate over the AWB, where the government has used its majority in the Senate to decline to allow certain witnesses to be cross-examined by a parliamentary committee. The second reading amendment to this bill talks about not allowing ministerial standards and accountability to decline at the same time as ministerial salaries are increasing. They are linked. This is not a situation that pertains just to the Liberal Party. The concerns that I have outlined this evening could equally be applied to a Labor government, because there is no doubt that in our period in office we changed entitlements to suit. I saw an increase in entitlements under the Labor government. I am not sitting here being Scrooge and saying, ‘No entitlements, no increases.’ I think there has to be a rationale and a justification because the separation of powers is important. It is important that our ministers, our politicians and our courts are held in high esteem.

We have one of the best democracies in the world, but we are not seeing the wood for the trees. Over a period of time we have allowed some entitlements and benefits to creep into the system, which has led to cynicism by ordinary members of the public. I am not critical of the salaries of members of parliament or ministers. They are not high by professional standards. If you were a successful barrister, doctor or businessman you could earn a lot more. But that is not necessarily of itself a justification for you to automatically get a salary commensurate with those professions.

The other thing that is interesting is that we do have different qualities in our approach to our jobs. There is no benchmark for what constitutes a good or a bad minister. I can remember during the days of the Labor government the former Attorney-General reminiscing with me that his job was to keep out of the news and to keep the cabinet on the rails in terms of what it was able to do, what it wanted to do and what it could properly do. That is why I think we are losing the battle at the moment of the operation of and ministers’ accountability during question time in the parliament.

I have seen a decline. I can remember vividly as if it were yesterday the current Prime Minister telling us that he was going to raise the standards. There was criticism of the former PM because he only wanted to come to parliament two days a week. In the mother parliament, Prime Minister’s question time is only on one or two days a week and for a limited period as well. It is not necessarily about the amount of time you spend in this chamber but about the quality of time you spend in this chamber. When I look at the replays of question time, I see a lack of accountability. The opposition’s conduct  is not without blame either. Former Prime Minister Keating did not want parliamentary question time televised because he was frightened that it would turn the people in this place into a rabble—and it has. There is no accountability at question time. There is evasion and a whole series of things. I believe there should be more power in the Speaker to deal with ministers, to bring them to account and to require them to answer questions. This place is not being taken seriously. It is used as an evasion by ministers. I commend the second reading amendment to the House. It is worthy of support.

See this speech in context