Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to associate myself and my party with the disallowance motion for schedules 1 and 3 to the Parliamentary Entitlements Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1). As soon as I saw it come through I moved rapidly and Labor and my party put down a disallowance to schedule 1, but we needed time to examine all the schedules. We agreed that schedule 3 was also something to be disapproved. It was complicated by a number of motions so we came to an agreement with Senator Brown that we all jointly move this amendment. I am pleased that it is being presented on that basis.

The Parliamentary Entitlements Amendment Regulations 2006 are contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 211 and made under the Parliamentary Entitlements Act 1990. These amendment regulations enhance existing entitlements where it is thought the current resources have proven inadequate or need a review and to be made clearer. They also make associated transitional and other technical amendments. Of note is that schedule 1 allows for an increase in printing entitlements for members of the House of Representatives from the current $125,000 to $150,000 and introduces the capacity to carry forward a portion of unused benefits into the following year.

Schedule 2 allows for mobile phone services as an additional benefit for the staff of party whips and clarifies administrative arrangements providing delegation of travel and travel by Inter-Parliamentary Union or Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegations. There is no motion for disallowing schedule 2.

Schedule 3 sets the printing entitlements of senators at $20,000 per annum from 1 July 2007, which is currently set at 10 reams of paper for senators and 20 for specified office holders, which works out at approximately $1,000 per annum, with a pro rata amount of $16,667 for the period 1 September 2006 until 30 June 2007. Administration of the entitlements moves from the Senate to what we know as MaPS, the Ministerial and Parliamentary Services Division. Approval for guidelines on the use of entitlements now moves to the Special Minister of State, and parts of entitlements can no longer be transferred between senators or taken in advance. Entitlements now cover all stationery requirements, newsletters and other printed materials, including Christmas cards for constituents. Senators can choose any commercial printer of their choice but should be mindful of government procurement policies and guidelines. Frankly, it was not an easy schedule to read and to determine exactly how it affected people.

Now in its second decade of incumbency, the Howard coalition government is displaying its determination to stay in office by these timely amendments to parliamentary entitlement regulations. They are timely, of course, because they are going to be very useful in the coming election year. Although they are being introduced under the guise of servicing the electorate, many are clearly about boosting electioneering activity by the government’s incumbent members. These manoeuvres will add and have added to a cynical view the public and the media have taken about politicians. There has been considerable adverse commentary already ranging from very forthright and quite often provocative remarks by Alan Ramsay—I am an avid reader of columns such as those written by Alan Ramsay—all the way to a more academic view taken by such people as Norm Kelly from the ANU.

Schedule 1 allows for an extra $25,000 a head for the printing entitlements of 150 members of the House of Representatives, which amounts to $3.7 million a year of taxpayers’ money being spent essentially to further the interests of the incumbents. If taken over a three-year parliamentary term, the figure is $11.25 million. At $150,000 per politician, that is $22.5 million a year, or $67.5 million over three years. Additionally, the rollover provisions are of concern as they will allow politicians to carry over an unused portion of an entitlement into the following year.

It should be strongly noted for the record that the government have attempted this manoeuvre in the past and the non-government senators unanimously rejected it. At that time we had the numbers in the Senate, and it is because we do not have the numbers in the Senate that this appalling extravagance is coming forward. I hope that when the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate speaks he will give a commitment to wind this back when Labor eventually take power, which I am sure they will do one of these days.