Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I, jointly with Senator Brown and Senator Murray, have sought to disallow the government’s regulation which seeks to give effect to an increase in the House of Representatives printing entitlements from $125,000 per member per year to $150,000 per member per year, and also to the proposed changes to the Senate printing entitlements. We do so because the proposed changes are not in the best interests of Australian parliamentary democracy. We think the increase in the provision for House of Representatives members is way beyond what is reasonable. It has not been publicly justified. There appears to be no real justification other than the fact that the government can make such a decision.

I suppose it takes us back to the debate we had yesterday, which is where we talked about regulation of parliamentary salaries and how we handed those decisions to the Remuneration Tribunal, being the independent umpire and the appropriate place for the determination of the salaries and conditions of parliamentarians. I take the very strong view that parliamentarians ought not to be involved in decision making about their own salaries and conditions, and I take that view about other professions and occupations as well. I think that the proof of the worth of that argument is seen in this regulation. Here we have a minister in the government of the day, the Special Minister of State, who is responsible for electoral matters, seeking to increase the entitlement to use taxpayer funds to allow members to communicate with their electorates—that is, on this occasion, to increase their printing entitlements by $25,000 a year so that they can print more material for distribution to their constituents.

Of course, in principle, there is nothing wrong with members being able to communicate with their electors; it is a core part of our function, and we all do it. We are all required to do it, and no-one would argue that that is not a key part of the function of a parliamentarian. But what we are seeing is the government attempting to ensure that incumbency in this country is almost an overwhelming factor in Australian political life. We are seeing sitting members of parliament given entitlements of some magnitude, which they can use increasingly for election related purposes. The distinction between electoral matters and one’s role as a parliamentarian has blurred considerably in recent years; the definitions have been widened. I accept that these have always been difficult definitions, but we have a situation where, increasingly, members are able to campaign using their Commonwealth funded entitlements.

This latest measure of the government’s is really going a yard too far. We have not only gone a yard too far but the decision has been made by the government for the government. This is not a matter that has been considered on the basis of argument and evidence by the Remuneration Tribunal; this is the government trying to push through an increase in entitlements for parliamentarians, without reference to anyone else and without proper discussion in the parliament or with other parties, just because it can. These are similar to changes that they sought in the last parliament but the numbers in the Senate prevented them from achieving those changes. We now have a government with absolute power in the Senate seeking to increase the entitlements of members of parliament in terms of their printing allowances. As I said, this is not something that has gone to the Remuneration Tribunal. This has been done purely by the government for, I think, the government and for government members. There is no public rationale that stands up to any sort of scrutiny; therefore, Labor is trying to be consistent in saying that we will oppose this because we think it has gone too far, that it has not been independently tested and that there is no good argument for supporting it.

In a sense we are arguing against our self-interest, because all the Labor House of Representatives members will benefit from these changes. They will use them. They will have access to these resources, which will help solidify their incumbency and protect them from challenge at the next election. But you have to take a step back from self-interest and ask: is it in the interests of Australian parliamentary democracy? Is it in the interests of the body politic that the advantages of incumbency at taxpayers’ expense become so large? I think the answer has to be no. I do not think that we should be supporting the sitting members getting such an advantage in an election context as it is now proposed they get.

While it is true to say that a lot of this resource will be used for the normal activity of a parliamentarian, there is no doubt that a lot of that activity will be centred on promoting the member of parliament—promoting their profile and promoting their prospects of being re-elected. I will come to some of the detail later as to why these provisions are even more insidious in the way the use of them has been structured. Labor will oppose these regulations. We join with the Greens and the Democrats in saying that it is a yard too far.

Debate interrupted.