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

I move:

That clauses 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3 of Determination 2006/18: Members of Parliament—Entitlements, made pursuant to subsections 7(1), 7(2) and 7(4) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973, that provide for the aggregation of the charter and communications allowances of a member representing an electorate of 10,000 km² or more, be disapproved.

As a courtesy to those who would speak to this, I let them know that I do not propose to have a major barney, unless of course they want to, and I do not intend to speak for that long, so people need to be prepared with respect to that. This notice of motion concerns a small portion of determinations 2006/18 and 2006/19, regarding the entitlements and travelling allowances of members of parliament. These determinations were issued with effect from 1 July 2006. The small portions that I refer to are determination 2006/18’s clauses 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3. They seek to aggregate entitlements for a member representing an electorate of 10,000 square kilometres or more, so the Senate should be immediately aware that they only affect a few of the 226 parliamentarians we have in the Senate and the House. Of course, these are all members that are affected. Clause 11.1 reads:

A member representing an electorate of 10,000 km2 or more is entitled to aggregate the entitlements which he or she is granted under clause 6.2 and clause 10.4.

Clause 11.2 says:

A member representing an electorate of 10,000 km2 or more shall be entitled to use his or her aggregated entitlements:

(a)

for charter transport as defined in clause 6.1, within and for the service of his or her State, Territory or electorate in accordance with the procedures, requirements and limitations set out in clauses 6.3 to 6.9; or

(b)

for commercial communications services as set out in clause 10.4, in relation to parliamentary or electorate (but not party) business in accordance with the procedures, requirements and limitations set out in clauses 10.5 to 10.13.

Clause 11.3 says:

A member for an electorate of 10,000 km2 or more shall be entitled to carry over the unused part of their aggregated entitlement to the total value of:

(a)

the entitlement which the member can carry over under clause 6.4; and

(b)

the entitlement which the member can carry over under clause 10.6.

Clause 6.2 refers to the cost of charter transport at Commonwealth expense. Clause 10.4 refers to communications allowances and says:

Subject to clauses 10.5 to 10.13, a senator or member shall be entitled to use commercial services for the distribution of letters, newsletters and parcels and electronic services (including establishment and maintenance of web sites) at Commonwealth expense in relation to parliamentary or electorate (but not party) business ...

To the nub of the reasons that I have raised these issues for potential disapproval, there are three issues at hand. The first is that it is a principle of entitlements and their determination that they are discrete—namely, individual items are established. We do not have a macro budget which senators and members can deal with at their discretion. Of course, there have been those who have argued that that should be the case, but that is not the case. The fact is that each individual item we are entitled to spend as part of our allocations for doing our jobs is discrete and separate. So this is a principle whereby one which has been traditionally always been separate is to be used in aggregation, if there is a carry-over amount, with another. That is a new principle, and one which I would challenge in this circumstance because, unless we move to the holistic approach of a macro budget, I think it is far preferable to keep things separate.

The next point arising from this is that it does lead to confusion with respect to how entitlements should be used. I think it blurs the edges and will make audit, management and control less easy. One of the great characteristics of the whole entitlements regime since 1996 is that it has been tightened up. It is clearer, the reporting is better and there has even been an audit by the Auditor-General during that period. The management reports we receive and sign off are particular and are much better presented, controlled, and supervised than they were. As soon as you get into an area where it could become a bit messy it concerns me.

The third and primary concern I have—and as senators would have heard, I am opposed in principle to the idea of aggregating such discrete provisions—is that I am afraid it may serve as a precedent. In other words, if it comes through with respect to this limited number of members, it may end up as a precedent and apply to all senators and all members. I am aware, as all members of the chamber are, that there are senators and members who use their charter allowance to the full at all times, to the full occasionally—every year or so—and some hardly at all. Therefore, if it were to become a precedent, it would allow for the manipulation of entitlements for other purposes, particularly in electoral campaign years, which I personally think is undesirable.

So I want to test these propositions before the Senate. I want to hear how the government answers those arguments. I do not think there should be a finger-pointing exercise at various parts of the chamber because these are issues of policy and principle with regard to how things should be managed and dealt with. I look forward to hearing the contribution of senators to this debate.