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

I accept the minister’s interjection that he recognises that I did not. The reason I did not is that I accept, as everyone knows because I have been participating in these debates for a long time, the role and status of and necessity for the Remuneration Tribunal. The very worst thing that could ever happen would be for parliamentarians to determine their own salaries and allowances. It is necessary to have an independent body.

But these are matters of great public interest and notoriety, and we are subject to a lot of attack concerning them. I think a bit of a problem arises from this debate. All members of the chamber are familiar with tribunals and how they operate. Commonly, the hearings and decisions of tribunals are public and contestable—namely, there are advocates on either side and there is a public record of them. Commonly, when tribunals—all sorts of tribunals—bring down a determination they bring down the reasons for that determination. The problem here is that the Remuneration Tribunal has not provided its motivation. It has not provided its reasons and has not provided its justification, and therefore we are left in the dark as to what evidence it took, how it was considered and why it came to the conclusion it did. It was with some interest that I heard the minister say that it went out to these electorates and examined the issues on the ground and that it understood from that more clearly what the issues were. I do not know how he knows that. It was not in the papers I received that I recall.