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

I take the interjection, Minister. All I am saying is that I did not know that from this latest determination put here. I in fact welcome their doing that because I think it is a necessary part of their job. I would suggest that perhaps the government could—I do not suppose they would, but certainly the opposition might want to—look at whether they should write to the Remuneration Tribunal and suggest a more open process of outlining their reasons and justification for arriving at these decisions.

I do not go to motive but I do go to effect, and I say that the effect is reprehensible. Frankly, I think the policy is just wrong. I am not a supporter of macro budgets; I am a supporter of itemised budgets by discrete areas. I think that as soon as you cross over and cross-subsidise one allowance with another you are getting into trouble. I just do not agree with the policy. I accept that other senators do, and that is their right. But I do not think a charter allowance should be used for communications or vice versa. That is just my opinion. You can disagree with me, as you obviously do—I am referring to the Liberal minister, Senator Abetz—but that is my opinion.

The principle that is being established here lacks an acceptable underpinning and justification. If you do not motivate the principle that you have introduced, you have a problem. The minister says that it has been developed empirically, that there was a 2000-01 process, and that as a result of experience the tribunal has arrived at this decision. Nevertheless, for me that is an effect. I do not understand the principle—the principle of government or public policy that warrants this or underpins it.

Without taking any more time of the chamber, let me say that I disagree, and my party disagrees, with this aspect of the tribunal determination. We think its effect is reprehensible, we think the policy is wrong and we think that the principle has not been motivated by Remuneration Tribunal reasons or justifications. That is why I move that the disapproval stand.

Question put:

That the motion (That the motion (Senator Murray’s) be agreed to.) be agreed to.