Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Hansard source

I, on behalf of the opposition, say that we support the recommendations of the Auditor-General report No. 3 2009-10 Performance audit: administration of parliamentarians’ entitlements by the Department of Finance and Deregulation and we also support the matters raised by the Special Minister of State to address them to date. We need to go back and explain why we support these recommendations. There has been a clear lack of clarity about these entitlements from the time of the Keating government, which introduced the newsletter allowance, to that of the Howard government and then through the first 20-odd months of the Rudd government. The ANAO has indicated that there needs to be clarity and a lack of ambiguity to address this situation.

I note with some interest that in about 2003 all political parties, including the Australian Democrats at that stage, the Labor Party, the National Party and the Liberal Party, were operating off the back of a number of conventions. The parties followed them because of a lack of clarity. The conventions came out of a Senate estimates hearings with Senators Robert Ray and Faulkner in 2001. Parliamentarians have been acting off the back of those conventions up until today. I am sure that all my colleagues on both sides in the other place and in the Senate would appreciate some clarity. In relation to the 42 points, it is useful to refer to page 28 of the summary to the ANAO report, where it says:

However, if the components of the 42 Questions and Answers document were read separately by Parliamentarians and relied upon, as we now understand has occurred, then the number of printed items that would fall outside of this guidance would represent a very small proportion of the items sampled by the ANAO.

Parliamentarians on both sides have been relying on those conventions. I am pleased that after the Keating, Howard and Rudd governments at least there will be some clarity now where there was a lack of clarity. The opposition looks forward to working with the Special Minister of State, Senator Ludwig, regarding this inquiry and the implementation of the matters that he has announced this afternoon. We believe, as the government does, that that clarity is extremely important. We are pleased that the ANAO has identified that lack of clarity and given some indication about what may be the move forward.

I note that back in 2001 when the ANAO looked at this they did not make recommendations themselves relating to further clarity. The Remuneration Tribunal has in the past chosen not to put in any clarity. In some respects I think it has a lot do with the need for a judicial interpretation of these definitions and everyone has been operating in a vacuum now for a decade and a half. Hopefully, on the back of the ANAO report, we will see that clarity take the ambiguity out of the interpretation and we can move forward; and the community can look at what we are doing with some confidence and say that there are appropriate processes being followed and that individual members and senators are following those processes.

But again I say that we were operating on the back the 42-point convention, which was driven by a lack of clarity and at least provided some indication for members and senators as to what was or was not appropriate. I acknowledge that the ANAO has said that those conventions may well have been outside their interpretation of the guidelines. I accept that and I accept their recommendations. The Special Minister of State will have the opposition’s full support in ensuring that the ambiguity and lack of clarity in this matter is addressed.

Question agreed to.