David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Xenophon. I begin by outlining, in general, the government's position with respect to your amendments, before turning to some of the particular points you made in those remarks.

Firstly, as you foreshadowed, Senator Xenophon, the government does not support your proposed amendments—that is, to add a schedule to the bill prescribing a process for the way the independent Remuneration Tribunal goes about making a determination or a report about members of parliament. It is the government's view that it is a matter for the independent Remuneration Tribunal to determine how best to undertake the task of determining remuneration levels within its jurisdiction. It is already open to the tribunal to take submissions and conduct hearings, and the tribunal can also publish submissions received and the transcripts of hearings.

The easiest way I could sum this up is to say that the public hearings you are seeking may be entirely possible. It is, of course, within the remit of the tribunal to conduct its affairs in that way if it so chooses, but the legislation does not mandate it. Rather, the legislation seeks to emphasise the independence of the tribunal to conduct its affairs as it sees fit. The government submits that the proposed amendments submitted by Senator Xenophon would constrain the independent tribunal's discretion in this matter.

It is worth noting that the tribunal undertook a wide range of public consultations in the lead-up to its most recent reports regarding members of parliament, departmental secretaries and specified statutory office holders. The Remuneration Tribunal already has transparency measures in place. The tribunal is already required by section 7A of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 to publish full details of its reports. In relation to its most recent report into the remuneration of parliamentarians, the tribunal published a detailed report of 67 pages, with 227 pages of appendices for those who have the stomach for it, as well as a related consultant report and an accompanying statement. The tribunal is also subject to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and, as such, any submissions to the tribunal may be accessed under the act, subject to any necessary exemptions. For these reasons, the government does not support the amendments proposed by Senator Xenophon.

Firstly, with respect to the question, 'Does the tribunal need the power to determine a portion of additional office holder salaries that will not flow to members of the 1948 scheme?' the answer is yes. In its report of 15 December 2011, the Remuneration Tribunal indicated that the link in the 1948 scheme between the additional salary of a current office holder in parliament or a minister of state and the additional pension of a retired parliamentarian be severed. The bill achieves this outcome by extending the tribunal's existing power in the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 to determine a portion of parliamentary base salary not to be taken as parliamentary allowance for the purpose of the 1948 scheme. These new powers will allow the tribunal to similarly determine a portion of additional salary that is not to be taken into account for superannuation purposes. The tribunal indicated in its statement that it does not intend to make a determination on the remuneration of parliamentarians until this issue has been resolved.

Secondly, the government does not consider that the closure of the Life Gold Pass scheme, and the reduction in the number of domestic return trips available under entitlement, is an acquisition of property within the meaning of paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution. This issue was considered in 2002, when limits were first introduced on the number of return domestic trips provided by the Life Gold Pass scheme, and resulted in a constitutional safety net provision being included in the Members of Parliament (Life Gold Pass) Act 2002. This bill includes an equivalent provision to provide a reasonable amount of compensation in circumstances where any provisions in the bill are found to result in an acquisition of property under section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution.