Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to 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.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to indicate on behalf of the Labor opposition that we will be supporting Senator Murray’s disallowance motion. In doing so, I will perhaps be a little more cynical than Senator Murray was. While I agree with him that there are important points of principle at stake here, there is also a great deal of cynicism and political advantage for the government contained in these propositions and, in particular, in the totality of what has occurred in recent months in terms of total entitlements that are available for members of the House of Representatives to use effectively in campaigning for their own re-election. I want to come to that because I think that in debating these changes today we have to look at the totality of the changes to entitlements that have been advanced by this government in recent times. They go to staff, printing, postage and charter—a whole range of increases in entitlements that are tightly targeted to advantage the government and to advantage incumbents. Not only does it raise questions of the use or abuse of taxpayers’ money but also it raises questions of the government setting out on a deliberate campaign to entrench incumbents, to use the power of office to protect people’s political interests. While there is always an element of that, in that sitting members have advantages, the extent of the advantage is getting well beyond a joke. It is starting to interfere, I think, with the proper democratic processes that should be available in this country, where people of any political party or an Independent can nominate and stand a fair chance of being elected by arguing their policies and platform in an election context.

Senator Murray’s motion seeks to disallow Determination 2006/18: Members of Parliament—Entitlements made by the Remuneration Tribunal last month. These effectively look to allow members representing larger electorates, those of 10,000 square kilometres or more, to aggregate their charter aircraft and self-drive vehicle entitlements with their communications allowances—that is, to pool the money they are allowed to use for charter to get around their electorates—charter by plane or car, despite already having an entitlement to a vehicle or, in some cases, two vehicles—or to pool that charter entitlement with their communications allowance, which is largely postage. So you now have the combining—as Senator Murray quite rightly put it—of two separate allowances into one, aggregating them so that people can use for postage an entitlement which was designed for transport around the electorate. That creates a whole set of problems and a whole set of issues that takes us down a path we do not want to go down, in my view.

This determination also provides for an annual carry-over of this mechanism. So the aggregated entitlement can be carried over to the next year. Of particular interest, of course, is whether or not these entitlements can be carried over into election years to maximise their impact in a year when a member might be looking to focus the electorate’s attention on their desirable qualities, which might lead to their re-election.

There are a number of issues here in the aggregating of allowances and allowing rollovers, which will provide flexibilities and capacities that previously were not available to members of the House of Representatives. Of course, it just happens to be that the overwhelming majority of members of parliament who benefit from this entitlement—26 out of a total of 33—are coalition members, so a huge advantage will flow from these measures to Liberal and National Party members of parliament. Twenty-six out of 33 beneficiaries of this are government members—sitting members of parliament who are up for re-election next year and who will have a significant increase in the resources available to them for campaigning in their electorates for their re-election.

This determination provides that more than one-quarter of all coalition members of parliament will benefit from what is becoming an extravagant and excessive set of entitlements. More than one-quarter of coalition members of parliament will now receive a massive boost to their entitlements in addition to those that have gone before in recent times—a set of entitlements that have generally been refused by the Senate before the change in the balance of power in the Senate. Most of these measures that have come before us in recent months have previously been rejected in one form or another by the Senate because senators, on balance, have found them to be not justified.

I want to make the point that I recognise that this decision, the subject of the disallowance motion, was made by the Remuneration Tribunal. It is different from a number of other issues that have been brought before us, because they have been brought before us by a decision of the Special Minister of State, Mr Nairn. It does provide me with some difficulty because I have always argued that the Remuneration Tribunal should be put in charge of all politicians’ pay and conditions; I have always thought it is not something that we ought to determine ourselves. Senator Brown and I have crossed swords on this more recently, but I take the view that no employee and no set group of people, including company directors, ought to set their own pay and conditions. The record across all occupations has not been good at getting the balance right, and I suspect that we will not be any better at getting the balance right than any other group. And, of course, one is left exposed to the criticism of whatever one does—there are never any votes in politicians’ pay and conditions—and I am not one who encourages the cheap populism by some of my colleagues on these issues. However, the reality is that this is slightly different because it is a Remuneration Tribunal decision, and I accept that, and it puts me in a difficult position because I have always supported their having control over these issues as an independent body free from any self-interest in these matters.

But I do not think you can look at this decision in isolation. I do not think we can just say, ‘Oh, well, it’s a Remuneration Tribunal decision and we ought to pass no further comment,’ because what we have seen over recent months is step after step that has built incumbency for this government and its members. There has been a deliberate strategy to increase entitlements that strengthen the capacity of incumbents to be re-elected. Even if you do not accept my argument about how it favours sitting members and coalition members—although this time it is unarguably the case—there is a broader principle such that even if it were of great benefit to Labor members I would argue against it. The principle is that our democracy thrives on the capacity of small parties and Independents to contest elections. If you get to the American stage, where the capacity for people to stand for election and participate in the democratic process is limited so much by financing issues, it will be a very sorry day for our democracy.

But what we are focusing on here today is the latest in a group of decisions which seek to entrench incumbent members and to finance their activities from the public purse. Taxpayers’ money will be used to increase entitlements for members to promote themselves during an election period. We have to think very carefully whether we accept the government’s arguments. The Remuneration Tribunal made a decision in relation to these specific matters and I do not have any information on the arguments that were put before them. I do not know why it was restricted to 33 members but clearly it was argued as part of an attempt to make a case for those servicing larger electorates.

The letter from the Special Minister of State, Gary Nairn, which he sent to all senators and members, explained what the new determination means. When it referred to the electorate charter entitlements for all senators and members it always used plurals: House of Representatives members and senators. I read through it and I went back and had a second read. Suddenly the word ‘senators’ was dropped out of the key paragraph; ‘senators’ went missing in action. Some would say we do this all the time! Interestingly enough these changes that are warranted, according to the minister, do not apply to senators.

I come from Western Australia; I have a pretty large electorate, as does Senator Murray. Senator Brown is more favourably treated because of the size of his electorate, but I come from a massive state which I have to get around. So if the argument is based on size of electorate, then clearly senators from Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia ought to receive the same sort of treatment. But they will not. We suddenly drop out of the picture. We receive all the other changes in entitlements such as travelling allowance and some of the charter allowance but, when it comes to aggregating that entitlement and combining it with a communications allowance, the arguments that support this important proposition suddenly no longer apply to senators. I do not for the life of me know why. If they are not politically motivated reasons, I cannot see any other reason that would justify senators disappearing from this calculation.

If it really is about the size of the electorate, if it really is about allowing people to communicate, why not let Senator Murray communicate more easily with the Western Australian population; why not allow me, why not allow the Queensland senators? Because it is very much about entrenching incumbency. It is very much about providing a set of entitlements to sitting lower house members that allows them to campaign using Commonwealth-funded, taxpayer-funded resources. So when we look at the question of abrogation and the combination with their entitlements for charter with their communications allowance, the senators disappear. This measure alone applies to 33 House of Representatives members, 26 of whom just happen to be coalition members.

It takes me back a couple of months to when we had the debate about the printing entitlement. There was a real need to allow members of parliament to communicate more effectively with their electors by increasing their printing allowance so that they would be able to produce more material and communicate more easily. But again senators were left out of the equation. The printing entitlements for House of Representatives members were greatly increased—I think by $25,000 per annum, if my memory serves me correctly—but again senators were not to benefit. I do not say this jealously because I do not think the increase was justified. I argued against it then and I will argue against this increase now. There is no logic underpinning this. This is about politics, not about servicing one’s electorate effectively. If that were your rationale, then the differences that we are seeing in the approach to the House of Representatives members and to senators would be vastly different and would not reflect the sort of approach that we are seeing from the government.

To sum up, I want to look at what this means in reality for the government’s funding of these extra entitlements for parliamentarians to use in communicating with their members. Recently, we had an increase in staff entitlement, an increase in relief budget beyond the three staff to 24 weeks. What I regard as the outrageous increase in printing entitlement—$25,000 per annum—passed through this place a couple of months ago. We now have an increase of 10 per cent in the charter capacity for those with large electorates—and senators on this occasion. And of course we have an increase in postage. What runs through all these decisions is increased entitlement and aggregation—that is, the capacity to use the entitlements in different and creative ways, to use them as a sole resource for campaigning. There is an increase in the capacity to roll over from one year to another so that the measures can be concentrated into a particular year. The other theme is that it applies only to the House of Representatives. So you have increasing entitlement, the ability to throw them into one bucket and the ability to roll them over from one year to the next. End result: tremendous capacity to spend taxpayers’ resources on your own re-election in an election year. That is the sum of all this.

That is the theme underpinning all these changes. While on occasions one can argue for flexibility and argue that people will use these resources, the bottom line is that step after step the government is increasing resources available to it and to its members to campaign for their re-election. Put that on top of the electoral law changes where we are now allowed to make donations of $9,999 without disclosure and you are seeing a trend, a government approach to the electoral system which ought to be opposed.

As I pointed out earlier, the government did not get away with these changes before the Senate majority changed because the Senate took very sensible decisions about not allowing abuses to occur. The Senate sought to protect the integrity of the electoral system and the integrity of our democracy. They are being whittled away step by step. In fact at the moment it is less a whittling and more an avalanche. If you look at what has occurred in the last year you see that there is a very serious campaign on to cash up House of Representatives members before the next election. They are targeting entitlements more and more. This effectively targets 26 of the 33 members in larger electorates and, as I say, provides extra entitlement and extra capacity to over a quarter of the coalition contingent in the House of Representatives.

I support public funding, but I support it the proper way—by funding political parties to help meet the cost of campaigning. These allowances form a second stream of public funding that is done under the table, without justification, and is starting to really undermine some of the principles of our democracy which are worth defending. It is entrenching the government, entrenching sitting members and giving them huge advantages.

I did some calculations. I do not want to pick on Mr Barry Haase but I had a look at Kalgoorlie and at my own seat. Mr Haase’s printing entitlement is now up to $150,000. He can roll over 45 per cent of that. So as a result of the measure the government put through a few months ago his total is a staggering possible $217,500 taxpayer-funded printing allowance in an election year. His communications allowance or postage, based on the number of electors at the last election, is now about $81,000 for two years worth of postage. He has the capacity to spend $81,000 on postage in an election year, plus under this measure he is allowed to take 100 per cent of the election year’s charter allowance, plus 20 per cent of last year’s charter allowance. So 120 per cent of his charter allowance is able to be used for postage. That is a staggering $95,000 extra made available, potentially, for Mr Haase. He has a total possible communications or postage allowance in an election year of $176,000 and $217,000 worth of printing.

The member for Kalgoorlie has $393,500 at his disposal to spend on his re-election in an election year, if he chooses to do so. This is not money that he has raised by using the new electoral laws that allow him to raise money without telling anyone where he gets the money from; this is $393,500 of taxpayers’ money that the government is allowing him to use to campaign for himself. I pity some poor Independent wanting to run for election in Kalgoorlie. They would not have the staff, the cars or the offices—and I use the plural word ‘offices’—and they certainly would not have the $393,500 of taxpayers’ money before they began. That is a pretty good start for Mr Haase in Kalgoorlie, it is a pretty good start for the other 33 members who are beneficiaries of these changes and it will certainly be a pretty good start for the 26 coalition members who will benefit at the next election. These changes are not good for our democracy, they are not good for encouraging participation and they ought to be opposed. (Time expired)

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The fact is that this is deplorable legislation and it is corrupt. The fact is that this legislation is the absolute power of the government using its numbers to put legislation through here to line the pockets of members in the run to the next election in a way that is simply not available to competitors in what should be a fair and equal race. It is totally out of hand. As Senator Evans and Senator Murray have outlined, it goes from bad to worse. It is reprehensible that the Prime Minister should be not only permitting but driving a process where taxpayers’ money is taken through a series of measures like this and given primarily to government members of parliament so that they can advantage themselves against others standing in what is supposed to be a democratic election next year. That is what this is all about, as Senator Evans and Senator Murray have said. The process is corrupting—and we have to call a spade a spade here—and the Prime Minister is overseeing this corrupting process. He can come out into the public arena and put his point of view on that, but the fact is that is how this must be described because that is the appropriate description for it.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In 2000 the Remuneration Tribunal issued determination 2000/11. This determination provided for a number of measures to assist members representing electorates of 300,000 kilometres or more and the peculiar difficulties that they face. In particular, it provided for an entitlements aggregation trial designed to provide members with greater flexibility in establishing and maintaining contact with constituents. This trial involved allowing members representing the five largest electorates to aggregate their communications and charter allowances.

It should be noted that this was a decision of the Remuneration Tribunal itself. It had not been recommended by the government—so much for all the conspiracy theories that we heard earlier in this debate. The tribunal’s decision was based on the submissions of the MPs from the big electorates, discussions with those MPs and even travel out to the big electorates by tribunal members. They took their task very seriously.

The tribunal’s 2002 annual review statement of parliamentary allowances for expenses of office confirmed that the trial would continue as information on the results of the trial had been somewhat limited. Last year the then Special Minister of State consulted with those MPs on the trial to assess their views on its merits and a possible extension. All were of the view that the trial had been very useful and that the flexibility gained by the aggregation clause allowed for more flexibility in servicing the needs of their constituents. Some preferred to use the aggregated amount for increased levels of direct mail. Others, such as the member for Maranoa, Mr Bruce Scott, preferred to make much greater use of charter than would normally have been possible so as to get out and about and meet people. Irrespective of their preference, all agreed that the aggregation clause was very useful.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You bet they did.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I trust Senator Brown has finished with his inane interjections.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ignore the interjections, Senator Abetz, and continue.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On that basis, the government decided to recommend the extension of the ability to aggregate to all MHRs who had a charter entitlement. Keep in mind that the extent of the charter entitlement is predicated on the size of the electorate and therefore the suggestion that Barry Haase has a large charter entitlement is absolutely correct. In fact I understand he has the largest electorate not only in Australia but in the world.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not as large as Senator Murray’s and mine.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The largest single-member electorate in the world—and I accept Senator Sterle’s correction in that regard. So it stands to reason that I could do the maths that Senator Evans did in relation to the Labor member for Lyons, Dick Adams, who also has a charter allowance and who now has the capacity to decide whether he wants to meet people in the flesh and be chartered around or to send out more direct mail.

Can I indicate that the Remuneration Tribunal agreed with the suggestion of the extension to aggregate and included the new clauses in determination 2006/18. This disallowance, if successful, would be a slap in the face to the Remuneration Tribunal. Unfortunately, we have seen on a number of occasions in recent times that, when people agree with the Remuneration Tribunal, they say nothing and let it slide through; when they disagree, they try to pretend to be the champions of the taxpayer and say that this is a rort, and on and on they go. But I would have thought that the importance of having these decisions made by people at arm’s length from government is accepted by the vast majority of people. We then of course have the slurs provided by those from the other side, suggesting that the Remuneration Tribunal simply does the bidding of the government. There is no evidence for that, and to make such a suggestion is very disrespectful—

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s a rubber stamp.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

but something that we have become used to, especially from the senator interjecting, because when he does not have any arguments he descends to the slur. We were told that this was going to assist coalition members. Out of the 33 members of the House of Representatives who represent rural and regional areas, it happens to be that 26 of them are in fact members of the coalition. Of course, Labor members benefit, as I would assume do certain Independent members in the House of Representatives. The threshold question is not, ‘Are you a member of the coalition?’ and to suggest that is just outrageous. The threshold question is: ‘Is the member of the House of Representatives entitled to a charter entitlement by virtue of the size of their electorate?’ That is the category on which the Remuneration Tribunal has determined this.

The Labor Party’s great lament is that they do not represent more rural and regional seats. I could give them a little lecture as to why that is. First of all, they might not want to adopt the silly forestry policies that they had at the last election. They might have been representing a few more rural and regional seats. Instead of using question time for the matters that they seek to raise, they might actually ask questions about drought. But of course it is always left to us on the coalition side—and Senator Boswell today—to ask those important questions about drought. And they then wonder why they do not represent the rural and regional seats. I will not give them any more gratuitous advice, just in case they take me up on it. I am very happy with their neglect of the rural and regional areas to a certain extent, because of the—

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And your neglect of climate change.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Brown, you only used two or three minutes of an allocated 20 minutes. If you wanted to make an additional contribution, I think you should have made it then rather than interject on the minister. You were heard in silence, and I suggest that he should be too.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. The suggestion by Senator Evans in talking about the rollover and the postage and then how much people could spend in an election year is a very interesting exercise in mathematics, and I think that is part of the failure of the Labor Party in recent years. The thought process was just so obvious: Labor think that they can somehow win the election with an avalanche in the last 12 months. But, as a very wise man in the Liberal Party, Sir John Carrick, used to say: you can’t fatten the pig on market day. You have to undertake your electoral duties on a regular basis, and those who represent the larger regional seats do have a real problem in being able to get to and around their electorates and be seen at functions. Every now and then, if they are unable to make a particular function for whatever reason, rather than flying out there, they may well want to use that money to communicate with the people in a particular township, explaining why they are not there or for whatever reason.

But the Remuneration Tribunal—and I want to stress this—made this determination. That is the independent body which sets our salaries and makes a whole lot of other determinations. While Senator Brown has a reputation for opposing anything where that might provide him with a media headline and be seen as a stunt, Senator Evans, interestingly enough, really does cherry-pick the salary increases that the Labor Party are well and truly willing to take but not the Remuneration Tribunal’s determination in relation to these other entitlements.

No system we have will ever be perfect, but I submit to this chamber and to the Australian people that it is a lot better for an independent Remuneration Tribunal to make these determinations, rather than parliamentarians seeking to vote for these things for themselves. The suggestion that there be an aggregation was trialled for some time. It was welcomed by the relevant members. The Remuneration Tribunal took themselves out to these large electorates to determine whether a case had been made out, and it is quite clear that from their own personal experience—their own personal consideration of the matters and the submissions—they have come to this determination. I believe it would be a very arrogant Senate that would seek to overrule the Remuneration Tribunal’s consideration of this matter.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, come on—really.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I suggest that Senator Brown avail himself of his glass of water, because it might stop him from interjecting consistently. I know he is getting excited about his trip to the United States, with potentially some assistance from the taxpayer. I simply repeat: it would be a very arrogant Senate to say that we as a Senate know better than the Remuneration Tribunal, as it relates to another house of this parliament, the entitlements of House of Representatives members. If these people opposite had their way they would say, ‘We know better what is needed for the House of Representatives members than the independent Remuneration Tribunal.’

I have heard about breathtaking arrogance, but this really is coming to a limit. I suggest to senators opposite that they do take a deep breath, consider the precedent they would be seeking to set by overruling the Remuneration Tribunal and the Senate unilaterally then determining what the House of Representatives members should be entitled to. Whilst the Remuneration Tribunal does the excellent job that it does, we as a government will support their determination by voting against this disallowance motion.

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

I think I will begin with the last speaker, Senator Abetz, in wrapping up this debate. Before I do, let me thank those senators who contributed to the debate. In beginning with the last first, I was not elected by the House of Representatives. I was elected by the people of Western Australia, and it is my duty to pass opinion on every matter which is proper to come before this chamber. Remuneration Tribunal matters are disallowable instruments and, frankly, to say that any senator who chooses to do his duty and put a contrary opinion to a matter of law or regulation before the Senate defies precedent, defies duty and is an unwarranted slur on the way in which senators conduct themselves. Although my own party is not represented in the House of Representatives, unfortunately, other parties here are, and they take a group view concerning these matters. The Labor Leader of the Opposition in the Senate does not arrive here without having considered the views of the Labor members of the House of Representatives.

But all that is a bit of a distraction. I think the effect of this Remuneration Tribunal determination with regard to these specific clauses is reprehensible both in its individual character and in its accumulative consequence for incumbents. But in my saying that its effect is reprehensible you will have noticed, Mr Acting Deputy President, that in my opening remarks I did not ascribe motive at all to the Remuneration Tribunal.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you didn’t; others did.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to 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.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was in the EM in 2000.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to 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.