Senator FAULKNER (Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (2:18 PM) —My question is directed to Senator Alston as Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is the Acting Leader of the Government aware that the Managing Director of the Commonwealth Bank, Mr Murray, has recently called for the government to be more sympathetic to senior corporate executives with company share options? Given that according to the Commonwealth Bank's annual report Mr Murray received a salary package of $2 million plus for the year ended 30 June 2000, and that he owns CBA shares worth $4 million plus as well as share options worth in excess of $50 million, how much sympathy does the government believe executives like Mr Murray deserve? Just how many hundreds of Commonwealth Bank branches does he have to close, how many staff does he have to sack, how many workplace agreements does he have to sabotage to earn public sympathy about the tax treatment of his own Commonwealth Bank shares and options scheme?

Senator ALSTON (Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) —This is certainly right out of Central Casting for the left wing of the Labor Party. You absolutely detest anyone who earns a living. I do not know why you are so ungrateful. Most of you lot wouldn't earn a quid out in the real world. Here you are, being well looked after—

Opposition senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT —Order! There is too much noise on my left, and I draw your attention to the question, Senator.

Senator ALSTON —I didn't see Mr Murray's comments but I would assume that he was not talking about himself. He was talking about—

The PRESIDENT —Senator Carr, cease shouting.

Senator ALSTON —The way the question was expressed was that he said that share options should be given more sympathetic consideration. Senator Faulkner chooses to say that he was talking about his own personal situation. I would presume quite the contrary. I would presume that he was more concerned to ensure that not just employees of the Commonwealth Bank but employees generally were in a position where they were able to get some rewards for their commitment and their level of endeavour. In other words, he was concerned to see people rewarded on the basis of productivity gains. We know you want to squeeze them all down, that you want them to get a flat rate level of income.

Opposition senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Conroy and Senator Carr, you have both been sitting there shouting during this answer. Your behaviour is totally unacceptable.

Senator ALSTON —Share options are a very important and highly legitimate means of rewarding employees. Indeed, you will find that that is one of the single most important reasons why Silicon Valley is so successful. Many people will actually forgo decent wage levels for the sake of getting the opportunity to participate in a start-up. That, I assume, is part of what Mr Murray was talking about. He may also have been anticipating the review coming out of the House of Representatives committee on employee share ownership schemes. Again, I think he was making the point that you ought to reward people for their contributions, give them a stake in the enterprise and enable them to take advantage of it. I do not accept for a moment that he was saying that he personally was disadvantaged but he would like a lot more. I know that is the way you would like to play it. I know you will put out all those newsletters, I know that you will get up at branch meetings—

Senator Carr —You can't get much more than $52 million. How much does he want?

The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Carr, you have been interjecting persistently, and that is disorderly behaviour. If I thought it was wilful, it would be different.

Senator ALSTON —His problem is he cannot help himself; and neither, I suspect, can Senator Faulkner. This is the very sort of issue that the Labor Party finds irresistible: the politics of envy. It is simply a matter of pointing to a few high flyers. Why do they say that there is a tall poppy syndrome in Australia? Because of people like Senator Faulkner, who bitterly resent the fact that some people are actually very successful. On the one hand you talk about the brain drain, never concerned that you might have to pay going market rates to ensure that you are able to attract the best to this country—and we do, by and large. The CEOs of this country are at a pretty high level. But of course they would not be if you got your chance and you wanted to scrap all those incentive schemes. I acknowledge the fact that there is a very deep political divide here. It is one that we welcome. I am indebted to Senator Faulkner for simply underlining the fact that Labor's commitment is to ensure that ordinary workers do not get the productivity gains reflected in their increased pay packets, and that those who speak out on their behalf are silenced or intimidated, or basically put down as earning far too much for the likes of those who could barely earn a living if they were not in this chamber. I think you ought to go back and have a look at what Mr Murray really said. I will do that, but I certainly have not heard anything to date that would persuade me that there is any validity in the criticism.

Senator FAULKNER —Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank Senator Alston for his glowing defence of the underdog in this instance. But, Minister, given that Mr Murray has presided over the ramping up of bank fees by hundreds of millions of dollars and the denial of a decent salary increase for Commonwealth Bank staff, how much sympathy does the government believe Mr Murray has shown to rural and regional banking customers whose branches have been closed, small businesses and pensioners who have borne the brunt of fee increases and, lastly, his own staff, who through their meagre wages have allowed Mr Murray to earn an annual salary package of $2 million plus, with shares and options laid on?

Senator ALSTON (Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) —As all of my colleagues are acutely aware, you lot privatised the Commonwealth Bank. You were the one that went down this path with your ears pinned back because you knew at the time that it was actually a very good way of getting it active in the marketplace.

Senator ALSTON —I find it useful to have on the record today from Senator Faulkner that, one, the Labor Party in government would set the level of fees for senior executives. I find that a useful policy commitment. I also find it very useful that he is in favour of determining where the branches open and where the branches close. That is also a very helpful comment because I think you will find that most major companies in this country will be—

The PRESIDENT —Senator Faulkner, this is your question.

Senator ALSTON —very encouraged to hear that that is your approach. It is not our approach. We have made very clear we—

The PRESIDENT —Order!

Senator Faulkner —That's right. I'd like him to answer the question.

The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Faulkner, you should not be continuing to shout all the way through.

Senator Faulkner —I want him to answer the question.

The PRESIDENT —It is unlikely you would hear if he did.

Senator ALSTON —And it also unlikely it would make any difference if he did, Madam President. We have made it very clear we are concerned to maintain the level of services in rural and regional Australia. We believe there is a sympathetic understanding of that issue amongst all those corporations and other entities that are trading out there in the bush. But the one thing they do not want is the spectre of someone like—

The PRESIDENT —Order! The time for answering has terminated, minister.

Senator ALSTON —Senator Faulkner coming in and making this sort of draconian policy commitment.

The PRESIDENT —Senator Alston, you should sit down as soon as the time expires.