Brown v West [1990] HCA 7

High Court of Australia Mason C.J. Brennan, Deane, Dawson and Toohey JJ. Brown v West [1990] HCA 7

ORDER Demurrer allowed.

Cur. adv. vult.

The Court delivered the following written judgment:—

March 1 Mason C.J., Brennan, Deane, Dawson and Toohey JJ.

The plaintiff is a member of the House of Representatives and is described in the statement of claim as "the member of the Federal Opposition generally responsible for matters pertaining to the laws of the Commonwealth." He brings proceedings to challenge the validity of a decision of the first defendant, the Minister of State of the Commonwealth for Administrative Services ("the Minister"), and of other members of the Government, to increase the postage entitlement for Senators and Members of the House of Representatives above the amount determined by the Remuneration Tribunal under the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 Cth.

The pleadings show that the Minister for Industrial Relations (who is the Minister administering the Remuneration Tribunal Act) by letter dated 9 June 1988 requested the Tribunal to inquire into and determine or report on certain specified matters in relation to members of the Parliament, including "Postage". By Determination No. 18 of 1988 the Tribunal determined that matter with effect from 1 January 1989, and by Determination No. 23 of 1988 the Tribunal varied the original determination. Both determinations were duly laid before the Parliament and no resolution disapproving either determination was passed. The critical part of the original determination, unaffected by the variation, reads as follows:

A senator or member shall, for parliamentary or electorate business but not for party business, be provided with a Postal Credit Card which may be used for the following purposes up to a total expenditure of $9,000 per year. In August 1989 (as pleaded in the amended defence), "the First Defendant and other members of the Government" (presumably, the Ministers of the Government) decided to increase the postage entitlements of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives (hereafter "members of the Parliament") above the entitlement so determined, but subject to the terms set out in the Tribunal's determinations. The decision, if valid, increased the amount of the postage entitlement in the case of Senators, by indexing the existing entitlement to movements in the standard mailing rate and, in the case of Members of the House of Representatives, by increasing the existing entitlement according to a formula which resulted in the sum of $9,000 being increased to $30,525 indexed to movements in the standard mailing rate. The plaintiff claims declarations, inter alia, that the Minister had no power to alter the existing postage entitlement or to apply the public moneys of the Commonwealth in providing an increased postage allowance. The same relief is claimed against the Commonwealth.