With respect to the third one, I do not believe the government's response in any way suggests that the process was tainted. Personally, I am satisfied with the level of evidence and reasons the government is required to give.
Of course, the government could provide additional details when it says, for example, that it has other economic and social priorities and that these do not jibe with the normal concerns of this type of commission. The latter does, in fact, focus on specific aspects of public spending, such as the policy on compensation for judges.
The government says in its response that it has many other economic and social priorities and that these require it to allocate its budget differently. But how far can we go in terms of what we demand of the government? For example, should the government have to provide pages and pages of detailed explanation of the entire political agenda on which it was elected, and say exactly how the next budget will implement that agenda?
I, personally, am relatively satisfied. I don't really see how the evidence and information the government and Parliament are required to provide as rationale for deviating from or rejecting a recommendation could be more comprehensive. And, of course, we're talking about marginal differences. The commission is proposing compensation of $240,000. The government--for a variety of reasons--is saying that compensation of $230,000 seems reasonable to it under the circumstances. It could provide additional details with respect to its rationale.