Page 1355 - Week 07 - Thursday, 24 August 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Chief Minister gave as the two reasons the consultancy was not acceptable insurance and tax minimisation. Why the insurance is not a valid point is that, as is well known, insurance is handled by and is the responsibility of the consultancy.
The Australian Capital Territory standard contract for supply of personnel, the Department of Art, Sports, the Environment, Tourism and Territories Office of the ACT Administration standard conditions of contract for consultant services, and the general conditions of contracts for consultancy services all say that the responsibility is not with the ACT; it is with the consultancy. So the suggestion that that is a problem is invalid.
The second factor was concerns of tax minimisation. There are three reasons that demonstrate that this statement has no basis in fact. The first is that the ACT Administration frequently - as we all fully understand, and the point should not have to be made - uses consultants. The second is that the Chief Minister has a Bill before this house, and in all probability it will be debated today, which would allow her the use of consultants without any concern for insurances or tax minimisation, and certainly insurances are covered, as they would be in any staff contract where a consultancy is used. The third point is that tax minimisation is legal. If ever the law came in that one was responsible for tax maximisation of one's affairs, the vast numbers of bankruptcies we have in Australia at this time would result in the demise of free enterprise as we know it.
I ask no favours for the Abolish Self Government Coalition and expect none. I simply ask for fair dealings from this Assembly. Over two months ago, in a letter I sent to the Chief Minister on this matter, I said at the end of it, "I do not wish to make this an issue". It was not until the Chief Minister, through her control of the Treasury, effectively stopped the payment to my consultancy that I had to take some action.
The matter of whether or not a party in this Assembly should be able to determine how it best uses the staff allocation on behalf of the party and its constituents should be determined by the party, not by some other party in control of this Assembly. If I so choose to save the taxpayers money by using a consultancy, that should be my business, as it should be for any other member in this Assembly.
I would ask that members allow both parts of the motion, firstly that the salary entitlement be increased to what I would term 1.5 or the $46,000-odd that I mentioned in the motion, and secondly to grant to all members in this house the right to use a consultancy until such time as the matter is clarified within the LA(MS) Bill.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .