Page 2174 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 6 June 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Magistrates' Salaries
DR KINLOCH: Mr Speaker, just over a week ago there were announcements about very considerable salary rises for some politicians in some parts of the Australian political system, and also for some judges and people in the public service. One group that seems not to have received that pay rise is the ACT magistrates. Could the Attorney-General, to whom I address this question, explain the situation to us? What might the consequences be?
MR COLLAERY: I thank Dr Kinloch for the question. This is probably the first "dorothy duck" that has ever been asked. My response is that the Federal Minister for Industrial Relations, Senator Cook, made a submission and prepared a Bill for Parliament last week which, in effect, overruled the recommendations of the Remuneration Tribunal with respect to magistrates' salaries. The tribunal itself had accepted arguments put forward and supported by this Government which would have given the Chief Magistrate 80 per cent of the salary of the Chief Justice and the other magistrates 75 per cent of the judges' salaries. That attempt to link the two was a natural progression from policies that the tribunal has endorsed quite often in other contexts.
The decision by the Federal Government to simply overturn the recommendations of the Remuneration Tribunal must cause the tribunal itself some concern, although I do not wish to comment upon the likely reaction of the chairman, Mr Justice Mahoney. Clearly, that was a slap in the face to the tribunal by the Federal Government, which legislated out the expected pay rise for our magistrates.
Since the Federal Government had given some guarantees for continued funding in relation to salary levels for the magistrates, we are yet to determine - and I have yet to meet with the relevant Federal Ministers, the Attorney-General and the Minister for Industrial Relations - whether the Bill that was introduced to the Federal Parliament was really meant to stop the ACT getting that additional funding base before we take over the magistrates court on 1 July 1990. It is a matter of concern and I am grateful that Dr Kinloch raised the question today.
China Support Group
MR MOORE: My question is actually directed to Mr Collaery in his capacity, at this stage, of Acting Chief Minister. Last night, after the power failure, he called on the Federal Labor Government to take action and show some concern for Chinese students in Australia. I think it is reasonable to say that he was quite harsh in his judgment of the Federal Labor Government and how it responded.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .