Page 2621 - Week 09 - Thursday, 8 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Assembly. I think it would be fair to say - I speak on behalf, I am sure, of almost everyone here - that many people here made a financial sacrifice in order to be here. That should not be necessary. One basic thing that we can do is to ensure an adequate level of remuneration and expenses.
I want to dwell on one point. One basic requirement in this day and age is not only adequate - adequate, not princely - levels of remuneration but also a bedrock level of superannuation. This is now a necessary part of a parliamentary remuneration. I very much regret that the Remuneration Tribunal has not seen fit to insist on a basic superannuation plan for parliamentarians. They deserve it; it is their right. It is now an Australian norm, which is very much upheld by the Labor Party, to have superannuation for all workers. The Labor Party, in particular, has a commitment to every worker to ensure that he or she is covered by superannuation.
We in this Assembly are a special kind of worker. I am happy to know that the 17 of us who, as MLAs, are workers in this place can expect our Labor Government to introduce that safety net in the very near future. I would like to see it next week. May we hope that it will be on our agenda in this chamber within a few days. I ask them to take this matter very much to heart. It is part of the case I am making if we wish to go out to the community and say, "I know that it is difficult to be in politics, but at the very least you have some kind of bedrock financial support".
So, Mr Stevenson, I have to repudiate what I have to see as a short-sighted view, as represented by your MPI today. I see the popularity of it, and I can see that lots of people would say, "We do not want those people to be paid". I believe that we have a task to help those people to see that for their long-range benefit we need very high levels of financial security for the people who join us here. I plead for the healthy future of this Assembly to which no-one is deterred from seeking to be elected merely by a low level of remuneration.
Most people are not living such an austere life as you. I commend that; I think that is your legitimate choice. We recognise your commitment to fitness, austerity and so forth; that is your choice. I stand here rather obviously not part of that. Many of us have families; some of us have large to largish families which consist of dependent students. I am very aware of it this week. For one of a total of four courses one student who is well known to me has to pay $150 for the textbooks. (Extension of time granted)
I have to tell Mr Stevenson that a first-class economist, accountant or lawyer with two, three or four dependent students can be in or remain in this Assembly only if the family, not the individual, accepts a sacrifice. So, please, Mr Stevenson, give up this crusade which hampers
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .