Page 2625 - Week 09 - Thursday, 8 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Until that point, in February this year, I do not believe that the Remuneration Tribunal had accepted that this is a full-time job. I regard it as a significant breakthrough that that point was made forcefully to it and appears to have been accepted by it.
As a result of submissions and discussions, the Remuneration Tribunal made a determination on 10 May, which was not conveyed to me until quite late in June, which provided for the increases that are now the subject of Mr Stevenson's debate. In making that determination, the tribunal noted that the increases had taken into account a review of the workload and responsibilities of members and a general raising of the artificially depressed remuneration of members of parliament throughout Australia. They are the factors that they took into account in arriving at this determination. I think it would be appropriate for members, and anyone else who is interested, to read the full determination, because it really is an excellent case to support what the Remuneration Tribunal has done on this occasion.
To summarise, I believe that it is appropriate that our remuneration should be set by an independent and expert body, which has been the case. I repeat that this Assembly or the Government does not have the power to disallow the determination; that is a fact. I believe that it has been a very long and detailed process carried on over some two-and-a-half years to get to the level of remuneration that we have arrived at now, and I believe that the level we have arrived at now can in no way be regarded as excessive.
Members of the Assembly have all had the chance to put their views. They are all aware of the processes which have taken place and which continue to take place to set the levels of remuneration for Assembly members. Mr Stevenson has apparently not taken advantage of those processes, although he knew that they were being undertaken. He has been accepting the salary and the increased levels of salary, and I say again that he is under no obligation to do so. I believe that he is grandstanding on this issue. I think the amount of interest in it as an issue is amply demonstrated by the state of the visitors gallery. I think that yet again Mr Stevenson is desperately casting about for a populist issue on which he can make some sort of headway with the ACT community. Well, this is not it.
MRS GRASSBY (4.02): Mr Deputy Speaker, I agree with my leader that Mr Stevenson is grandstanding. He is a fraud. He says that he does not believe in this place; but, if that is so, why is he here?
Mr Stevenson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: Is that acceptable parliamentary language?
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: It probably is not, Mr Stevenson. I would ask Mrs Grassby to withdraw the word "fraud".
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .