Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 11 Hansard (14 December) . . Page.. 3027 ..

MS FOLLETT (continuing):

The Commonwealth Remuneration Tribunal has served the Territory well, in my opinion, since the introduction of self-government and it has done so at no cost. That, to me, is a major consideration. The Commonwealth Remuneration Tribunal also has expertise in the market rates paid to public sector workers throughout Australia. Mrs Carnell has put forward as part of the rationale for the creation of a separate tribunal that we need a body which does have expertise in the market rates. Well, the Commonwealth tribunal does have that expertise. It has been determining the salaries of senior public servants in the Australian Public Service, and it is also seen by the Canberra community as a fair and independent arbitrator in determining remuneration. In particular, it has been seen as an impartial umpire in deciding the salaries for MLAs. I think that is something that we should all bear in mind. I think that is possibly because it has been seen to be independent of the ACT government. We have never at any stage been seen to be setting our own salaries. If we create our own body which does that, there could well be a perception in the community that that is what we are trying to do. I just caution members opposite about that feature of what they are proposing.

I think we have been fortunate that the salaries of MLAs, generally speaking, have not been subject to the divisive and counterproductive debates that we have seen elsewhere in Australia. Also, we have not seen, significantly, the posturing that has occurred elsewhere about disallowing increases for MLAs. We did have Mr Stevenson attempting to posture, and the Greens, I think, were a bit inclined to go that way but have not really persisted with it. Mr Speaker, it is a fact that many of us who took our seats in this place or who stood for election to this place in the very earliest days of self-government were completely unaware of what, if any, salary might be paid. Mr Kaine will well remember this, as will you, Mr Speaker. When we stood for election initially there could have been no salary whatsoever; there could have been a part-time salary, or merely an allowance; or there could have been a reasonable remuneration. We did not know. But it was not the salary that motivated us to come to this place.

In the event, the salary that was set was, I think, reasonable, or a bit on the low side. It was obviously a wait and see type of arrangement until the Remuneration Tribunal had been able to assess the actual workings of this Assembly and the work that was involved in our representing our electors. I think the Remuneration Tribunal that has done the task for us as MLAs has done so in a very responsible manner, and in a manner that does reflect what has been occurring throughout Australia. I think it is very important that they retain that objectivity, but it is even more important that they retain the community's confidence in that objectivity. I, for one, am most unhappy to think of our creating our own body to set our salaries.

Mr Speaker, I would like to refer briefly to the Public Accounts Committee report. We did examine, albeit very briefly indeed, the Remuneration Tribunal Bill that the Government has brought forward. The Public Accounts Committee recommended that the views of the Commonwealth Government and the Commonwealth Remuneration Tribunal should be sought, and that those views ought to be considered before the Assembly considered the Government's Bills further. At this stage I am not aware that the Government has done that. In evidence offered to the Public Accounts Committee there was no sign put forward that the Remuneration Tribunal or the Commonwealth had been consulted on this matter.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .