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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 11 Hansard (14 December) . . Page.. 3030 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

We are moving further away from the Commonwealth. We are progressively developing our own requirements and I think the point would have been reached ultimately anyway where the Commonwealth would have sought to transfer responsibility for this sort of matter to the ACT. I am not aware of other jurisdictions it provides this kind of service for, and I think the time will come. We are proactively establishing that service ourselves, rather than waiting for that point to be reached.

To answer another point made by Ms Follett, I do not believe, Mr Speaker, that the proposal will generate excessive costs. The legislation provides for a tribunal of up to three members, but there is specific provision in the legislation for a single member to sit as the tribunal. The Government believes the tribunal will require probably no more than one part-time member, and that, I think, is a very lean and cost-effective model. The Northern Territory tribunal has run along similar lines for some 15 years. I do not believe there is any problem with the way in which it has operated, or any criticism within the Northern Territory, even from the Opposition there, about the model that they use. This Bill calls for annual reviews of remuneration. This occurs under the Commonwealth legislation as well. Reviews will not automatically lead to increases in remuneration. Again, these arrangements are similar to those operating successfully in the Northern Territory.

There was some concern in the Public Accounts Committee about the remuneration of judges, Mr Speaker. Because our current Supreme Court judges also hold appointments as Federal Court judges, their remuneration is of necessity set by the Commonwealth, and the Bill reflects that. Where future judges do not hold Federal Court appointments, we believe that it is important for the ACT tribunal to be able to consider appropriate remuneration for those judges. In taking this step there is a possibility that the remuneration of judges who hold a single commission for the Supreme Court will differ from that of a Supreme Court judge who holds a second commission for the Federal Court. If this occurs the reason will be that the Remuneration Tribunal has duly considered the issue, has weighed up all the relevant issues, and has decided that because of the difference in the commissions held by the judges the work of the two sorts of judges in that court is different and that there needs to be some difference in remuneration. I would not expect that to be the case. I would expect the Remuneration Tribunal to provide for remuneration at the same level to judges, whether they hold dual commissions or they do not, because judges in those circumstances are pretty well equally busy; but that is a matter for the tribunal.

It is not an issue that we are saying should be automatically decided now. It needs to be decided by the appropriate body. Indeed, there is no reason that the Commonwealth tribunal would not make a similar decision in the same circumstances if it had the capacity to decide for ACT judges who were not also Federal Court judges. The possibility of such a difference occurring, Mr Speaker, is no reason to decide that remuneration for ACT judges should be tied for all time to Commonwealth determinations for the Federal Court. The ACT Remuneration Tribunal proposed in this Bill is an important final step in the gradual transition to self-government and it reflects the reality that we are no longer a part of the Commonwealth public sector.

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