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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 9 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 2662 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

During this exercise some rather unsavoury and unworthy suggestions have been made. For example, it was put to me on one occasion that if I had this motion accepted by the Assembly then all of the staffers of the non-Executive members of this place would be fired.

Technically, if the Chief Minister does not make another determination, there arises the question of how the non-Executive members' staffers are going to be paid. If the Chief Minister, who would have the responsibility under this motion of mine to make another determination, refused to do so, would the 12 non-Executive members of this place sit here dumb and allow that to occur? I have to put it to you that it is incumbent on the non-Executive members of this place, all of whom would be affected if the Chief Minister simply declined to make another determination, to ensure that she did. If some sort of coercive power is being exercised by the Chief Minister or her staff on this matter, they need to be aware that coercive power is a two-edged sword. There is a thing called a motion of no confidence. I am not threatening that such a motion would be moved, but I am simply drawing it to members' attention that if anybody feels threatened that their staffers are not going to be paid because the Chief Minister might decline to make a determination there is always that recourse. Since 12 members of this place would be affected by it, I think 12 beats five any time. If we are getting into the area of coercive power or threat of retribution, then the members of this place have the biggest stick in terms of the power of coercion that exists in this place. I do not think we should allow that sort of rumour mongering to go unchallenged. I do not think we should allow it to be left that somehow we are all going to accept this cudgel and we are all going to sit down and take whatever is handed out to us.

Another possibility floated a little while ago was that if the Assembly, by whatever means, agrees that the four crossbenchers should receive an equal amount of staff salary resources - I would argue that that situation ought to be incontrovertible fact - then three will have their staff salary allowances reduced to allow the fourth one to be brought up to parity. Again, that is a threat of punitive action if people do not come to heel. Again, I do not think that ought to be allowed to pass unchallenged. Some of these things that have been done to damp down the likelihood of any motion such as mine succeeding are unworthy of this place. There is no room, as I have already pointed out, for discriminatory determinations. There is even less room for threat of punitive action if one dares to object to a discriminatory determination.

I just do not think that there is any argument that could counter the proposition that the Chief Minister herself has determined the appropriate quantum for staff salary for crossbenchers. I am - the facts speak for themselves - a crossbencher. On what legitimate grounds does the Chief Minister argue, if she does, that I should not receive the same staff salary allocation as everybody else? There seems to me to be a flaw in the logic.

As I say, I think this is probably an error. If it were other than an error, I do not think we should allow the Chief Minister or any other Minister to use their discretionary powers to reward some members of the Assembly who do what the Minister wants and to punish other members of the Assembly who do not. If that is the basis for the discrimination

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