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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 9 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 2714 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

The fact of the matter is that the basis for the increased salary allowances for Independent and crossbench members has always been that they are part of a deal. We need not be ashamed of that. We need not hide it either. You should ask yourself what the proper way to work out the staff salary allocation or the proper way to work out the responsibilities of members is. The only proper way that is available to us is the way that our salaries are determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. The Remuneration Tribunal say the Chief Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, Ministers and other people around the place are worth a certain amount. As is the case with wages and salaries across the country, they look at the position and they come up with a picture about the responsibilities of individual members. Has that ever been used as a basis for staff salary allocation here? No, never, because that does not suit the politics of the place.

Let us not deny that deals are done. They are deals which make governments comfortable, and that is why they are done. I will bet that Mr Moore, in his application to get a more expensive motor vehicle, never said to the Chief Minister, "I am worried about where the money will come from". I will bet that Mr Osborne, in his application to the Chief Minister for a bigger motor car, did not say, "I am worried about where the money will come from". I will bet that Mr Rugendyke, in his application to the Chief Minister for a bigger motor car, never said, "I am worried about where the money will come from". But all of a sudden some are worrying about it now. Mr Moore is worrying about it now in respect of other people.

This issue arises because Mr Kaine offended his cohorts in the Liberal Party and there was a backlash, quite a vindictive one. It is not in my interests or the Labor Party's interests to increase Trevor Kaine's staff salary allocation - quite the contrary. When I put my motion on the notice paper, I felt so strongly about the unfairness. That is why I put my motion. I thought the matter was worth pursuing. I regret that I had not put it on the notice paper earlier. I must say that I lost sight of the day by which a disallowance motion had to be moved. I have to admit to a bit of a muck-up in timing there. That is why Mr Kaine has had to put his motion forward. Of course yesterday was an extremely busy day in private members business, and we might not have got to it. That motion has nothing to do with this debate. This is not my motion. This is Mr Kaine's motion. Let us stop that nonsense.

I go back to Mr Humphries' comments earlier. He was lamenting the fact that this matter had been raised in the Assembly. Nobody, I guess, wants to have this debate about staff salary allocations out in the open, because it can get to the point where you describe the full history of these matters. Some people would be embarrassed at that because of the deals that have been done - deals that have been kept quiet, but nevertheless deals that have been done. The deals were done to keep the Government comfortable. I do not recall ever a hue and cry amongst the people who did these deals, worrying about where the money would come from.

Mr Osborne said a moment ago that he was going to offer some of his staff salary allocations and that everybody else should too. What he did not do was ask his staff whether they minded some of their salary allocation being given away in this most generous and political way. No, of course he did not. Neither did he ask any other

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