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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 5 Hansard (2 May) . . Page.. 1382 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

aspects of this bill. The bill excludes virtually everyone with practical and relevant knowledge about ACT public administration from being a member of the Remuneration Tribunal.

Mr Speaker, the quest to avoid conflict of interest, or perceived conflict of interest, in this case goes much too far. The provisions are unrealistic and unreasonable, and I think that, if they were passed, they would seriously limit the competence of the tribunal in the future. The bill disqualifies past territory employees of any description, anyone who worked as a consultant for the territory, former MLAs, any office holder whose remuneration was set by the tribunal, and so on, from serving on the tribunal.

I have to say that Ms Tucker's bill also calls into question the integrity of current tribunal members, and the way they carry out their independent role. I think those members do fall under the terms of Ms Tucker's bill and, under those provisions, some if not all of them would be disqualified from holding the positions that they now hold on the remuneration tribunal. I am not sure why we should view people of the kind who currently serve on our Remuneration Tribunal in that way.

We have been fortunate in having substantial stability in the tribunal's membership. There have been only four appointments since the tribunal was created in 1996, and in that time those people have built up a substantial body of knowledge about the ACT public sector, and what amounts to fair remuneration for office holders within that system. As a result of these proposed amendments, it is quite possible that some or all of the current members would be disqualified, as I understand that all either currently hold or have held other ACT board positions that fall into one of the categories excluded in the bill.

The stated goal of the amendment is enhancing the independence of the tribunal, but I think the proposal would have the opposite effect. Excluding those with previous ACT experience ignores the critical issue of attracting the best people for the tribunal.

The other issue to which the bill gives rise is the question of disallowance of the decisions made by the Remuneration Tribunal. Having cleaned up the tribunal, which I suppose is what Ms Tucker was trying to do, having ensured that members were patently without any conflict of interest or any affection towards the ACT public service, or people who might hold office in the ACT public service, apparently, the bill goes on to provide for politicians to have the power to enter into decision-making process about Remuneration Tribunal processes and decisions.

It would seem to me that the whole point of having an independent tribunal is to remove the question of remuneration for public officials, and indeed members of this place, from the public arena. While this bill, in setting the terms of membership of the tribunal, strives for a highly apolitical goal-in fact a structure of the tribunal that is divorced from the possibility of external or inappropriate influence-it goes to precisely the opposite end of the spectrum with the next amendment in the bill by requiring that politicians step in and make decisions about the tribunal process and the decisions that the tribunal makes.

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