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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 5 Hansard (2 May) . . Page.. 1383 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Arbitral decisions made by bodies such as the Remuneration Tribunal, and other independent bodies such as courts and tribunals, are generally not disallowable by the legislature, for very good reason. Such bodies are established specifically to be independent of public service and political processes, not subject to them. The tribunal invites submissions, of course, on all its annual reviews, and bases decisions on the submissions that it receives. Of course, that may include, on occasion, submissions from the office holder whose pay or conditions are being determined by the tribunal. That is quite appropriate. And, of course, they listen to those views, as well as the views of anybody else who comes forward.

Members of the tribunal, of course-at least, traditionally in the ACT's case-have a very strong background of experience in related areas, and that background gives them knowledge about the work that the tribunal has to do.

At 5.00 pm, in accordance with standing order 34, the debate was interrupted. The motion for the adjournment of the Assembly having been put and negatived, the debate was resumed.

MR HUMPHRIES: If we invest in high-quality appointments to the Remuneration Tribunal, if we have members of the tribunal who have experience in related areas of public service, or who have an understanding and knowledge of the way in which work of this kind is done and rewarded in our community, if we trust them enough, in other words, to allow them to take up these appointments on this tribunal in exactly the same way that they serve in equivalent tribunals all over Australia-and probably all over the Western world-why should we then be prepared to reject their decisions by political fiat.

If members of the Assembly wish to contribute to the annual review cycle, they can make submissions. There is little point in making a submission to this independent tribunal, as from time to time members of this place do, hearing what the tribunal has to say, and then deciding, "No, I do not like result. I want some different result." That, it seems to me, is entirely inappropriate. It is as good as the members of the Assembly setting their own remuneration. It has been said that there is never a good time for making favourable adjustments to the remuneration of members of this place, for example. No doubt that is true.

I believe we ought not to be tempted in any situation, however, to make determinations about these things, when a perfectly acceptable, rational and justifiable process exists elsewhere. An independent process is surely in the public interest. If the Assembly intends to amend the act as proposed then, in my view, it would compromise the independence of the tribunal.

Imagine what could happen, Mr Speaker, if the tribunal makes some decisions that are overturned by the Legislative Assembly, particularly where it relates to the pay of members of the Assembly, or the pay of office holders such as senior public servants who work for ministers, ministers themselves, or whoever it might be. The tribunal will begin to make decisions not on the basis of the submissions put before it, and the expert experience that the tribunal members have in this exercise, but on the basis of what their political masters want them to decide.

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