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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 5 Hansard (2 May) . . Page.. 1387 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

was going to challenge the salaries of politicians, there is a reasonable debate to be had on the matter and people should not be frightened of that either.

There is a huge concern in the community. We are seeing increasing polarisation between the top of the public service and the bottom of the public service, and MLAs clearly have a responsibility to take an interest in issues of comparative wage justice. I think Mr Humphries said that, somehow, we are doing something awful to the Remuneration Tribunal, and taking away its responsibilities.

I think the response here is more about members of the Legislative Assembly refusing to take responsibility for the expenditure of public money when it comes to their own salaries and senior people in the public service. I think that is not particularly good.

As I said, it is not something unusual. It occurs in the federal parliament. I think it is quite unsatisfactory that people here want to keep separate from those decisions.

I remember Mrs Carnell saying that she would write a submission to say, "No, it is not the right time for a pay rise" but, if the Remuneration Tribunal had said, "Well, you are getting one anyway," we would have been powerless to do anything about it. So the government of the day has the political view that it is not okay and expresses it.

However, this other group, the Remuneration Tribunal, will have the right to override that political will, which is informed by the government of the day, which understands the budgetary pressures of the day in the community. We have no chance to even move disallowance, as we do in so many other pieces of legislation where we have serious issues of consequence. It is just about accountability and, I would say, democracy, but I see the numbers are not there, so that is how it is.

Question put:

 Ayes, 1  		Noes, 12

 Ms Tucker    	Mr Berry  	Mr Quinlan
     		Mrs Burke  	Mr Rugendyke
     		Mr Corbell  	Mr Smyth
     		Mr Cornwell  	Mr Stefaniak
     		Mr Hargreaves  	Mr Wood
     		Mr Humphries   
     		Mr Moore

Question so resolved in the negative.

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