Page 2153 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 28 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
and that would appear to be the case. I do not know whether it is an attitude of government to have a tight-fisted approach to the Assembly or whether the case is not being articulated appropriately, but it seems to be the constant message with members’ resources and the like. I have been in the workforce in a full-time capacity for 37 years and I cannot recall anywhere else I have ever worked, except for myself, where I am putting my hand in my pocket to subsidise my work. I find that morally unacceptable. I am possibly a little bit better off than some, and may be in a position to do so, but that ought not to have anything to do with it. I find it extraordinary that I am doing this all the time, simply because I think certain things ought to be met.
I know there is a complicated overlap between the entitlements of members and the role of the remuneration tribunal and the administration of the Assembly. For example, I recently attended a critical conference in Sydney that my leader and some of my colleagues were at that dealt with a number of contemporary issues related to my portfolio. It had speakers not only of the highest calibre nationally but arguably world-class speakers, and there was a similar conference last year. But there is some strange rule where you cannot have your staff attend and have that covered. So I found myself paying them money for their hotel costs and meals out of my pocket. I am not about to put the begging bowl out there, but I find it extraordinary in 2007, for a government that is so preoccupied with workers’ rights and entitlements, that we have this Dickensian approach where basically employees cannot be accommodated or compensated appropriately to do their jobs, so their boss has to hand over money. It reflects very poorly on this establishment and it ought to be addressed, but you see it in a host of areas.
I talk to people in other parliaments—advisers and politicians—and they really are quite bewildered about the state of affairs here. I know we are a smaller parliament, there are only a third of a million people here—and some people say places like Tasmania are overgoverned and so forth—but there is a point we need to get to that we are not at at the moment. For example, you cannot get Sky News, which is the one national 24-hour news service, to keep abreast of issues nationally but I can get it at home. You do not have the capacity to print anything out in colour unless you get your own printer or have some arrangement as we have with our leader where you can bring down your cartridge. It is really extraordinary the way it functions.
When I cite some of these to people outside here they are absolutely bewildered. I was talking to a couple of federal MPs recently and I said our DOA was until recently about six, and one of them said “Yeah, well 60 grand is not much. It will not cover much of the electorate”. I said “No, $6,000.” I could not even write to my constituents once throughout my term on issues of relevance to them with that amount of money. There are many areas there that need attention. Paper is now being wound out. We cannot use DVDs for recording material that we need for our work. I think the allowances are completely and utterly inadequate.
I have talked to the Chief Minister about this. I do not know whether he will put this view on the record, but I believe he shares my concern about some of these matters—although he is in a position to do something about it and I am not. But I believe we have this underlying almost embarrassment in the ACT that we have self-government. We have to get over that. I am not embarrassed about self-government. We proclaim
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .