<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>House of Assembly</name>
  <date date="2010-07-22" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>52</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>1</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>House of Assembly</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="1019" />
  <endPage num="1082" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Bills</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Statutes Amendment (Entitlements of Members of Parliament) Bill</name>
      <text id="20100722bb68583d0d094df0b0000027">
        <heading>STATUTES AMENDMENT (ENTITLEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT) BILL</heading>
      </text>
      <subproceeding>
        <name>Introduction and First Reading</name>
        <text id="20100722bb68583d0d094df0b0000028">
          <heading>Introduction and First Reading</heading>
        </text>
        <talker role="member" id="2819" kind="speech">
          <name>The Hon. R.B. SUCH</name>
          <house>House of Assembly</house>
          <electorate id="">Fisher</electorate>
          <startTime time="2010-07-22T10:39:00" />
          <text id="20100722bb68583d0d094df0b0000029">
            <timeStamp time="2010-07-22T10:39:00" />
            <by role="member" id="2819">The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:39):</by>  Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 1990; the Parliamentary Superannuation Act 1974; and the Remuneration Act 1990. Read a first time.</text>
        </talker>
      </subproceeding>
      <subproceeding>
        <name>Second Reading</name>
        <text id="20100722bb68583d0d094df0b0000030">
          <heading>Second Reading</heading>
        </text>
        <talker role="member" id="2819" kind="speech">
          <name>The Hon. R.B. SUCH</name>
          <house>House of Assembly</house>
          <electorate id="">Fisher</electorate>
          <startTime time="2010-07-22T10:39:00" />
          <text id="20100722bb68583d0d094df0b0000031">
            <timeStamp time="2010-07-22T10:39:00" />
            <by role="member" id="2819">The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:39):</by>  I move:</text>
          <text id="20100722bb68583d0d094df0b0000032">
            <inserted>That this bill be now read a second time.</inserted>
          </text>
          <text continued="true" id="20100722bb68583d0d094df0b0000033">What this bill does, in essence, is put members' pay, allowances, superannuation and other entitlements in the hands of an independent tribunal. I believe this should have happened a long time ago. As members would know, we have a funny arrangement where our pay is linked to federal MPs who are then linked to a band of public servants. What we also have is a mixture of superannuation entitlements for members of parliament.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="3121" kind="interjection">
          <name>Mr Pengilly</name>
          <house>House of Assembly</house>
          <text id="20100722bb68583d0d094df0b0000034">
            <by role="member" id="3121">Mr Pengilly: </by> You've got a good one, Bob; you're in the best.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="2819" kind="speech" continued="true">
          <name>The Hon. R.B. SUCH</name>
          <house>House of Assembly</house>
          <text id="20100722bb68583d0d094df0b0000035">
            <by role="member" id="2819">The Hon. R.B. SUCH: </by> I am in the good one. And I argue that the current arrangements are unfair because some members get a lot better deal than others for doing the same work. I would think it is a common standard principle that you get the same remuneration for doing the same work. Members who have been elected in recent times suffer from the political grandstanding of Mark Latham who, ironically, went out on his generous super, but the newer members in here have been short changed.</text>
          <text id="20100722bb68583d0d094df0b0000036">Rather than we in here getting involved in determining allowances and pay, and so on, I think it is appropriate that it be done by the independent tribunal. We have one so we do not have to create one. The remuneration tribunal already exists. I think it is appropriate that that body look at all these allowances, superannuation and pay to determine what is appropriate. Members would be aware that in the media today there is a report about a proposed pay rise for federal MPs that would then flow onto us.</text>
        </talker>
      </subproceeding>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>