<!--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>
    <name>Bills</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Statutes Amendment (Entitlements of Members of Parliament) Bill</name>
      <text id="20100722bbe86f7d3008406ea0000040">
        <heading>STATUTES AMENDMENT (ENTITLEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT) BILL</heading>
      </text>
      <subproceeding>
        <name>Second Reading</name>
        <text id="20100722bbe86f7d3008406ea0000041">
          <heading>Second Reading</heading>
        </text>
        <text id="20100722bbe86f7d3008406ea0000042">Second reading debate resumed.</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="2010-07-22T10:42:00" />
          <text id="20100722bbe86f7d3008406ea0000043">
            <timeStamp time="2010-07-22T10:42:00" />
            <by role="member" id="2819">The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:42):</by>  Thank you, Madam Speaker. I agree with you. I was the Speaker who introduced the policy of acknowledging schools—and I think it is a very important one. What we need is fairness and transparency. We do not want to go back to a situation where MPs determine their own pay and other benefits. As happened recently with local government councillors and mayors, we should put this in the hands of an independent body—the same body that looks at the pay of judges; I do not anticipate we will get the same pay as judges—with access to the research capability to look at what MPs should be paid, what they should get for superannuation, look at their other benefits and remove some anomalies currently affecting serving members of parliament.</text>
          <text id="20100722bbe86f7d3008406ea0000044">The proposed pay rise for federal MPs—hence for us—has been sidelined for a while—because of the election, I gather. My understanding of the proposal is that there has been a change so that, in order to increase the pay of MPs, some of the other benefits will be reduced or removed. That is a sensible approach. I am in the generous superannuation scheme where, ironically, I would get more money if I retired than I do by staying here. Some people ask, 'Well, why are you here?' Well, I am here because I love doing what I do.</text>
          <text id="20100722bbe86f7d3008406ea0000045">There needs to be some changes but, historically, MPs got a higher super to make up for the fact that their pay was not always necessarily at the right level. That is a nonsense. Putting all these financial matters in the hands of an independent tribunal is the way to go. It would be make it clear and transparent. I do not believe the public would have a problem with that. They have a problem with MPs helping themselves directly to taxpayers' money. I commend the bill to the house. It is a fair, sensible measure, and I ask members to support it.</text>
          <text id="20100722bbe86f7d3008406ea0000046">Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.</text>
        </talker>
      </subproceeding>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>