House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Parliamentary Remuneration (Basic Salary) Amendment Bill PARLIAMENTARY REMUNERATION (BASIC SALARY) AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 29 March 2012.) The Hon. I.F. EVANS House of Assembly Davenport The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (11:04): The Parliamentary Remuneration (Basic Salary) Amendment Bill results from a long process that the federal government went through to ensure that the salaries of federal MPs were set at a fair and market rate for the work that being a federal MP entailed. The issue of MPs' salaries and entitlements has always been a difficult one in the interests of public debate. The federal government decided that it would put in place a process that required the federal Remuneration Tribunal to look at federal salaries and then make a recommendation to the parliament, and the legislation was amended so that the parliament could not reject whatever salary the federal Remuneration Tribunal came down with. The reason the federal parliament did that is that it has long been recognised that MPs' entitlements are a difficult matter for MPs to debate. In fact, in this chamber back in the 1980s, and in the Legislative Council, a decision was taken to link the salaries of state MPs to the salaries of federal MPs for that very reason: that the issue of MPs' salaries was one that attracted a lot of comment, whether it was informed or not. When the federal Remuneration Tribunal brought down its finding in the last six months or so, the effect was to increase the pay structure of federal MPs (backbenchers) up to around $185,000 from the figure at the time of a touch under $141,000. In the 1980s, when the parliament in this state first connected the state salaries to the federal salaries, the gap was $500. Then, under the Brown government, the gap was increased to $2,000, and now, under this government, the gap is going to be increased to around $42,000. This bill effectively maintains the nexus but at a much higher rate. Essentially, state MPs under this bill will receive a salary increase of 2.9 per cent, and the nexus at that point will, as I say, have a gap of around $42,000 between state and federal MPs. Under the federal Remuneration Tribunal, federal MPs also no longer have to pay for their cars, which is a $700 a year saving if that recommendation is picked up; state MPs will pay $7,000 for their cars. So federal backbenchers are near enough at least $50,000 a year better off than state backbenchers. Of course, federal ministers who get a loading of 75 per cent would get—what is 75 per cent of $50,000?—another $20,000 or $30,000 on top of that. So, federal ministers are probably $85,000 better off than state ministers. The state government has decided that that is the view. We note that these matters are ultimately decided by state cabinet. The opposition has no questions on the bill and we have no further speakers. The Hon. J.J. SNELLING House of Assembly Playford Minister for Workers Rehabilitation Minister for Defence Industries Minister for Veterans' Affairs The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Treasurer, Minister for Workers Rehabilitation, Minister for Defence Industries, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (11:09): I thank the opposition for its bipartisanship on this question; it is always a difficult question regarding members' salaries. I do point out that, with the decision of the Remuneration Tribunal in the federal jurisdiction for members of parliament, part of that pay rise was offset by a number of allowances and other benefits being rolled into the basic salary. It is always difficult to compare like with like with federal and state members of parliament because of the differences in the non-salaried benefits we get, but I think this is a reasonable compromise. It also addresses the concerns of the community at the moment. We are calling for wage restraint, and I will certainly be calling for wage restraint at budget time amongst public sector workers. I think now would not be a good time for there to be a significant pay rise for members of parliament while at the same time the government is calling for wage restraint amongst our public sector workers. I thank the opposition for its support of the bill, and I look forward to its speedy passage. Bill read a second time. Third Reading Third Reading The Hon. J.J. SNELLING House of Assembly Playford Minister for Workers Rehabilitation Minister for Defence Industries Minister for Veterans' Affairs The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Treasurer, Minister for Workers Rehabilitation, Minister for Defence Industries, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (11:10): I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Bill read a third time and passed.