Parliamentary Remuneration (Determination of Remuneration) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 22 September 2015.)

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (11:12): I rise to speak to the second reading of the Parliamentary Remuneration (Determination of Remuneration) Amendment Bill 2015. I commence by saying that it comes as no surprise to the Greens that this bill has been listed with some urgency to be passed this week.

I commence with that observation and I also wish to reflect a little on the contribution made by the Hon. Rob Lucas last night in relation to this because he makes the point correctly that at least this time the government and opposition have followed the basic principle of this house that we do not vote on a bill in the same sitting week that it is introduced unless there is a consensus to do so. That puts this bill at odds with previous bills before the parliament to increase or vary the pay and conditions of members of parliament.

But I am not indebted to the Hon. Rob Lucas for reminding us that the proper process is being followed because it had me going back to the Hansard to look at those instances where it was not followed, and it just made me angry and cranky, especially reliving some of the exchanges with our former colleague the Hon. Paul Holloway. One of the debates I revisited was from 16 September 2010, when we saw a bill to increase the superannuation entitlements of members of parliament.

The bill was introduced on a Wednesday evening and it was brought on for debate on the Thursday morning. It went through the lower house in one day as well. Members might recall that the bill was brought on for debate at the very moment the journalists all went off into the budget lockup, so there certainly was no-one paying attention to the important workings of the Legislative Council. The debate continued as the Treasurer was on his feet delivering the budget—again, surprisingly, with no-one paying any attention to what was happening in the Legislative Council on budget day.

It did go a bit pear-shaped because we did our best to give proper scrutiny to that bill, we prepared on the run a large number of amendments and we divided on them, but by that time of day the shadow ministers were all in their offices trying to write their press releases to criticise the budget and to understand the budget papers, and they were cranky as anything that they were being dragged back down into the Legislative Council to divide on this bill that they had connived with the government to introduce and have passed within 24 hours of its introduction to this place.

I do thank the Hon. Rob Lucas for reminding us that that is the way traditionally these bills have been handled in the past. We are not doing it that way this time, and that does give me some comfort. But, again, we are going to do it quickly, and I will reflect a little bit on why we do these bills quickly, because one thing I have learned from these parliamentary salary and conditions debates is that loyalty to the parliamentary club tends to trump loyalty to party or even to principle and that, if you rock the boat on these debates, you do get attacked personally.

Certainly, whenever I have raised objections to what I saw as unnecessary or unreasonable pay rises or superannuation increases, the retort was fairly predictable. It was: 'Well, don't take it. If you don't think it's necessary, don't take it'—in other words, voluntarily give the money back to Kevin Foley, the then treasurer, or give it all to charity. It seems to me that that did miss the point in that our job as legislators is a collective one to come up with the best system and the fairest system as we see it for the people of South Australia.

Certainly, many members of parliament do give their money away. I give some of it away. Most of us here do, but that is a choice that we make personally. Collectively, we are making laws for the people of South Australia. So the approach we take is that we do not want MPs who are doing the same or similar work to be treated differently simply on the basis of their power within the political system, their power within their own parties, and we do not want MPs' pay and conditions to be grossly disproportionate to community standards.

Another reflection that I took from the comments of the Hon. Rob Lucas last night, and one with which I do agree, is that these debates are in many ways impossible to win in the court of public opinion. I agree with him that there are people in the community for whom not only should we not be paid anything but probably we should pay a contribution to be here. I do not subscribe to that view.

I realise that it is a difficult debate in the community. There are some people who think we are all overpaid and that we are all lazy and I do not subscribe to that view either. But, certainly from a Greens perspective, that does not mean that we are going to go along with the flock and unquestioningly support every pay rise or change in conditions. As I have said in the past, I think there is a lot to be said for MPs' pay and conditions to be not too far out of kilter with community standards.

The Hon. Rob Lucas, I think, last night referred to the number of public servants who are paid more than members of parliament and I think there is a case for that having shown that it is a little out of kilter, when we see heads of departments being paid half-million dollar salaries. I do not think that passes the front bar test and I do not think it passes the test around the water cooler either. That is not to say that those two forums for public debate are the definitive answers—the front bar or the water cooler—but I do accept that things have become out of kilter.

It is no surprise to me, on that basis, that the government and the opposition do not want to talk too much or too publicly about politicians' pay because it is generally regarded as a no-win situation for us. However, there are winners this time, and those winners are exclusively from the Labor and Liberal parties. It should come as no surprise that the old parties have feathered their own nests and that they have invented pay rises for themselves that are not based on any legitimate measure of productivity, effort or responsibility. I think it is a case of self-interest on steroids and it is something of which they should be ashamed.

The biggest winners are the 10 extra Liberal Party members who will now receive an extra $40,000 to $50,000 per year for their shadow ministerial roles. There is one other Liberal who will get an extra $30,000 and, altogether, 16 Liberals will get an extra pay loading ranging from $20,000 to $150,000 on top of their base salary. To put this in perspective, there is no-one on the crossbench, none of the six crossbench members has any ability to receive any pay loading regardless of how hard they work or their responsibilities or their diligence in pursuing their parliamentary or community duties. That alone fails the fairness test.

As those of us in the upper house of state parliament are well aware, the shadow minister roles held by Liberal Party members are replicated on the crossbench. All of us on the crossbench have to pay attention to legislation, to understand its detail and to consult with stakeholders over its effect. Certainly the Hon. John Darley and the Hon. Kelly Vincent have exclusive responsibility for every portfolio in this place; the Hon. Dennis Hood and the Hon. Robert Brokenshire share the portfolios and have only half each; and it is the same for the Hon. Tammy Franks and myself—we share the portfolios. We are the shadow ministers for our parties in relation to these issues but, the way this legislation has been drafted, you are required to be a Liberal Party member to get a pay loading in recognition of your shadow responsibilities.

We also know that in this place the government of the day has not controlled the upper house of parliament since the 1970s. We also know that without crossbench support the government cannot pass legislation if the opposition is opposed. We, therefore, need to be on top of the detail of all bills, just as the relevant Liberal Party shadow ministers need to be on top of a smaller number of bills in their more limited portfolios. In short, most of us on the crossbench do the same work but once this bill is passed we will not get the same pay, and that is because the Liberal and Labor parties have stitched up a deal to look after themselves. When we get to the committee stage of this bill on Thursday I will be opposing the exclusive Liberal Party pay rise.

People often accuse me of not understanding the pressures of managing an ambitious backbench in a major party. I do understand it but I do not believe that it needs to be pandered to. Certainly from the government side, there are—let's call them 'wannabe' ministers who cannot be fitted into the limited numbers in the cabinet so there have to be some prizes for these people to keep them under control and to curb their ambition. At present, these prizes consist of lucrative chair positions on standing committees and, for a couple of them—it is historical in origins but it continues to this day—get chauffeur-driven cars.

Again, those are perks and rorts that I think are completely unnecessary and should go. From the opposition point of view we now have this new category of shadow ministers. I think there are 14 in total who will get an extra 25 per cent on top of what other members will get. In relation to other parts of this bill, the Greens do support some aspects of it but we think other parts are misguided. We do not believe that this bill does much to advance the cause of transparency and integrity. The minister made the point in the second reading speech that the bill confers new obligations, powers and functions on the tribunal. This is to promote the transparency and independence and, as a result, integrity of the process.

However, I point out that the Liberal Party pay rise is not subject to the remuneration tribunal's determination; it is included in this bill and it is part of the dodgy deal that has been stitched up between the old parties. I cannot speak for other members on the crossbench, but certainly the Greens were not consulted in relation to the detail of this bill.

I will now refer to the various allowances that are to be abolished and rolled into salary. I will start with the Metrocard. I think this is referred to as the Metrocard special pass; it is also known as The Magic Pudding ticket and it allows MPs to travel for free on buses, trains and trams in metropolitan Adelaide. It is provided to MPs on a request basis and for a number of years, I think it is fair to say, members were oblivious to the cost.

We would simply get a letter each year asking if we wanted our free ticket, and most members accepted the offer and most never or hardly ever used it. I use public transport every week, as does my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks. I do not pretend to know the travel arrangements of every member of parliament, but I know that the Hon. John Dawkins is a regular train user, as is the Hon. Andrew McLachlan. I have even seen the Hon. David Ridgway on the train sometimes, and I used to sit with the late Dr Bob Such on the train coming into work.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Hon. Terry Stephens wishes to be included in the ranks of public transport users. I am sure other members use public transport—the Hon. John Gazzola. I think everyone will be putting up their hands. I am sure many other members use it, but I know that most do not use it on a regular basis. We were basically offered the ticket, and most people take it, oblivious to the cost.

Overall, I think it is good for members of parliament to use public transport, to mix with ordinary folk and at least be seen to be using the services that the government provides. I know that members of the Select Committee on the O-Bahn City Access Project are planning to test that service firsthand, particularly during the peak period. So, it is a good thing for members of parliament to be on buses, trains and trams. Of course, the other advantage is that you can read and you do not get fined for texting or tweeting.

So, should it be provided for free? Well, no, members of parliament can afford to buy their own bus tickets. Will fewer MPs use public transport? Well, I hope not. I certainly will continue to use it to get to work on those days that I do not ride my bike or if I do not need a car for carrying big loads or for evening meetings. In terms of how much it costs, ultimately I think it is probably budget neutral, because you have one arm of government paying some money to another arm of government, Adelaide Metro. Ultimately it is an internal transfer. It might cost the budget of the parliament some money, but ultimately it is one government agency paying another.

Just to put it on the record, we now have this new option for members of the public to buy a 28-day unlimited pass, and that costs $119.80. There are 13 lots of 28 days in a year, so for a member of the public to buy themselves unlimited access to buses, trains and trams at all hours they are operating would cost $1,557. I have had some discussions with the minister's staff in relation to some questions and, whilst some of these answers are being provided, I will put some of these questions on the record. First, how many MPs take up the offer of the free public transport pass, and how much does it cost per year?

My understanding was that, when I last looked at it, it cost the parliament, I think, around $1,400—it might be more now—and that was paid regardless of whether it was used. We now have technology which measures people hopping on to trains differently, so I am interested to know whether the parliament pays per trip—per bus, tram or train ride—or whether it is a one-off charge, whether or not the ticket is ever used. I understand that some of this information may have been be tabled in summary form in the recent travel report, certainly in the House of Assembly, but I would appreciate the minister providing more detail on how this scheme currently works.

In relation to the interstate train trips, my understanding is that, historically, this was part of a deal that was struck between South Australia and the commonwealth when the state railways were transferred to the commonwealth. I thought it was a very long time ago, but I understand that it might have been as recently as 1975. The story, as it was told to me, was that MPs got free travel and reciprocal arrangements with other states, and that this arrangement continued when the commonwealth took over and, again, when the interstate rail network was effectively contracted out to private enterprise through Great Southern Rail that that continued. I think it is an anachronism, and I think it is timely for it to be abolished. In terms of how much it costs, again I would ask the minister whether the government could provide details of how many members use the entitlement each year, and what is the total and average cost.

I have done a bit of calculating on the Great Southern Rail website, and it seems that if the entitlement for members of parliament is two trips per year for themselves and their spouse, and the average cost of a trip between Sydney and Perth is about $2,500 for a sleeper, a member and spouse could conceivably chalk up $10,000 per year in costs. There is a new class that has been introduced on the trains, platinum class, which I think—from the brochure, not from memory because I have not used it—has a double bed and a DVD player. Those tickets are about $4,000 per person each way between Perth and Sydney, so technically a member could chalk up $16,000 per year under the entitlement. The costs are slightly less on the Ghan. However, again, I think it is appropriate for that anachronistic entitlement to be removed.

That brings me to the next amount that is to be rolled into parliamentary salary, that is, travel allowance. As it stands, it is around $13,400—that is the figure I have heard, or around that figure—with the ability to carryover or stockpile up to two years' worth of allowance. Other than that it is one of those funds where you use it or lose it. Of all the measures in this bill, I think this is one that is misguided and that has a number of unintended consequences.

It certainly solves the accountability problem that causes members of parliament such grief in the newspapers, but it does so by removing—not strengthening—accountability. It solves the accountability problem by having no accountability; in other words, the money gets rolled into salary and if members travel they are effectively using their own money. There will be no reports, there will be no documents for journalists to access under freedom of information. It becomes a non-issue.

My view is that it would have made more sense, rather than cashing in the travel allowance, to strengthen the guidelines and develop new accountability measures. I think that an unintended consequence is that, despite members knowing that they have a pay rise as result of having their travel allowance rolled into salary, the effect will be that many members will be less inclined to travel. Deep down they will know they have extra money to do it but, ultimately, all of a sudden it is 'your money', no-one else's, and I think members will travel less.

I doubt whether it is a good thing for the people of South Australia, the fact that elected representatives become more insular, more parochial, as the opportunity to travel to another state to see how they manage a certain issue will suddenly require members to use their own money. I think many of them will be less inclined to do it, and that is not a good outcome. We will see a more introverted parliament where members are less inclined to travel.

One issue that has been raised with me recently—and I think it is an important one that I ask the minister to provide some response to—relates to the industrial conditions of people who work for members of parliament. As we know, we are entitled to take staff on work trips and the staff are paid per diem to cover their accommodation costs at an appropriate level hotel, and they can obtain money for taxis and food they have to buy and things like that. When we abolish travel allowance, it would seem to me that all of a sudden the staff of members of parliament are in an interesting position. When the member says to them, 'I am booking you into the backpackers hostel, would you prefer a six-bed or an eight-bed dorm?' whether the staff member could say, 'Well actually, I would rather not travel.'

We do have a power imbalance, as members may have realised, between members of parliament and their staff, and it might be a brave staff member who says, 'Well, no; if I can't stay in a proper hotel with a room to myself I'm not going.' My question is: what discussion has the government had with the relevant unions that cover the staff of members of parliament? Is there anything in the enterprise agreement, for example, that dictates a level of service or level of accommodation, for example, if members ask their staff to accompany them on work trips? I am not aware of any such discussions having been held, but I would ask the minister to confirm that.

Another issue which I think a number of members have probably realised is that, when we apply for the ability to travel for work, we go through a dedicated staff member here in the Legislative Council, and I presume they have one in the other place, and they book for us using a private travel agent that has been contracted by the government to provide exclusive services. Carlson Wagonlit I understand is the name of the company.

I also understand that, not that long ago, they have had their exclusive contract renewed. I have never seen that contract and I do not know the details of it, but I would be surprised if it does not include in its terms something along the lines that the government agrees not to come up with alternative arrangements that undermine the business that they have. They have exclusive rights. My question of the minister is: is there any right of claim that the travel agent could make against the government?

I think there is possibly a legal answer and a moral answer. The legal answer will be that parliament has made this decision, not the government, and therefore a parliamentary decision might trump any breach of contract claim. But it seems to me that, if I was that agent who had bid for and won a right to provide travel services exclusively for members of parliament and suddenly there are 69, plus their staff, who are going to be booking their own fares, I think I would be pretty annoyed. My question is: is there a likely claim for compensation and, if not, are there transitional arrangements whereby the government may need to see out the terms of that contract before introducing these changes?

The parliamentary committee payments is something I have raised over many years and I am very pleased that the government is now going to get rid of the additional pay that accompanies membership of standing committees. I agree that those payments should go and I accept that it is reasonable for them to be rolled into salary. The reason I say that is that serving on these committees is an essential part of the work that we do and it should be accommodated in regular pay. The current system is that every MP is effectively entitled, not in a legal sense but in a political sense, to a committee.

That is the protocol that has been developed and it has been developed as a way of ensuring that income is maintained at an appropriate level. In terms of that approach, the alternative is to suggest that there is some insatiable appetite of members of parliament to contribute to the committee system. I think that is not the answer. The answer is that people go on committees because there is the extra money involved and because that is just how the system works. So I agree with getting rid of committee payments.

But not all committee payments are being done away with. The extra loading for the chairs of parliamentary committees is being retained. That is a rort and it is unacceptable and it should be opposed. In fact, the chairs of these committees are going to get even more because the percentage will be based on a higher base salary. I think it would be a useful exercise for members to go through the work of committees, have a look at how many meetings there have been and have a look at how many hours of sitting there have been and work out the hourly rate, and I think that people would be horrified at how high that is.

The other point to note, of course, and I said at the outset, is that this is a bill designed to feather the nests of Liberal and Labor members exclusively. The chairs of these committees will always be government members. That is just how it is under the Parliamentary Committees Act, just as under this bill shadow ministers will be members of the Liberal and Labor parties. It would be within the right of the Leader of the Opposition in another place to appoint the Hon. Dennis Hood to be a shadow minister, but it would be a very brave move, I would expect, in dealing with his parliamentary colleagues in the Liberal Party, to appoint someone other than a Liberal member as a shadow minister. I maintain that the practical effect of this bill is that it exclusively benefits Liberal and Labor members, and the chairs of committee is for the benefit of Labor members. We need to get rid of those salary loadings.

The other thing I would like to get rid of—again, historically, to satisfy the aspirations of grumpy ministerial wannabes—is the chauffeur-driven cars that go with the chairs of two of those committee positions. It is not related to their work, completely unnecessary, and nothing other than a rort. I did have a look at whether we could incorporate removing that rort in this bill. Unfortunately, from a drafting perspective it was difficult because it required me to list all of the other chauffeur-driven cars and accept those and just leave the other two out. I am not prepared to do that, so we will deal with that issue another day.

In relation to former MPs, they are going to keep their existing entitlements under what has been referred to as the 'gold card'. I do not think that passes the front bar test, but on the basis of fairness and equity it is harder to unilaterally abolish that, given that they were the conditions under which those previous members served. The point is that current members of parliament are getting some benefit from the abolition of those entitlements rolled into salary, but former MPs will not because they are no longer receiving a salary. My questions of the minister are: how many former MPs are involved? How many of them get the free Metroticket? How many of them use the interstate trains? What other entitlements do they claim?

In terms of improving this bill, I think there are some improvements that we can make. I am very conscious that, when I have canvassed some of these ideas with members of the Liberal Party, some of them have said, 'It's not such a bad idea, but we have done a deal. We have struck a deal with the government; we have nowhere to move.' Certainly, I will be testing the will of this chamber in relation to some of these amendments. I will just go through in broad outline what I think we could do to improve this bill.

I think the involvement of the Remuneration Tribunal of South Australia is important, as an independent body, to determine the appropriate terms and conditions of employment. But I think that we do not just wash our hands of it, having received a determination of the Remuneration Tribunal. I can recall, when we have had a similar debate in years gone by, where we have had protests on the steps of parliament with teachers and nurses who were desperately trying to get an increase in pay of a few per cent, yet simultaneously, here inside the building, we could just throw our hands in the air and say, 'Well, look, it just appeared in my pay packet. Nothing to do with me. Nothing to see here.' I think we as the parliament do need to at least retain the ability to decline a rise that is offered.

There is a simple mechanism for doing it: you basically make the Remuneration Tribunal's determinations be put into a disallowable instrument. Effectively, you make them put it into a regulation, and therefore it will go through unless the parliament decides not to. We have all been through economic times when no-one in the community is getting a pay rise, and it is often the right thing for MPs to lead by example and say, 'Well, okay, we won't take a pay rise this year either.' I think that is a sensible mechanism that does in fact lead to more accountability.

As I have said, I want to get rid of the additional salary for the chairs of committees. They do not deserve it, they do not need it, and I have not seen any analysis that shows that the amount of work they do is so far in excess of what the rest of us do that it is justifiable; it is not. I also want to get rid of the additional shadow minister loading. I know that is not going to make me at all popular with the frontbench opposition colleagues, but again I make the point that, in the interest of fairness, that loading is not being applied to those of us who apply the same rigour to our portfolios as shadow ministers do. It is not fair; it needs to go.

The other change I would like to introduce is this. Given it is important for members of parliament to broaden their horizons and to actually get out and see how the world works and to travel, I think that an alternative approach to that in this bill (which is to roll travel allowance into salary) is that, if it were instead to be rolled into the electorate allowance, then it would clearly be designated as a work fund—a fund to be spent on work-related matters.

There still would not be the accountability in terms of travel reports and things like that, but basically, rather than having it mixed up in your private funds, in your salary, it would be in your electorate allowance and you could then determine whether your electorate allowance was spent on employing staff, on travelling, on any other range of issues. It has no additional impact financially on the state, but it would make it clear to members that they are expected to get out and have a look at how the rest of the world works.

They are expected to travel. They need not travel for work out of their own funds, so if it is rolled into electorate allowance that would make sense. I understand why people do not like that, especially people who have an entitlement to pension schemes that are based on base salary and not based on electorate allowance. If you can boost your base salary, then you boost your ultimate entitlements later on. I guess it is the same with superannuation, but it makes more sense to me for the payment to be rolled into electorate rather than into salary.

With those comments, the Greens will be supporting the second reading of this bill. We will reserve our position on the final bill until we have seen the fate of our amendments, which I note have now been filed; members would have them on their desks and, I presume, would also have electronic access through the portal, which, I will just put on the record now, is a wonderful innovation that enables us to access amendments immediately they have been filed and not have to wait for the paper copy. I do note that they are now on members' desks.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (11:46): I rise to speak on the Parliamentary Remuneration (Determination of Remuneration) Amendment Bill 2015. With the other members of the class of 2006, I have been in this place 10 years in March next year—18 March, if memory serves me—and I have never once spoken on a parliamentary remuneration bill, whether it be with respect to salary or other conditions that MPs and MLCs receive. The fundamental reason I have never spoken on them is that largely I see it as something that is predominantly the domain of the major parties. I have always respected that, to be honest, because, call me old fashioned, but I have seen us as new players on the block, if you like, and accorded the respect that the new players have to the traditional players.

That position has not changed, but I am, I think, at a point now where it is important that a few points are raised and put on the record. Some of them are very similar to the points made by the Hon. Mark Parnell in his contribution just a moment ago; some of them are quite different. I think the fundamental point to begin with is that I have always had the view that MPs' salaries are about right, give or take.

I think members would know my personal situation; that is, when I first became a member in this place I was fortunate enough to be employed in the private sector prior to being an MP, and I was then on a vastly higher salary and conditions than the average member of parliament received, including myself, so I do not think anyone can ever point the finger at me for being here for the money, because clearly that is just not the case.

In fact, even today, some almost 11 years later since I left my employment in the private sector, the salary and conditions around my current remuneration are a bit over half, or thereabouts, of the sorts of conditions I enjoyed in the private sector. So, no-one is going to point the finger at me with respect to going into the political world for the money, or the benefits, or whatever else.

That said, I listened with interest to the Hon. Mr Lucas's contribution last night. As usual, he gave a well thought-out contribution. I was particularly interested to hear that there are some 800-odd public servants—I think I have this figure right—who earn more than members of parliament now in South Australia. I find that hard to reconcile. That seems to be a very substantial number of people earning more than members of parliament on the public payroll. Obviously, there will be exceptions, but in most cases those individuals will be dealing with lower-level decisions than the average MP deals with on a daily basis and presumably less complex in the main than most of those that MPs deal with.

Certainly, they would be exposed to substantially less public scrutiny than that faced by MPs literally on a daily basis in their role as a member of parliament. It does strike me as odd, and I would go so far as to say probably wrong. Obviously, there would be some people who earn higher salaries given their very extensive responsibilities but, on the whole, to discover that more than 800 people earn more than members of parliament as a package just does not seem right to me. There needs to be some consideration of that in this debate.

That said, my general view has been that most members of parliament—and I would like to say 'all members of parliament; there may be one or two exceptions—in the main do not go into parliament for the money. They go there because they want to make a contribution and they see the parliament as the best or highest level of contribution they can make to their state, or their country in the case of our federal colleagues, and that is why they pursue a parliamentary career. I am sure that is true for virtually every member of parliament in this place. There may be one or two exceptions, although that may not even be true. I suspect that it is true of all members of parliament.

Unfortunately, as other members have also suggested, that is not the public's view of our role. I think I can say that, happily, many exceptions would be in our supporter base. Conservative people tend to view people in what might be called positions of authority as by and large being worth their pound of flesh; happily, that is a good situation for Family First. As a rule it seems the public does not rate the contribution of MPs, if I could put it that way, and I am sure many of them would have us be here at our own expense, as I think the Hon. Mr Parnell said. But that is not the case in the real world. There are salaries and conditions associated with this job and, as I said, I am of the firm belief that people come to this place with the right intentions, not the wrong intentions.

Those are just preliminary introductory comments. I would like to turn to some of the specifics of the bill now and some of the comments made in the media and elsewhere about these arrangements or the arrangements being proposed. I think perhaps it is best if I initially talk about what this bill is not, just for the sake of clarity. What I would say very firmly is that this bill, certainly for the crossbenchers, as the Hon. Mr Parnell has outlined, and for backbenchers and the major parties as well, is not a pay rise.

I think it is very hard to argue that any MPs on what you might call the base level salary, that is, the crossbenchers or the backbenchers of the major parties, will get any sort of financial benefit out of this bill. In fact, I think you can make a reasonable case that they will actually be worse off at some level. I will go through some of that in a bit more detail in a moment. I do agree with some of those allowances, in particular, being removed, but some I do not agree with.

For instance, looking at whether this is a pay rise or not a pay rise, at the moment members are paid about $15,100, or something close to that, per committee that they sit on. Members in this chamber are all on one committee each, so the proposal is that that is rolled into salary. That is not a pay rise in any way, shape or form. Members already receive that amount by serving on the committee, and so rolling it into salary makes no difference whatsoever to an individual member's remuneration. Then, of course, there are the other less well-known entitlements, if you like.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: It affects your super.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Marginally, and I will get to that in a moment. There are, of course, the other less well-known entitlements members have as well, such as the public transport ticket the Hon. Mark Parnell mentioned. There is also the interstate train travel well, which is difficult to put a cost on, to be frank, but I am sure most members at some stage have availed themselves at least once of that service. The other main allowance is the travel allowance, which is about $13,500 a year.

The proposal, according to this bill, is to compensate members through the abolishment of those particular schemes and roll them into salary, and the figure that has been thrown around is something in the order of a salary 'increase' of something like $30,000. Of course, we do not know what that will be because it needs to go to the tribunal, as this bill will dictate. It could come back less or more than that, but that seems to be the figure that is being thrown around.

If you do the simple maths on this, the committees are worth $15,000 or individual members are paid $15,000. The other part is the public transport ticket and the interstate train travel, which could be very conservatively valued at a couple of thousand dollars or probably, I think, more than that. I am someone who has used the bus travel in particular quite a lot, so I have availed myself of that each year. I have had, I think, two interstate train travel trips in my time in this place.

I do not know what you put that value at, but I think at least $2,000 or $3,000 a year, or something in that order, would be a fairly minimal amount, although of course, as the Hon. Mr Parnell pointed out, for those who have used those services heavily—particularly the interstate train travel, because you can take a spouse, as I understand it—it could be up to $10,000 a year or more for that alone, not that I imagine too many members use it to that maximum level.

But the travel is interesting because the travel allowance, of course, is not taxed at the moment. A $13,500 travel allowance per year is not taxed. The moment you roll that into an individual's salary, of course it will be subject to taxation, and at the sort of income level that we would be talking—around the roughly $180,000 mark—then 40-plus per cent of that amount goes in taxation, so the end amount an individual can spend on travel is substantially reduced.

Of course, there are pros and cons of travel. When people hear about travel, they automatically assume it is international travel and, of course, that is not the case. This travel allowance also includes members of the Legislative Council travelling to see their constituents within the state—for instance, to Port Lincoln or Mount Gambier or anywhere else. As a member of the Legislative Council, as all of us are here, obviously, all our constituents are scattered right across the state. We are responsible to them right across the state and it seems to me that it is important that, as MLCs representing them, we are able to go and see them and hear their concerns. That will be more difficult when that amount becomes subject to taxation.

I think it is very easy to make a case that it is not a pay rise at all. If you take away from that $13,500 travel allowance roughly 40 per cent in tax, it might be something in the order of $5,000 or $6,000. The committee is already paid anyway, so you are looking at an increase, I would say, in the order of roughly $21,000, that sort of amount anyway. At the moment, of course, because of the non-taxed nature of the travel, it is substantially more than that, so I do not accept that it is a pay rise in any way, shape or form and I think it is a fairly strong argument.

On that issue, I would also say that I was speaking recently to a particular journalist, who I get along with quite well. I will not name him, but he is a very good journalist, a senior journalist in Adelaide who has been around for a long time. I was discussing this issue with him, and he said to me, 'Yes, but you'll still be able to travel, won't you? They're taking your travel off you, but that must be just some allowance. You've still got to be able to travel.'

I said, 'No, it will be rolled into salary and if members want to travel, then they will have to pay for it and, presumably, have a fight with the tax office about what part of it is taxable and what part isn't.' He was gobsmacked. This is a journalist all of us here would know, and he was gobsmacked. He said, 'That's ridiculous.' Those were his words. That is my contribution on the pay rise aspect. I certainly do not see it as a pay rise for backbenchers or crossbenchers in this place.

The other thing I think it is really not about is transparency. You can create a case, I guess, at some level that this whole measure is about transparency. Perhaps the exception is the interstate train travel, which arguably has not been as transparent as it should be, and I think there is a case for that being abolished. I am perfectly happy for that to be abolished, in fact, but if it were not to be abolished, it should be more transparent.

I think I could concede that abolishing the interstate train travel increases transparency, but the reality is that the rest of it is published widely. It is not hard to find out what the committee payment is for a member of parliament in this place. It is freely available information. No-one is attempting to hide that; it is not too difficult to find, and it is not hard to find out who is on those committees. It is all on the website. You can simply go to the parliamentary website. You can tell who is on a committee and how many they are on (most of us are on one) and then you can determine exactly what benefit a particular member receives for being on a committee. It is not at all hard to find. I imagine that you could find that out in just a few moments.

Travel, arguably, is a little more difficult, but again it is all on the website. Members are required to do a report and publish it on the parliamentary website within three months of returning from a trip, as I recall. Obviously the quality of those reports can vary from member to member; nonetheless, it is fairly easy to determine who is travelling, who is not, where they have been and how often they have done it, etc. What is not transparent about that?

I guess the other thing about travel that is significant in all of this is that members' travel is required to be approved before we do it. There has been a negative response to the so-called Bronwyn Bishop 'helicoptergate' issue, and I think all of us here would agree. It is ridiculous to take a helicopter to a party function at taxpayers' expense. No-one is defending that that is wrong but it is very different at the state level, sir, as you well know because you sign them off before they happen. Any state member of parliament has to have travel preapproved by either the President or the Speaker of the chamber, as it may be, prior to any funds being released for that travel.

If I put in a travel request to you saying that I would like to get a helicopter from someplace to Geelong or from Geelong, or whatever it was, to a party function (that I could get to in 45 minutes by road) and the estimated cost of that was going to be $5,000-odd, I would not be terribly optimistic about your signing off on that and saying to me, 'Go ahead.' I think it is highly unlikely. In fact, I would venture to say that nobody in this chamber has a helicopter anywhere as part of their parliamentary business. I have never been on a helicopter, public or private. It is just ridiculous.

The reality is that our travel situation is very different from that in the federal arena. Clearly, it has been abused in the federal arena, and if any of our parliamentary spheres should be looking at limiting travel, or limiting additional non-essential travel, then I would say that clearly the rules in the federal parliament need to be completely overhauled. Very rarely do we hear of people abusing travel at a state level.

Occasionally an issue is raised. I do not want to pick on the Hon. Leon Bignell, but we did see in the papers recently that he had a $130 bottle of wine, which to me seems a bit excessive. But, again, the way that travel works for ordinary members is that we are given a per diem, that is, a daily allowance which varies whether it is for travel within the state, outside of the state or internationally. That particular amount is yours to use on accommodation, travel whilst you are there, food and whatever else—taxis, etc.—but, if you go over it, it is tough luck, it is at your own expense, and I support that. I think that is a perfectly reasonable way of approaching the matter.

If I happen to travel overseas somewhere, or interstate or to a function in Whyalla, or whatever, and order a $130 bottle of wine, that is something that would come out of my allowance and it would leave me with less money for accommodation or whatever else. I do not know the actual allowance amounts off the top of my head. I am being very vague here. I think it is roughly $230 a day within the state, roughly $400 interstate, and I think it is just on $500 internationally, or something of that nature. They are ballpark figures, but it is around that. So, there is no opportunity for members in state parliament to do stupid things like catch helicopters to party fundraisers, and nor should there be.

I do not see how it is about transparency, as our travel has to be preapproved, a report is required, details are published and members are given a specific allowance per day that they are away and, if they overspend, that is their problem; they have to make it up out of their own funds, which I think is entirely appropriate.

The real issue with abolishing the travel allowance I think is this: as members of the Legislative Council we all have constituents right across the state, and there are times when you need to go and see them, sometimes at short notice, for whatever it may be—a function or somebody wants to see you about something. Up until this bill passes—and I understand that it will pass tomorrow—we will always have the opportunity to say, 'Right, I'll jump on a plane to Port Lincoln and I'll come and see you about it.' Some might argue that you can jump in your car, and that is true, but it is an eight-hour drive to Port Lincoln. It is not as time efficient as it could be.

I cannot imagine too many jobs in the world where particular individuals are responsible for a geographical area and the individuals within that geographical area—that is, having relationships with them, being able to see them, etc.—where there is no specific fund allocated for that purpose. I object to that. I agree with the Hon. Mark Parnell; I think there should be some sort of component that allows that to occur. I am not asking for additional money. I do not think that is appropriate because I think the allowances are sufficient but I think we should have the capacity to travel, at the very least within the state, to see constituents. For that reason we will be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment to that effect.

The other area where I think this bill is wanting is somewhat contentious, and I might be making a target for myself raising this issue but I think it needs to be said. Perhaps I will introduce it this way: I had dinner with a friend on Monday night at Paesano—for those of you who know Caffe Paesano on O'Connell Street in North Adelaide, I recommend the pasta there. I think I have had all of them a few dozen times. They are very good. My good friend is a teacher and has been for 20-odd years. We went to school together. He told me that he had done 20 years as a teacher now (22 years I think he said) and he was going to take six months' long service leave. He is quite excited about that, as you would imagine. He and his family are going on a big trip and he is looking forward to it.

The reason I raise it is that I think the one thing that members of parliament do need to consider at some stage is the issue of long service leave. Traditionally, there has been an argument against MPs qualifying for long service leave because they had a so-called pension or defined benefit, etc. Well, that was true, but in 2004, as we all know, despite the fact that most members of the public seem to think that we still receive a pension, members elected after 2004, which is becoming the majority of the parliament now—I understand about two-thirds of us in this chamber were elected after 2004 and I imagine the lower house is similar although I have never done the numbers—do not qualify for a defined benefit or a pension and, as such, I think the argument against long service leave for MPs is much weakened by that.

My brief look at this issue via my office was that as far as we can tell, in terms of full-time employment, the only job in South Australia, or certainly in the public sector and presumably in the private sector given the laws that govern conditions of employment, the only role that does not have mandatory, legislated long service leave is that of a member of parliament. That does not seem right to me at some level. Of course, there would be logistical issues about how that actually worked. How does that happen: after 10 years does an MP take three months off? That is difficult, obviously; you expect MPs to be able to vote on bills, etc. I am not sure of the details and I do not claim to have all the answers, but I think it is an issue that needs to be considered.

The argument previously has been, 'Well, MPs don't get long service leave because they get a pension.' Well, no, they do not; MPs do not get pensions any more. If you are elected post 2004 there are no pensions and there is no long service leave. I think that is an issue—and I fully expect to be made a target of at some level somewhere in the media for raising that issue but I will stand by it perhaps to my peril—but I do not see why members of parliament should have a condition that is less than the general public expectation of long service leave.

The law in South Australia, as members would well know, is that after seven years of continuous service in a full-time employed position in South Australia, a person is entitled to what is called pro rata; that is you can have a percentage of time off on a pro rata basis for the amount of time served. Once you get to 10 years then you are entitled to three months' full pay and a few other minor things. That is something that has been ignored in this bill and I think if we are really looking at overhauling conditions to make them commensurate with general what I think are not unreasonable expectations, then that should have been addressed and it was not.

The conclusion is that it is the average backbencher and, as the Hon. Mark Parnell eloquently pointed out, the crossbench in the Legislative Council who are actually worse off. I do not think we can claim in any way to be better off by these arrangements and we will be marginally worse off. I am not going to call it a pay rise, I am going to call it a change in conditions because I think that is exactly what it is.

Who wins out of this bill: that is a question. I have talked about who loses and the difficulties and issues surrounding MPs' remuneration, but who wins out of this? I think the Hon. Mark Parnell went through a number of things, but I would like to list them. We differ on one thing: the first winners are the so-called shadow ministers. It specifically says in the bill that they will be from the opposition party, which currently is the Liberal Party, of course, so that does exclude quite explicitly the crossbench members from being counted as a shadow minister at any level. I think that is wrong.

The one point of disagreement I may have with the Hon. Mark Parnell on this is that I do not begrudge the shadow minister increment—I think it is appropriate—as a shadow minister does have a greater workload than a non-shadow minister. So, I do not begrudge the loading: whether it should be 25 per cent, 30 per cent or 15 per cent, I do not know. I understand from my conversations that they have chosen 25 per cent because that is the level at which federal shadow ministers are compensated, so that seems to be probably the right number.

My personal view is that I do not begrudge shadow ministers being renumerated at a level above what you might call an ordinary member or a non-shadow minister, but I do object to the crossbenches being specifically excluded from that. I am sure that, if members in this chamber are honest, they would acknowledge that, as part of the crossbench, there is a substantial workload. Between the two of us in our case—the Hon. Robert Brokenshire and myself—we need to be across the bills in a way that is credible, in the same way that I argue that a shadow minister needs to be across their portfolio. The exclusion of the crossbench is wrong and something that I do not accept.

Secondly, who wins out of this? Shadow ministers win, and I do not really object to that as I think it is not unreasonable. Who else wins? Those on pensions already win out of this. How does that happen, particularly ministers, obviously? It happens because they are salary increases. I have looked at this—I have never looked at it before as it has never been relevant to look at it before. The way the pension works, if I am not mistaken (that is the PSS2 scheme I am talking about now because, while there are a few members still around on the PSS1 it is from a different era and most of those people are not here any more, I understand, but the PSS2 is more common), is that it is paid on a percentage of the base salary of the individual member.

That base salary at the moment for an ordinary member of parliament is $153,000. If it goes up by $30,000, as is being proposed here, that will be roughly $183,000. The way the pension works is that it is paid as a percentage of that base salary. The way it works is that, if a member serves for 20 years, they are entitled to 75 per cent of the base level parliamentary salary as a pension paid to them, ongoing for the rest of their life. So, if the base salary is $153,000, then those people who qualify will receive $115,000 a year, which is 75 per cent if they have done 20 years.

Not surprisingly, if that salary base is raised to $183,000, they will then receive $137,000 a year, so that is a $22,000 increase approximately (these are figures are approximate, they are not precise, but are pretty close). So, you can see that it is in the interests of some to increase that base salary, that is, roll in the travel, roll in the committees, do what it takes, in order to increase the superannuation—a $22,000 annual increase for a backbench member on a pension.

But the ministers do even better out of that, not surprisingly. A ministerial salary at the moment is about $283,000, so if a minister serves for 20 years they are entitled to 75 per cent pension of that amount, that is, $212,000 a year, every year for the rest of their life, CPI indexed twice a year, I might add. But if that salary was to increase by $30,000 or thereabouts, that is, you roll in your travel, roll in the committees, etc. (most ministers of course do not serve on a committee, but it is still rolled in regardless), and it goes up by $30,000, then they receive $235,000 a year instead of $212,000—an increase of about $23,000 for the rest of their life. So there is a strong incentive for what you might call office holders or ministers, or whatever it is, to support rolling in salary and travel because it is in their interests to do so.

Of course, the Premier would receive more again because he is on a higher salary. I do not object to the Premier receiving a high salary, I support that, but you can see that it is strongly in the self-interest of people in this place who are on higher salaries to have that salary as high as possible; it suits their needs because their pensions increase. They are the big winners in this whole thing and, as I said before, the losers—the crossbenchers and the backbenchers—actually go backwards, depending on how you do the figures. You can make a strong case for that. There are other winners; as the Hon. Mr Parnell said, the other winners are the whips, the parliamentary secretaries, etc. Every player wins a prize. I do not think that is a desirable situation.

I now turn to the amendments that have been proposed . Those of the Hon. Mr Parnell have been filed and I understand that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire, my colleague, has a few amendments which, I understand, we should be getting very soon. They will be here in due course, but I would like to touch on them briefly. The Hon. Mr Parnell has put forward a number of worthy amendments, and perhaps I had best talk about the ones I disagree with, because we will support most of them.

The one thing on which I would perhaps disagree with the Hon. Mark Parnell is with respect to the independence of the tribunal having the final decision. I think it is appropriate for salary decisions for MPs to be completely out of our hands. They may decide more or less, I do not know; I do not have any experience in these matters. We keep hearing this figure of $30,000 being thrown around because that is roughly what the entitlements are that are being rolled into salary, but it will be interesting see whether that is, in fact, the case.

However, we are not inclined to support a situation where parliament can overrule salary changes. There will be different feelings about that, but that is our view at this stage. We are open to debate, of course, and I look forward to the Hon. Mark Parnell putting forward his views on that; we would welcome the debate and I am interested in his thoughts on it, but at this stage we are not particularly inclined to support that.

One of the reasons for that is this, which no doubt members will remember. It was roughly three to four years ago, perhaps four years I think, when the federal Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal substantially increased federal MPs' salaries. They went up by roughly $42,000 I think; they increased very substantially. At that time, state MPs' salaries were tied to federal MPs' salaries, and the arrangement at that stage was that we would be completely hands off and that the salary would increase by whatever it did at a federal level less an amount of $2,000.

That would have meant that state MPs would have had a $40,000 pay rise, or something in that order. That is extreme, that is a very high increment and, to be frank, I think it is hard to justify, $40,000 in one hit. That is very hard to justify without anything being given up. However, what happened at that particular time was that the Premier moved to pass a bill that we would change that link with the federal arrangement, so that instead of being $2,000 less than the salary of the federal MPs the arrangement would be $42,000 less than a federal MP.

You can argue whether that is the right thing or the wrong thing, but that was the debate at the time and that is what actually happened in the end. The problem is that the headline in the paper the next day was 'State MPs vote themselves a pay rise'. There was a mention at the end of the article that it could have been a $42,000 pay rise and that state MPs actually voted for a $2,000 pay rise, but it was right at the end. If you had just read the headline—which, of course, many people do—you would have thought that MPs just voted themselves another pay rise. They did, but it was $2,000 when it could have been $42,000.

I think at that stage I thought, 'This is all getting way too hard, too messy.' Whatever it is, I think it is better if MPs just are not involved in it at all. Whatever criticism there is, whether it is too high or too low, the criticism can be of the tribunal and not of MPs. I do not think we should be setting our own salaries and it is not something we are inclined to support.

I have a final couple of comments on the amendments that the Hon. Mr Parnell has put forward. I think amendment No. 3 talks about rolling travel into the electoral allowance which can then be used for legitimate travel either within the state or to a conference somewhere, or wherever it may be. We are inclined to support that. There needs to be a solution for that. We have constituents all across the state, in some quite difficult to access regional centres sometimes—certainly a long time in a car, anyway—and it is not always possible for an MP to jump in a car for a day journey to get somewhere, spend a day or two there and a day journey back. It is four or five days out of your diary, which is not always possible.

We will be looking at some sort of travel allowance that enables MPs to travel within the state, ideally interstate—and, dare I say, internationally, because I do believe, as the Hon. Mr Parnell said, that it is in the interests of South Australians that MPs travel, at least occasionally, to broaden their vision and learn from things that are working elsewhere. I might say that Rex Jory has the same view. Members might have seen his column in The Advertiser recently where he was critical of removing MPs' right to travel—capacity to travel, I should say. It is not a right, really, but there is a capacity to travel. I would certainly agree with him, for similar reasons. We would be inclined to support the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendment there.

In terms of the shadow ministers, we are likely to oppose his amendment which seeks to abolish the 25 per cent that is applicable to shadow ministers. As I said, we support that. We cannot see how crossbenchers should be treated any differently, but they are. With respect to chairs of committees, we are yet to come to a final leaning on that, but I suspect we will end up agreeing with the Hon. Mr Parnell and supporting his amendment in that case, although, as I said, we are yet to make a final decision on that and looking forward to hearing debate.

We are likely to oppose this bill outright. We think that it has many flaws in it. I think I have outlined them in a little bit of detail this morning and early this afternoon for members to consider. That is our position. We think that this whole thing is a very vexed issue. Whatever we do on MPs' salaries is difficult ground and we will probably stand condemned in the eyes of some, but I think we are trying for a fair and reasonable outcome. Equity is very important. You cannot have people doing the same jobs getting different salaries: it does not make sense. For that reason, I support the second reading but reserve our right to oppose it at the third reading.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins.