Parliamentary Remuneration (Determination of Remuneration) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 23 September 2015.)

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (16:45): I rise to speak very briefly on the Parliamentary Remuneration (Determination of Remuneration) Amendment Bill and probably to join the Hon. Mark Parnell in his looming unpopularity. I think it is fair to say that that unpopularity will extend beyond front bench opposition colleagues to presiding members of committees who receive an additional salary, as well as to those members who would rather see their travel entitlement incorporated into their base salary, thereby boosting their overall entitlements once they have left this place.

At the outset, I wish to make it clear for the record that I do not support any increase in pay that has not been approved by the Remuneration Tribunal. As such, I do not support the proposal for an additional 25 per cent pay rise for shadow ministers, nor do I support any move to match that allowance for other crossbench members without a determination by the Remuneration Tribunal to that effect.

With respect to travel allowance, I have to agree with the Hon. Mark Parnell again that the changes do nothing in terms of accountability and transparency. In fact, they do the complete opposite. There is no question that the changes will result in members travelling less because of the perception that they will now be using their own money to do so. It is a counterproductive measure and, instead of lifting the bar in terms of accountability and strengthening the rules around travel, the government is giving MPs a pay rise that they do not have to account for. It also makes very little sense in light of the fact that most of the negative publicity around travel entitlement rorts involve ministerial allowances that are governed by a different set of rules from those of other members of parliament.

I think the Hon. Mark Parnell is certainly on the right track in suggesting that the travel allowance ought to be bundled with the electorate allowance, rather than with the base salary, so that any increase is to be effected by regulation, which means that the parliament will have the capacity to disallow any increases in pay, particularly in tough economic times when other members of the community are missing out on pay rises.

For the record, I support the government's proposal to remove the entitlement to free public transport and subsidised or free interstate rail travel. I am sure all of us would agree that the gold pass, in particular, is an outdated allowance that has no significance today. As such, it is high time that it be scrapped. Similarly, I am sure that if other employees, including in many cases our own staff, can afford to pay for public transport to and from work, then we as members can certainly do the same. There is simply no need for this sort of taxpayer expense, irrespective of the cost. Personally, I have never availed myself of either of these two entitlements.

Lastly, I also support the removal of entitlements for services by members on parliamentary committees but note my disappointment that the government has stopped short of extending this to the presiding members of parliamentary committees. I think we all know by now that appointments to these committees are nothing more than a way for the government to appease those members who have failed to win a guernsey elsewhere in government and to bolster their salaries.

On a related note, it is unfortunate that we could not squeeze the entitlement to chauffeur- driven vehicles for chairs of committees into the scope of this bill, because I think we all agree that that is certainly something that needs to be addressed, and I hope it will be dealt with sooner rather than later. In closing, a number of sensible amendments have been proposed which I am certainly inclined to support. With that, I support the second reading of the bill but, like my crossbench colleagues, reserve my position on the third reading.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (16:49): I will speak briefly at the second reading of this bill. I appreciate the briefing that was provided to myself and a member of my staff by the government on this bill last week. As we all know, the bill follows the Premier's declaration earlier this year at the opening of parliament via the Governor's speech that he wanted to investigate the remuneration of members of parliament in this state, including payments made in addition to salary. More recently, the Premier has stated on multiple occasions in the public arena that he believes that a greater base salary is needed to attract brighter minds to nominate themselves into the public life of this state as members of parliament.

If nothing else would demonstrate this, I would have thought the recent elevation of the independently wealthy Hon. Malcolm Turnbull to the role of Prime Minister would dampen that concept somewhat. I believe that people will either want to serve in a public capacity as legislators or they will not. Beyond being able to pay my rent, or mortgage as the situation is now (who thought that was a good idea?) and pay for cat food, I can assure you that my motivation to represent the community of South Australia is certainly not attached to or indexed against the salary I receive in return. We learned, I think, some interesting stories about members' past lives when we discussed salary.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: Careful, careful.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: The Hon. Mr Wade says, 'Careful, careful.' Well, I am not about to say anything that is not already on the public record, so calm down. I do not have any dirt yet. We learned some interesting stories about members' past lives. We have had the Hon. Mr Hood saying that he halved his salary to come into parliament. We have had the Hon. Mr Parnell, as a previous environmental law worker, saying that he trebled his salary by coming into parliament. I can put on the record that my life certainly changed because I began to receive a salary.

As a former worker in areas of the arts and disability advocacy, as a public speaker and community worker in disability advocacy, as well as beginning to establish a career as a playwright, receiving payment on commissions and through grants I was successful in receiving, the idea of a salary was somewhat novel to me. I certainly feel that an indication of the fact that I am in this place for the right reasons is that it still comes as something of a novelty and a surprise every payday. So, it is certainly not indexed against that in any way, apart from my, of course, base survival instinct.

My motivation, as I know it is for many in this place, is to represent and improve the lot of all South Australians and create a more fair, equal and respectful society. For me, it is particularly those who might be disengaged, disadvantaged or otherwise disenfranchised by society in a way that makes them vulnerable due to disabilities, mental illness, chronic illness, children and those from other disadvantaged backgrounds, who are my main motivation for being in this place.

I do not quite understand how increasing the salary of MPs using allowances we already receive for travel and committees will improve the quality of candidates for public office and the quality of work that is done when the incentive to undertake travel and arduous committee work has been removed. If we really thought that improving salary would entice brighter, more diverse minds into this place, then why would we not specifically discuss increasing, for example, the salary of female members of parliament?

It is because it is not the salary that is preventing more females from wanting to enter public life, it is the inflexible hours, the attitudes, the sexism and many other factors that I believe strongly discourage and make it very difficult for many people, including women, to enter into this arena. I think, frankly, it is the easy way out and it is insulting to suggest that salary is the only barrier to getting these diverse, bright minds into this place.

I think we also have to wonder what other consideration might have been given instead to attract other under-represented groups to public office. The Premier might be concerned about attracting our best and brightest to the parliament, but there seems to be no lack, dare I say it, of middle-aged white men in legislatures across Australia.

Conversely, there is a lack of people with disabilities; there is a dearth of women; there are few people of diverse cultural, ethnic and linguistic backgrounds; and I am keenly aware that there are few young people. There is a lack of Aboriginal Australians, there are few people who identify openly as being part of the queer community, and on the list goes. So, I do not really know that we can put this whole problem down to pay. I think we need to look at the attitudes and the other barriers we erect in this place before we can really say that pay is the key concern here.

How is the Premier and the government putting these issues on the agenda? Where is the consideration in particular for disability access in parliament, to encourage not only more people with disabilities but people with young children with prams, elderly people and so on, who may have diverse needs? Where are the additional allowances or consideration of the needs of members with disabilities who might have higher access needs for themselves as an MP or for their constituents—for example, the need to hire accessible venues for meetings, which can come at an additional cost, or the need to hire sign language interpreters for meetings, which can come at a cost?

Still today very few buildings, meeting places, websites and other public places provide any real meaningful access for members of parliament, their staff or members of the public who may have disabilities or other considerations. I think that these issues need to be managed more effectively and respectfully before we worry too much about the base salary of 69 South Australians. I think the Premier has missed identifying a number of barriers facing bright, intelligent, passionate South Australians wanting to enter our parliament; many of them are women, young people, culturally and linguistically diverse, Indigenous or, of course, have disabilities.

Thinking that the base salary state MPs receive is too low is a very simplistic way to view this issue. For example, how does a 27-year-old South Sudanese person who arrived in this state from a life in a Ugandan refugee camp 10 years ago contemplate entering our parliament? How does a 50-year-old person with quadriplegia, who requires a hoist in the workplace for personal care and needs to be supported by a personal attendant on work trips, for example, especially for airline travel, access a travel allowance that covers their needs? Until we address these real issues, we will not bear witness to a parliament that truly reflects the diversity of the community it purports to represent.

I state again, as I have before as the Dignity for Disability representative in this place, my concern when the government decides to side-step convention and prevent proper and necessary debate on legislation by rushing it through both chambers. As the Hon. Mr Mark Parnell has pointed out before me, the government has done this yet again. I will say this again: I am happy for us to rush through legislation in this place when there is a significant level of community concern for us to justify us doing so.

We have done that, for example, with bills relating to loopholes that could allow perpetrators of domestic violence to get information about the current addresses of the people they perpetrated violence against. I am happy to do it in those circumstances, but I certainly question whether it is necessary for us to so hastily rush through this bill that does not serve to protect and respect the broad needs of South Australians at large.

Dignity for Disability will support the second reading of this bill because we want to continue this discussion about the nuances of the bill and how we can have a discussion around the real issues that are actually preventing diversity being represented meaningfully and respectfully in this chamber. We also note the amendments that have been tabled by the Hon. Mark Parnell and the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, and we will give those consideration in due course.

I will support the second reading on behalf of Dignity for Disability so that we can continue this conversation and discuss what the real issues are for getting diverse representation in this place.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (17:00): I would like to thank honourable members for their contributions and the very wide array of issues that have been raised in their contributions on the second reading.

In particular, the Hon. Mark Parnell has asked a number of questions as part of his second reading contribution regarding the impact of the bill on staff members, the take-up of the Metro and interstate rail passes by members and former members, the cost of this and the impact that the abolition of the annual travel allowance will have on the contract between the government and its travel provider.

Government officers have done their best to gather the information necessary to answer the questions that the Hon. Mr Parnell has raised. The information has been gathered from a number of sources, both within parliament and across broader government. I will answer the Hon. Mark Parnell's questions as best I can with the information that is currently to hand, but I will also undertake that, where it is not absolutely complete, that information will continue to be gathered for the sake of providing complete answers to the Hon. Mark Parnell on all aspects of the questions he has asked.

The Hon. Mark Parnell's first question relates to the Metrocard, and he asked how many MPs take up the offer of free public transport within Adelaide and how much it costs per year. Government officers have been able to provide information to me in response to this question as it relates to members in another place, the members in the House of Assembly. I do not have that information as it relates to members in this place. However, we will continue to seek that information and provide it to the honourable member when it is available. I would suggest, though, that the information we have been able to get to hand as it relates to members in the other place will probably be reflective of members generally, so I will provide information we currently have to hand.

I am advised that, of the 47 sitting members of another place, 37 currently hold that Metrocard or special annual ticket. The total amount this costs is $17,840.73. All members of the other place have the possibility of the interstate rail travel pass. The total cost for those who have taken up that interstate rail pass in the last financial year was $15,264. The Hon. Mark Parnell asked about these issues in relation to former members. I can inform him that for former members of another place this information is to be published in the corporate annual report for the 2014-15 financial year, which has not yet been tabled. However, I am advised that for this period, that financial year, 49 former members of another place were issued with a Metrocard at a cost of $23,626.91.

Related to these questions, the Hon. Mark Parnell asked whether the parliament pays a one-off fee for the Metrocard or fees per trip. I am advised that the fee is a one-off annual fee per member. The Hon. Mark Parnell has also asked about the interstate rail travel costs for former members of parliament. Again, at this stage I only have the figures for former members of another place, but the data for the 2014-15 financial year indicates that 71 former members of another place hold that entitlement, that life gold pass entitlement, but during that financial year only seven former members booked travel, at a total cost of $32,095.44. As I said, we will continue to seek the information as it relates to members and former members of this place, and when we have it I will make sure that it is provided to the Hon. Mark Parnell.

The Hon. Mark Parnell has asked about the impact of the abolition of the annual travel entitlements on members' staff. Specifically, the question has been asked about whether there has been any consultation with relevant unions about the bill and whether travel entitlements are covered by enterprise bargaining agreements or awards. Following the abolition of the members' travel allowance, all travel that was previously covered by that allowance will need to be met from the member's basic salary, a component of which will represent compensation for loss of the travel entitlements as contemplated by this bill. What effect that will have on the travel arrangements for staff will be a matter for each member and his or her staff.

I can confirm that there have not been discussions with relevant unions over this matter. Preliminary advice from government officers is that the relevant EBA and award do not deal specifically with the standard of travel and accommodation for members' staff. However, again, our government officer will endeavour to provide any further and better information as we can find it for the Hon. Mark Parnell on that specific issue.

Finally, the Hon. Mark Parnell has asked about the contract between the government and its preferred travel agent. Specifically, the Hon. Mark Parnell has asked whether the agent will have any right of claim should a number of members booking travel through it decline. I am advised that there is no contractual impediment with the preferred travel adviser to a reduction in spend from members of parliament as there is no minimum spend under that contract. It may assist the Hon. Mark Parnell to know that the impact of changes in this bill on the level of bookings that will impact the annual spend through parliament is about 1 per cent of the total government spend.

I have addressed the questions the Hon. Mark Parnell posed in his second reading speech as best I can. Again, I state that in some of the its areas I think it is reflective of what the answer will eventually be but as further and better details are provided I will make sure that they are provided to the honourable member. There are a number of amendments that have been filed and I will address those as we get to them as the bill progresses through the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I have a request for the minister. He kindly offered to answer questions for the Hon. Mark Parnell; considering they were questions in the house could I request that the minister provide a copy so that it can be provided to Hansard for the sake of the record.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, I am happy to do that.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: First, I would like to thank the minister for the answers that he has been able to provide. It will be no surprise to him that I have made my own inquiries since asking those questions, and the answers he has provided are similar to the ones I came up with.

I will ask a further few questions in relation to some of these issues and they can perhaps be taken on notice if the answers are not available now and then, again, incorporated into Hansard, as the Hon. Stephen Wade requested. I had asked the minister whether the cost for the Metrocard was a one-off annual cost or whether it was per trip. Whilst it is not my intention to embarrass any members of parliament, I did have a conversation with one member earlier who said, 'Yes, I took the ticket because we just got an email asking if we wanted our free train ticket, and I used it three times.'

It seems to me that the cost to the parliament for that particular member is around $1,500—that is my understanding. If a member of the public were to buy 24-hour access, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year the cost is about $1,500. It seems that if a member availed him or herself of a ticket and used it three times the cost has been around $500 per trip.

What I am not sure about, in terms of the way this costing works, is that with the special annual ticket (and if we just use the lower house figures that the minister has available) 37 of 47 members availed themselves of that ticket. The total cost was $17,840.73. So, dividing that figure by 37 gives an average cost of $482.18 per member. My question is: how is it that members of parliament get a free ticket for the whole year for $482, yet it costs members of the public $1,500?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take that on notice. I am not sure what the answer is, whether these are a special class of ticket, recognising that historically usage has not been as high, as in the example the honourable member described. I will, as with your other questions, bring back a reply for insertion in Hansard.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the minister for his answer. As he is making these inquiries, I also ask him whether he could inquire into why it was not possible, with the new ticketing system, to actually identify per trip. The member that I referred to before took the annual ticket and used it only three times, making it a massive cost per trip. Even if we did it at $5 per trip, it seems that the Metrocard is capable of knowing whose ticket it is and what trip you took, and it should have been quite a simple matter to simply charge just those trips to parliament. I will move on as the minister has undertaken to come back.

In relation to the interstate trains, the minister has provided some figures: six of 47 lower house members used the interstate trains last year at an average cost of $2,500 per trip, which actually accords with my calculation from the Great Southern website—it is effectively one sleeper. I had asked (and the minister can again take this on notice) whether any members availed themselves of the platinum class trains, which probably would have been akin to the royal carriage, I imagine, in earlier days. I ask the minister to take that on notice.

This may seem a very pedestrian question, but when I was elected 9½ years ago and had my introductory session with the Clerk, I was presented with a gold medallion. It is a railways medallion, it is quite heavy and possibly is made of gold. I was told, and was very proud, that the medallion had been in the custody of the late Hon. Terry Roberts, and I was told that I got his pass. I guess my question is: is there now an expectation that members will return their gold passes and, if so, what might happen to them if we do that? I do not expect the minister to have an answer to that question, but I just make the point that 69 members of parliament are holding valuable pieces of jewellery, hopefully under lock and key.

The question I posed around the exclusive contract with Carlson Wagonlit, I accept what the minister has said, that he has advised that there is no contractual impediment, there was no guaranteed minimum spend and that in fact members of parliament were a relatively small proportion of the clientele under that contract. However, I just make the point that, if I had negotiated a contract as a commercial entity with government on an understanding that there was at least 69 frequent travellers who would be obliged to use our service, then that probably would have affected the price I would have offered, but I will let that go.

In terms of the industrial issues I raised, the minister has basically said that it is a matter for each member to determine for themselves. As the minister has, I too have had my staff looking through the enterprise agreement and through individual contracts, and they can find no specific obligation. Maybe the minister can add nothing further to what he has already said, but are we as members obliged to pay a per diem to our staff if we ask them to travel with us? I facetiously suggested to a staff member that the choice would be between the six-bed dorm or the eight-bed dorm in the local flea-ridden backpackers somewhere downtown.

I am actually not that mean, so that is not what I would do, but from an industrial point of view, as I have said, our staff are not necessarily in a position to say, 'No, I'm not travelling with you unless I get to stay somewhere decent.' Maybe that is just a matter for each member to negotiate for themselves. I have other questions, but I will wait until we get to the relevant parts of the bill. That is all I want to say on clause 1.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, I undertake to bring back the specific answers to the questions. Those that have been raised now were specifically about the platinum carriage travel on interstate trains, and whether any members have availed themselves of that, and about the gold medallion. I think I have Bob Sneath's medallion, so I would be happy to swap with the honourable member for that of Terry Roberts, if he wants to.

The other issue raised was the per diem for staff travel. I can make one recommendation: I know a number of times when I have travelled with my staff, particularly before becoming a minister, we have had great accommodation in on-site cabins at caravan parks in Berri, Mount Gambier and Port Augusta. They have been a very effective and efficient way to travel in regional South Australia.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 4 passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Parnell–1]—

Page 3, lines 25 to 28—Delete subsection (5) and substitute:

(5) A determination of the Remuneration Tribunal as to the amount of—

(a) any salary (including additional salary or the common allowance); or

(b) electorate allowances and other remuneration payable to any member of Parliament,

is of no force or effect unless and until a regulation is made confirming the determination.

(5a) A regulation referred to in subsection (5) may not come into operation until the time for disallowance under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1978 has passed.

(5b) For the avoidance of doubt, if a regulation confirming a determination of the Remuneration Tribunal is disallowed—

(a) the determination will be taken to be of no force or effect; and

(b) if the disallowed regulation revoked a regulation confirming a previous determination of the Remuneration Tribunal, that revoked regulation and the determination of the Remuneration Tribunal that it confirmed are revived.

(5c) For the avoidance of doubt, subsection (5) does not extend to a determination of the Remuneration Tribunal under section 4A.

I have raised this amendment in the past, and I raise it again now. What I do accept in this bill is that there should be a central role for the Remuneration Tribunal.

However, as mentioned by either the Hon. Kelly Vincent or the Hon. John Darley—or maybe it was both of them; I have forgotten already—we do have a situation where it is often seen as unfair in the community that is facing stringent economic times and where people, especially public servants—and I think that is one of the yardsticks we have to measure ourselves against—are constrained in their pay rises.

I have mentioned before that we have been here debating MPs' salary and conditions while there have been protesters on the steps—nurses, teachers and others—so it seems to me that we can have the best of both worlds: we can have the Remuneration Tribunal setting salaries, but we can have the parliament at least being given the ability, if situations require it, to say, 'No,' or to say, 'Less,' in relation to a decision that has been made.

The way I have achieved that in this bill is that determinations of the Remuneration Tribunal do not come into operation until they are put into a disallowable instrument. They are put into a regulation, and then that regulation is tabled in both houses of parliament as they are and it would be up to the parliament to decide whether they were happy just to accept the determination or whether they wanted to say, 'No, it's a bit much; we'll either accept nothing or we'll have a pay freeze, or we'll accept less.'

The Remuneration Tribunal might say, 'Whilst nurses and ambulance drivers might be getting 2 per cent, we're going to give you 10.' It would be up to the parliament to say, 'No, we'll take 2 per cent as well; that's the standard in the Public Service.' The only way to achieve that is to incorporate these decisions into a disallowable instrument. That is the purpose of this amendment.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate that the government opposes the amendment. This is a difference of view and opinion. From the government's point of view, the bill takes the determination of the common allowance, which in turn determines the value of the basic salary, out of the hands of members of parliament. The government opposes this amendment which attempts to change what this bill does.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I will make some brief comments in relation to this particular amendment. The Hon. Mr Parnell raises the issue that the parliament is addressing issues of remuneration whilst nurses and others are protesting about pay increases. I refer the member to my contribution which indicates that, for the last two years, members of parliament such as the Hon. Mr Parnell and other members have set the lead for nurses, doctors and public servants and others by saying, 'We won't accept any pay rises,' in a bold endeavour to encourage wage restraint amongst others.

As I indicated, the facts are in. Over the last two years, there has been an increase across the private and public sector of approximately 6 per cent in the average wages paid to workers in those sectors, so I just put the facts there. There have been previous examples where the parliament has set the lead in terms of trying to encourage wage restraint across the community and, for whatever reason, there is not much following that goes on after the parliament sets that lead.

I indicate on behalf of the Liberal Party that, as we did in the second reading, we would not support a movement away from the independence of the tribunal and therefore will not support this amendment. Let me hasten to say I would not suggest that anyone in this chamber would adopt this particular course of action, but what an amendment along this line does is allow, once the independent tribunal makes the decision, someone to come along and to grandstand and say, 'We are going to disallow the regulation,' knowing full well that the regulation will pass, or not be disallowed by the parliament, and that the individual salary and conditions will be accepted by all members, including the person or persons who recommend that the regulation be disallowed.

If we are going to have an independent tribunal engaged—and there have been a number of prominent minor party and Independents across the years, both in this house and in another place, who have long advocated that these issues be determined by an independent tribunal and taken away from members of parliament in terms of setting their salary and conditions—it should be a decision of the independent Remuneration Tribunal. Ultimately, that is what the government has structured in this bill, and it is for those reasons that the Liberal Party has decided to accept it and, for those reasons, we will be opposing the amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the Hon. John Darley for his indication of support. I am disappointed the Liberals will not be supporting it, and I just need very quickly to point out the internal inconsistency with the Hon. Rob Lucas's position. He states with some pride that 'we have set the lead'. The way for us to set the lead is to take control over pay rises.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: I didn't say 'with pride'.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I said 'pride'; you said, 'We have set the lead.'

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Yes, but I didn't say 'with pride'.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I stand corrected. I was commenting on the tone, rather than on the words the honourable member used. Anyway, in a tone that sounded like it had some pride in it, he said that 'we have set the lead', and my point is that this amendment would in fact enable the parliament to set the lead. He makes the point that members might grandstand. I also expect that, if members of parliament were not getting more than their counterparts in the Public Service and elsewhere, they probably would say, 'It's a fair cop. We deserve that rise as well.' I can see that I do not have the numbers today, but I just wanted to put that on the record.

The CHAIR: For the record, executive level members of the Public Service have also had a wage freeze for the last two years, so I think we should just acknowledge that.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Parnell–1]—

Page 4, lines 16 and 17—Delete ‘section 4AA(1)(b) and (2) following the commencement of that section’ and substitute:

sections 4 and 4AA (and those determinations have come into operation) following the commencement of the Parliamentary Remuneration (Determination of Remuneration) Amendment Act 2015

There are actually a number of amendments. They are in different clauses, so we can deal with them separately, but I will speak to them all together. Basically, the issue is the travel allowance of $13,500-odd and how that should be treated. Under the bill, it is rolled into salary. It basically arrives in a member's bank account as part of their pay and it is just treated as normal salary.

As has been said already, members will decide how much and when and where to travel and, as other members have noted, there will be no accountability. There will be no travel reports; there will be nothing, basically. Members will choose whether or not to travel, they will choose whether or not to take their staff, and they will choose whether or not to report back to the parliament on what they have done.

The alternative approach that I think makes sense—and this is budget neutral, it does not cost taxpayers any more, and it is indicated by amendment Nos 2, 3 and 4—is for travel allowance to be rolled into the electorate allowance. That has a number of advantages. The electorate allowance, as members know, is generally tax free. The expectation is that it is spent on work expenses and, if it is spent on work expenses, then there is no tax payable. It is basically a fund that members manage for their work expenses. Different members no doubt handle it differently. Certainly the perspective that I take, and it is the Greens' perspective, is that it goes into a separate bank account, it is administered jointly with staff and it is used exclusively for work expenses. That is the electorate allowance.

If you rolled travel allowance into it, then it would basically boost that separate bucket of work money and it would basically be, I think, a real fillip to members to know that this is work money and it is to be spent on work expenses, including travel. I think it makes sense to roll travel into the electorate allowance. I note that it is completely budget neutral, it does not cost any more. Whatever the Remuneration Tribunal comes up with, that is the amount that would be rolled into the electorate allowance.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the Hon. Mark Parnell for his amendment. I can see what his arguments are and appreciate the sentiments in them. However, what the bill is trying to do is abolish the travel allowance that is payable to all members of parliament generally and the amount of remuneration is determined by the tribunal and rolled into the basic salary to compensate members for this generally. Then members can use money from their salary to travel as they see fit. For that reason, the government opposes the amendment.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I suspect that this amendment will be lost, but I want to place on the record that Family First will support it. This is something that I outlined in my second reading contribution yesterday. I think the Hon. Mr Parnell has outlined the reasons very well. I think the concern here—and I am sure that members would quietly acknowledge this even while supporting the bill as it stands and opposing the amendment—is that the result of these changes is that members will travel less.

I think it is a profoundly difficult situation when every member here is responsible for constituents right across the state and really answerable to them, yet there isn't any specific fund for each of us to go and visit those constituents. I think the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendment is not perfect, frankly, and I think it is better the way it is currently, but I think it is an improvement on the bill before us. For that reason, we will be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I will put on the record that Dignity for Disability will also support the amendment. Mr Parnell and I have talked about the way the existing arrangements can be a little cumbersome to travel. However, I would also like to ask a question of the mover, if I may. How does he envisage that members' travel will then be monitored, particularly given that there has been, especially at a federal level, some concern about members' travel arrangements?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the member for her question. The answer is that it will not be monitored, the same as how we choose to spend our electorate allowance is not monitored. The only monitoring is that, if you want to avoid having to pay tax on it, you need to spend it on a work-related expense and then you need to lodge a tax return that basically justifies that.

While I am on my feet, the Hon. Dennis Hood's point is similar. He says that he prefers the current arrangement because it does have the accountability of having to do reports. I agree with him. I do think that the current arrangement is better, but I think the model that I have put forward here at least puts a moral obligation—that is all it would be—on members to continue to travel and continue to use a bucket of funds that has been allocated and dedicated to that purpose.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I indicate that the Liberal Party opposes the amendment. I will address some comments to the other parts of the package the Hon. Mr Parnell is moving as a package, his amendment nos 2, 3 and 4 I think he said. I do not think his amendments achieve what he is intending to achieve or is setting out to achieve.

That is not the only reason I oppose it because, as we outlined at the second reading, the Liberal Party has agreed with the fundamental principles the government has outlined in the legislation, but I will point out in relation to some of the later aspects of his amendments, I guess, the points I am making, in particular in relation to this one. I indicate that, as a part of a package, I do not believe they achieve or would achieve what the Hon. Mr Parnell is setting out to achieve.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIR: You are saying that you talked to a number of these amendments. Do you want to run through it? What about amendment No. 3?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Amendment No. 3 is consequential and No. 4 is consequential.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: If they are being treated as consequential, and clearly the Hon. Mr Parnell is accepting they will be defeated, can I outline briefly the further comments I have made in relation to this. In relation to amendment No. 3, all that amendment is doing, when one looks at it, is that the tribunal is being asked, in determining electoral allowances and other remunerations, to have regard to three issues and what this is actually saying is having regard to the cost to members in terms of undertaking travel in connection.

Amendment No. 4 which, the Hon. Mr Parnell will not proceed to move, is the amendment which talks about the annual travel allowance. The honourable member's amendment there, in essence, deletes the only reference in the legislation to the removal of the travel allowance and the gold card. On my reading of this, if the Hon. Mr Parnell's package were accepted we would be voting to keep the gold card for members because the particular provision in 4AA(1) is the only one where it says, under (b):

Determine an amount of remuneration that reasonably compensates members of Parliament for the abolition of each of those components.

The intention of this is that there would be the abolition of the travel allowance as a separate arrangement and the gold card allowances, and the only reference in the legislation to the abolition of those is in this particular provision. The Hon. Mr Parnell was going to move to delete it, so the end result of that would be that support of the amendments would have left the gold card arrangement in practice. I cannot support that, and I am surprised that is the position the Hon. Mr Parnell is advocating by way of these amendments.

I think there are similar weaknesses in his drafting in relation to what he thinks will be the travel allowance. In my view, the travel allowance is there with a set of rules. The only thing that abolishes it is this particular provision which tells the tribunal, 'If you get rid of it, those existing travel allowance rules, which the tribunal already has, stay there.' So, the response the Hon. Mr Parnell gave to the Hon. Ms Vincent I am not sure was entirely accurate because, again, I am not sure how they would coexist with the new arrangement he is looking at.

Thankfully, the first of the package of amendments has been defeated and the second and third are seen as a package. I did want to highlight to the Hon. Mr Parnell that perhaps on reflection, if he has a look at it, the package he has moved would have had a number of consequences, I am not sure all of which he would personally support. I put those comments on the record as a further reason why we have voted against this package of amendments.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: In light of that contribution, I need to put on the record that it was not my intention to maintain the gold pass entitlements. Whilst we could spend some time in a huddle with parliamentary counsel to work out whether there are in fact unintended consequences, as the Hon. Rob Lucas has claimed, I do not think we need to do that. I want to put on the record that the intention of my amendments was, as I have said, to roll travel allowance into electorate allowance.

It is probably not that productive for us to finetune amendments that are destined to fail anyway. I just want to make sure that Hansard readers do not somehow think there was any subterfuge here and that the intent—not that the honourable member suggested it was an intent; he suggested it was perhaps an unintended consequences—of this amendment was precisely as I have said and no more.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Parnell–1]—

Page 5, line 21—Delete ‘ordinary’

Amendment No 6 [Parnell–1]—

Page 5, line 24—Delete ‘ordinary’

Amendment No 7 [Parnell–1]—

Page 5, line 30—Delete ‘ordinary’

Amendments Nos 5, 6 and 7—and there is another related amendment, No. 12 I think it is—basically go to the question of whether the government's intention to end additional pay for committees has been adequately achieved in this bill. I say that it has not because of the glaring omission of the chairs of committees. Just to make it clear, the chairs of committees are going to get more money under this bill than they currently get. Whilst the percentage loadings in the schedule might remain the same, they will be applied to a higher base; therefore, the chairs of committees will get more money.

What I think we need to point out is that, given that the government has accepted that service on standing committees is a regular part of a member's work for which he or she does not deserve a separate line item but that their overall salary should incorporate their service on committees—I accept that principle and have been calling for it for a long time—to make an exception of the chairs of committees, I think we need to actually examine what these people do to deserve this extra money.

Members here have served on different committees. I can give the example of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee, which is the one that I serve on. I have been back through my calendar and I have counted up the number of meetings that we have had and are likely to have in the calendar year. On my calculation, the committee will probably sit for around 40 hours. It may be that there is an excursion or two—there have not been too many, but there may be an excursion or two coming up—or it might be a little bit more than that.

The chair of that committee is going to get, on top of the extra $16,000 or so that is going to be rolled into base salary, an extra $30,000 on their salary, at an hourly rate of $765 per hour, which is quite a remarkable achievement for a person whose only entitlement to it is that they sit in a different chair around the table from the rest of us and maybe they run through the agenda, that someone else has prepared for them and, other than that, do very little extra work.

My question of the minister is: given that it was good enough for the rest of the members of these committees to have their committee payments rolled into salary, why was it not good enough for the chairs of committees to be treated the same?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his contribution on his amendment. The government opposes these amendments. Quite simply, this is again a difference of view, and it is the government's view that the extra responsibility that comes with the presiding member of a committee should be acknowledged and that is how it is under the current scheme. We are not disturbing that under this.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: For a minister whom I respect as being honest, he must have his tongue in the middle of his cheek to stop smiling, really, because what this is actually about is a lot of disgruntled people in the Labor Party on the backbenches. What we have here is a divide and conquer, and we have some with snouts that will get very big in the trough and some that will be financially significantly worse off.

This has actually happened simply for one reason only: it is to try to appease some of the disgruntled members who feel that they will have some off-set by being a chair of a committee. You either stick with what you have or you actually do what the Hon. Mark Parnell is saying—that we all have obligations, whether you are a chair or not a chair, and, if you want that privilege, put your hand up.

I think it would be good to see non-government members having an opportunity to chair. If they were not getting their $30,000, then crossbench members and opposition members for the first time would probably end up chairing most of the committees. Let us be true and honest about this: this is just to try to appease some of the disgruntled people. Many of them are not, by the way, appeased at all and are still very unhappy when you talk to them. This whole thing is a mess, and I support the Hon. Mark Parnell in his amendment. You either have the bucket full or you have the bucket empty, not half full or half empty.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I advise we support the amendment.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I am just going to say that, given that this is a quarter of a million dollar unnecessary hit every year to the state budget, it was going to be my intention to divide on this amendment, but I think all the members of the crossbench have made their views clear, so that, I think, is unnecessary. However, members should not get too relaxed because I am sure that we have a division or two in us before the end of this debate.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I rise on behalf of Liberal members to indicate, as I did at the second reading, that we will oppose this amendment. I accept that the quality of a chair of a committee varies, as the quality of the contributions of individual members of committees might vary, but all I can say is that as the chair of the Budget and Finance Committee, which is an unpaid committee, just to look at the two hours of the Budget and Finance Committee and work out the hourly rate I think is an inaccurate measure of the work that goes into committees from some members.

On average, my preparation for Budget and Finance Committee would be 10 to 12 hours, in addition to the two hours. So it is a cute point to look at the actual sitting hours and say, 'Well, that's the only work that you do as a chair of a committee.' As I said, while I accept the point that the contribution of chairs might vary, as the contribution of members might vary, the issue of the work that you do on a committee is not just the work that is done in the two hours of the particular committee meeting.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Whether you are a chair or not.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, exactly. It can be the work that you do in terms of preparation for the committee, and indeed the work you do subsequently as a result of the activities of that particular committee.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Broke–1]—

Page 5, after line 2—Insert:

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) operate subject to the qualification that an electorate allowance of a member of Parliament who is a Minister will be paid at the rate of 25% of the allowance that would have been payable had the member not been a Minister.

Amendment No 2 [Broke–1]—

Page 6, after line 29—Insert:

4AD—Reporting requirements—travel

1) If a member of Parliament (including a Minister) travels interstate or overseas on official business, the member must, within 28 days after returning to the State, furnish a report to the Presiding Member of the member's House of Parliament on—

(a) the activities conducted by the member while on official business; and

(b) the benefits to the State that were achieved (or are expected to be achieved) on account of the trip; and

(c) such other matters as the member thinks fit.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must comply with any requirements specified by the Presiding Member of the member's House of Parliament.

Amendment No 3 [Broke–1]—

Page 6, after line 29—Insert:

6A—Amendment of section 4A—Non-monetary benefits

Section 4A—after subsection (6) insert:

(7) A Minister of the Crown is not entitled to be provided with a motor vehicle under this section while holding that office.

In discussing amendment No. 1, I will also include my remarks for the other two amendments, because they all tie in together. I have not spoken on this bill before, but in appealing to members to actually consider this I put on the public record that I think that this is an awful piece of legislation.

Since I have been in this house, we have seen different premiers and different cabinets play around with entitlements and remuneration of members of parliament based on adverse media, based on disgruntlement within their caucus or party room, based on trying to befriend and win over Independents who come into this place. An example of that was the Natural Resources Committee, where for one term, to appease some of those Independents and try to get them to support the government, we had to expand the Natural Resources Committee at that point in time, which cost the taxpayers money and made it a very cumbersome NRC. That was done just to buy off support from some Independents.

We saw a situation where, when the Liberals were in office, I think for the first time in the South Australian parliament we had parliamentary secretaries. Those parliamentary secretaries received no remuneration. Then a Labor government came in, there was disgruntlement again in the caucus, and people were unhappy because of factional or captain's calls on what happens with cabinet and other positions, so all of a sudden we see all these parliamentary secretaries getting paid. All of a sudden, they had 20 per cent over and above their salary. I could never understand, other than buying them off, why we started paying parliamentary secretaries—who, by the way, are still going to do quite nicely out of this.

Then we had a situation where the leader of the opposition federally, Mark Latham, decided that it would be a vote winner with the community if he was to pull superannuation back to 9 per cent, the same as everybody else. All of a sudden, the same thing happened in South Australia and, when the hue and cry occurred down the track, there were some increases. I will come to the common denominator in all this in a minute.

By doing a lot of very hard work, with people trying to get some balance and fairness into it, we had a form of annex to the federal parliament with a capping just below. We would not be here today debating any of this if that had not been interfered with. I will tell you why it was interfered with: because politically at the time it was opportunistic. It was opportunistic for the premier of the day—not this current Premier but the one before him—to play around and go away from that annex.

I say all this to seek support for these three amendments. If we were serious about two facts—to be totally kosher and removed from all the salary and entitlements of members of parliament—now we would be having a bill saying one thing only, that an independent tribunal will make all the decisions on what happens to salary remuneration. It is as simple as that: one clause in a bill and let the independent umpire arbitrate on what they believe to be best. But, no, we do not have that.

There were other promises that I will not place on the public record, but I will at least put the fact that other promises were looked at for government members on what they thought would be the other part of this package. The nervous Nellies in cabinet decided at the end of the day that they would not proceed with the other part of the promise of the package, and I can tell you there are some younger Labor backbenchers in particular who are not very happy about that and I can understand why.

We are then told that we will remove corruption and that we will have the best and the brightest if we increase the salary package. I have always said publicly that I believe that we do have to lift one way or another the packages for members of parliament, but I would prefer it to be independently by a tribunal. The reality is that it is way behind what we see in this type of position in both the public executive sector and the private sector.

At the end of the day, what has happened and why we are here debating this now and why we have to rush it through today is beyond me. The negative publicity is already out there, if the government thinks it is going to get hurt by that; people treat us as they see us and believe in us or do not believe in us. But why are we rushing this through before 6.30 today? When it came to cabinet, the nervous Nellies backed off on some of the things they were going to look at. If they could trade off 25 per cent to the shadow ministers in opposition and forget the rest of the backbenchers, some of those backbenchers were chairing a couple of committees and sitting on two or three committees, working their backsides off to support the government and they got done over. Some are going to be worse off.

The crossbenchers are not getting any pay rise. If you sit down and look at this, crossbenchers and backbenchers are getting no pay rise. In fact, I would say that it is a decrease because if you are still going to do the things that should be done and go right across the state of South Australia as a member of the Legislative Council, if you look at the taxation implications you will be worse off. Do you know who the big winners are? The ministers.

If the ministers are serious about screwing the public of this state because the budget is a mess, if the ministers are serious about showing the people, by example, they are trying to negotiate enterprise bargaining agreements with that they are going to try and hold them down at CPI and so on and so forth, it is about time the ministers of this government showed some leadership—and they have not. As it stands now, they are the winners and they are the grinners. So, I ask this chamber to look at it—government ministers will not.

I do not know what agreement may have been done (I have a fair idea) between opposition and government from what I am hearing and picking up. But I ask the opposition and the crossbenches to look at these. I think these are three reasonable amendments to start to remove the snouts in the trough by ministers who have sat there and worked out that they will all be much better off over this. They will be much better off in the longer term as well because of the other benefit implications that occur to them that capitalise further on this package when they leave parliament.

I am simply putting up three amendments, and I will speak to them all now. First and foremost, why should a minister, in this package, get a 100 per cent electorate allowance? I know that some ministers rarely go into their electorates. If you are a diligent and hardworking minister, you will not be putting more than about 25 per cent of your time into your electorate in any case. I have strongly believed this for some time because we all know directly, transparently and non-transparently, what ministers can do with their ministerial and departmental allowances. We all know what they can do. I think this is a fair and reasonable amendment, that they only get 25 per cent, because 25 per cent would be generous to support them on the time they are actually in their electorate.

When it comes to travel—and we have seen what has been happening with travel, and how much some ministers have been paying with travel—it is only fair and reasonable, without giving (and this covers it) any commercial-in-confidence report to the parliament if a business arrangement is occurring with a minister on behalf of the interests of the state, generally to put a base report into the parliament so that there is transparency. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with ministers having to do the same as we have had to do up until now? They should be doing it now because of the bonuses they are receiving.

Finally, I bring up the third amendment relating to the motor vehicle. If you are a minister, or chair of a committee where you get a car, you have access to that car 24 hours a day, seven days a week. You do not have to wash it, vacuum it or get it serviced, and you do not even have to drive it. It is at your disposal 24/7. On top of that, all the ministers do not have to worry about buying a family car or a car for their wife, husband or children, because they can get a taxpayer subsidised car. They can sell their other car or jack it up and put it on blocks and get another bonus there. Why do they need that when they have the other car?

Mark my words, this is a very bad piece of legislation—very bad. It should simply have been one thing: hand it all over to an independent tribunal. Given that it is so bad, I believe that we should be removing some of the absolutely over the top benefits ministers are receiving, and I therefore have moved this amendment and have spoken to the other two as well.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: On behalf of the government I rise to oppose the suite of amendments. I can speak from my personal experience, having reasonably recently become a minister. I know that the electorate work I do has increased significantly since becoming a minister. As I have become slightly better known around the state in regional South Australia, the electorate-type work I have been expected to do and am doing has increased significantly. I oppose reducing the electoral allowance to a minister, who I think ought to still represent the state and ought to be given the tools to do that.

I oppose the suite of amendments, particularly the first one. In relation to some of the other amendments, again I can speak from my personal experience. I still regularly use the car I pay for, that is, my parliamentary car. My staff and I have been to Mount Gambier twice and Port Augusta, Berri and other regional areas in my parliamentary car doing other electorate work in addition to my ministerial work. I think ministers still do, and still ought to do, electorate work, so I oppose this suite of amendments.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Based on the minister's answer, I ask the minister: what was happening to the 24-hour, seven-day-a-week chauffeur-driven car while he was actually driving his electorate car, and what cost was there associated with that car and the staff member who is elected to drive that chauffeur-driven car?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It would have formed part of the pool, as they do when ministers take leave.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I rise to support the Hon. Rob Brokenshire's amendments. I think he makes some excellent points, not least of which is the inequity and the lack of an evidence base for most of the provisions that are in this bill. The issue of the cars is an interesting one.

I am happy to share with the council that my original set of amendments referred to the chauffeur-driven cars that were allocated to the two committee chairs. On top of the extra salary they are going to get, they get the car and driver. I decided not to proceed with that, not because I think the system does not need reform but because it did not neatly fit within the long title of this bill and I was not prepared to remove two cars and validate all the rest, so that is a debate for another day.

But I maintain that the most sensible option would be for this parliament to have a system similar to that used at the commonwealth level, which is that, if you need a car for work purposes, there is a pool you can access to get you to the meeting and back. That is the COMCAR system, as it works at the federal level. We could have a scaled-down version of that here.

I am not the only person who has seen a driver bring a member from an inner suburb to parliament in the morning, sit around all day and take them home at night, and that is the extent of their work. There is all this talk of a pool. Well, I have never been invited to participate in the pool. If I need to go out to a meeting in the suburbs—and I have been out to the Vietnam Veterans, the veterans' shed and a number of other meetings in the suburbs—we drive ourselves or we get a taxi if we want to.

The idea that it is a good use of taxpayers' money to have not only all the ministerial cars but two undeserving chairs of committees with access to an exclusive chauffeur-driven car is an absolute outrage and we need to get rid of that. I think it is to this government's shame that they have, in a piecemeal way, tinkered with remuneration and conditions in a way that preferences their members, but they have not tackled any of the big issues. I thank the honourable member for putting these amendments forward, and the Greens will be supporting them.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be supporting the Hon. Rob Brokenshire's amendments.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: For the sake of the record, given my previous comments, I am sure it will not surprise anyone that Dignity for Disability will also support this amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I rise on behalf of Liberal members to indicate that we will oppose the amendments. In regard to the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's issue that the only way to resolve these issues is to have everything independent by the Remuneration Tribunal—and that has been a position that Bob Such and a number of members used to put—the only point I make is that, when the federal Remuneration Tribunal did a work value case for federal members, they came up with a salary level of between $180,000 and $250,000 as the appropriate remuneration for a federal member of parliament.

That was when the salary was about $140,000 or whatever it might happen to be. I can just imagine what would happen if the South Australian tribunal did a work value case for members of parliament and came back with a salary of greater than $200,000 as a base salary for a backbench member of parliament or up to $250,000 and that was the completely independent decision of the Remuneration Tribunal.

Those of us who are members might say 'That's fantastic,' but it would be more difficult to sell to the community than this particular modest package that is before us in terms of the implications for basic salary. So, I hear the issue about the independent tribunal and, as a philosophy, I understand the point, but if the decision came back along the lines of the federal tribunal's work value case for members, I am not sure that all members ultimately—even those who used to push the case like Bob Such—would have held firm on a salary increase that was very significant.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: On the comment of the Hon. Rob Lucas, as I sum up, I am not sure that he is actually correct in that assumption. One of the things that I have heard over the years when this picking and choosing occurred, based on what I have already said and put on the public record, is the fact that people loathe that we as members of parliament can interfere whenever it suits us to change our remuneration package, whereas they either have to go and do an enterprise bargaining agreement, go and do an individual agreement, get someone to negotiate for them or work through a union. They do not have the privilege that we have of playing around with their conditions. I think they would feel much more comfortable if it was absolutely kosher and independent, with an independent tribunal of arbiters.

I thank the crossbench members for their support. Like the Hon. Mark Parnell said, it is clear on this occasion that, whilst there is a lot of unrest in the backbenches of the Labor and Liberal parties over this package, clearly a deal has been done. A deal has been done and, on these occasions, we on the crossbenches all know that we are absolutely irrelevant. But I would say to the government in particular: when you go to bed tonight, think about how relevant you want us to be on the crossbenches when it suits you as a government.

I therefore will not be dividing. As the Hon. Mark Parnell has said and I am saying, too, to the public, it is on the record. You can see what the crossbenchers were prepared to support with these three amendments. I will not be dividing.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 8 [Parnell–1]—

Page 5, lines 34 and 35—Delete ‘subsection (1)(b) and’

Amendment No 9 [Parnell–1]—

Page 5, lines 37 to 44—Delete subsections (4) and (5) and substitute:

(4) The amount of remuneration referred to in subsection (2) as varied from time to time will be taken to be the common allowance payable to all members of Parliament.

I will not speak to 8 and 9; they are consequential.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 10 [Parnell–1]—

Page 6, lines 24 to 29—Delete subsection (6)

This is the first reference to shadow ministers. The effect of this amendment, and amendment No. 11, is to remove the 25 per cent loading for shadow ministers. Just to be clear about this, what we are talking about here is probably around $40,000 to $45,000 extra pay for probably 10 members of parliament. I am working on the assumption that, if there are 14 ministers, you already have a leader and a deputy leader in both houses, so there are 10 left. Ten people are going to get probably close to $45,000, maybe even $50,000 each, so there is half a million dollars a year.

I do have a question of the minister on this issue in relation to shadow ministers, and that question is: what analysis was undertaken to determine the loading that should apply to shadow ministers? In other words, what analysis of workload or productivity was undertaken? Was a similar analysis done on the workload of crossbench members, particularly of the upper house? Thirdly, why was this question not referred to the Remuneration Tribunal to work out whether shadow ministers were deserving of a pay loading?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think I can be of some assistance to the honourable member. The government is taking its lead from the commonwealth Remuneration Tribunal, which determined in its 2011 review of the remuneration of commonwealth members of parliament that shadow ministers should be entitled to an additional salary. The tribunal said in that determination that, and I quote:

The Tribunal considers that it is clear that shadow ministers perform identifiable functions in relation to the Parliament—notably in holding the Government of the day, and its Ministers, to account, and in preparing to form a viable Government if, and when, necessary.

The commonwealth tribunal determined that:

A shadow minister's job, done properly, is an onerous task and it is inarguable that a shadow minister has responsibilities additional to those of an Opposition backbencher, even though the two are currently paid the same…

So, the commonwealth tribunal determined the appropriate rate of salary for commonwealth shadow ministers at 25 per cent, and we have taken the lead from that.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: It may surprise members to hear that we are actually going to oppose the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment on this occasion. We support the capacity for shadow ministers to be remunerated appropriately. Whether it should be 15 per cent, 25 per cent or 50 per cent, I do not know, but I understand that 25 per cent is the amount that the shadow ministers at a federal level are compensated above the base wage of an MP; therefore, maybe that is the right amount.

So, we do support the 25 per cent loading for shadow ministers, but I have to say, as I said in my second reading contribution, that what I think is inexplicable is that that increase does not apply in any way to any other members of parliament. There is no recognition for the extra workload that crossbenchers fulfil. Whilst shadow ministers (good ones) will work substantially more hours in terms of understanding the details of their portfolio and arguing a strong case, holding the government to account on that particular portfolio or that group of portfolios, as the case may be, it is true that the crossbenchers have to do that usually on a larger number of portfolios.

I think it would be impossible for us to do it perfectly well across half the portfolios each in the case of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire and I, and in the case of the Greens; they would split the portfolios down the middle as well. In the case of the Hon. Mr Darley and the Hon. Kelly Vincent, they are responsible for all of them.

I think it is worth noting that this increment only extends to the shadow ministers and does not extend to the crossbench, and I see no good reason for that. Frankly, I think it is insulting and unjustifiable and I would like to lodge my protest, if you like. As I said, for that reason we will not be supporting the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendment in this case.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: As I said in my second reading speech, I believe that the Remuneration Tribunal should deal with all these things, so I will be supporting the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendments.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Likewise, Dignity for Disability will support the amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Liberal Party decided to support this particular amendment. I must say that, come the next election, for my sins I think I will have served potentially for 20 years as a shadow minister in various guises, of which, if this bill passes, two of those years will have been recompensed as a shadow minister. It may well be that whomsoever inherits the opposition benches after 2018 may be the long-term beneficiaries of this particular provision.

Putting that to the side, as a general principle I agree with the view that shadow ministers, whether they be Liberal or Labor, should be recompensed in some way as members of the alternative government in terms of the workload that they undertake. For those reasons, we think the federal model is an appropriate model and our party room is supporting the government's position.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 11 [Parnell–1]—

Page 7—Delete the item relating to a Shadow Minister

Amendment No 12 [Parnell–1]—

Page 7—Delete the items relating to the following offices:

Presiding Member of the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee

Presiding Member of the Economic and Finance Committee

Presiding Member of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee

Presiding Member of the Legislative Review Committee

Presiding Member of the Public Works Committee

Presiding Member of the Social Development Committee

Presiding Member of the Statutory Authorities Review Committee

Presiding Member of the Natural Resources Committee (unless a Minister)

I have two amendments to clause 7. Both of them are consequential and so the will of the chamber has already been noted. However, I want to say two things. First of all, some of these positions listed in the schedule relate to a specific individual. For example, there is only one Premier and there is only one Leader of the Opposition in the House of Assembly, but a number of these loadings relate to groups of people—for example, ministers in the Executive Council, ministers outside the Executive Council, shadow ministers, parliamentary secretaries.

There are 26 items in the list. When we consider those that have multiple eligible members within them, my calculation is that there are 50 members of parliament who are entitled to extra pay on the basis of the list in the schedule—50 out of the 69 members of parliament. Every single one of those 50 members comes from the Labor Party or the Liberal Party. I have said that this was the Liberals and Labor feathering their own nests, that it was self-interest on steroids. Here is your proof. Do the sums yourself. It might be 49, it might be 51. Do the sums yourself. There are, on my calculation, 50 out of 69 members entitled to extra pay because they are a member of the Liberal Party or the Labor Party, and that is outrageous.

Because we are sitting in here we are not listening to the debate in the other place, but the message I have just had from someone who is listening is that there are members over there complaining. They want to go home and we are holding them here because we are debating the Parliamentary Remuneration (Determination of Remuneration) Amendment Bill—the absolute nerve and cheek of those people. They have no shame. They are complaining that they have to stay because they want to get a message from us and they have not got that message because we have not finished the debate. Really, this is snouts in trough extraordinaire. I think it is absolutely outrageous.

As I have said, I am not going to divide on these two amendments. One amendment was to remove shadow minister and the other was to remove the chairs of committees. The will of the chamber is known, but I will have more to say as the debate in committee resumes.

Amendments negatived; clause passed.

Schedule.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I have a question on the schedule. The schedule refers to the transitional provisions. It is unclear, on a reading of this, exactly how it might work. It seems a line has been drawn in the sand at 1 September 2015. Basically, my understanding is that after that date no travel can be undertaken that relates to any period of travel allowance that is brought forward. In other words, you cannot tap into the next year's. My question is: what implications does this transitional provision have for travel before this clause is brought into effect, and when does the minister expect these new arrangements will come into effect?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The effect of the clause is that it will not have any effect on travel in the current financial year, but from 1 September you cannot bring forward travel from the 2015-16 financial year.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Point of clarification then, minister: does that mean that members are free to use what amount is in their current travel allowance for the remainder of this financial year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that is the effect of that part of the transitional amendment.

The CHAIR: Any further contributions?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: One more, because we will kick ourselves if we do not clarify this. Let us say this bill is proclaimed and comes into operation, say next month or the month after, is the minister saying that travel allowance that relates to this current financial year, notwithstanding the passage of this bill, can still be used up to 30 June of next year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that, yes, it can. It means that you cannot bring forward from the next financial year.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Can I just offer a point of potential clarification? My understanding is that what will operate and needs to be taken into this equation is that there will be a decision at some stage, possibly at the end of this year or early next year, the tribunal will make a decision to abolish certain allowances, the allowances will be abolished and there will be a compensating salary increase. On my understanding, the salary increase would occur either at that time or, under this legislation, it can come back to the passage of the legislation, but that is a decision for the tribunal. My assumption would be, at that particular time the travel allowance will disappear as will the gold card.

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: That's not what the minister said.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: That's why I am just offering clarification. The minister has not been perhaps as actively engaged in these discussions as other ministers in the government might be, so I did not want that to be on the record potentially unchecked. It is my understanding, in terms of the discussions, and it would seem to make sense to me, that if, for example, the tribunal were to make a decision that the basic salary was to increase from 1 January, I am not sure that the members would still be able to use the gold card and travel entitlements for 2014-15 for the next six months up until 30 June.

It would seem to make sense that the transitional arrangements should be that, if the basic salary starts then, that would be when the gold card and the 2014-15 travel entitlement, in essence, would have stopped and the new arrangements would start. Common sense would seem to me to suggest that that would be a fair arrangement that would pass the 'sniff test', in terms of public exposure of the situation.

Having put that on the record, I am not sure whether the minister might like to either clarify what he said or take further advice on it in terms of that issue, but that is my understanding in relation to the circumstance.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I guess that raises the other possible scenario, that is, for a member who, for example, had already booked travel prior to the bill becoming operational but the travel was for a date after the bill becoming operational. I think we need some clarity about what is okay and what is not.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Travel booked before the bill becomes operational but before a determination is made?

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Correct, and also the circumstance—

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Can I indicate the advice I have received is that if, in essence, bookings have occurred prior to whenever the travel allowance disappears and the basic salary increases, they would be honoured, if that is the right word, or they would be processed. If something has been booked and it occurs afterwards, that would be the case: you have expended your 2014-15 travel allowance, albeit that the travel might be after 30 June—it might be in late January during the summer break or whatever it might be.

Certainly, that is the advice I have received in terms of trying to understand this bill and its implications for members, and I members have asked me questions similar to this. That is the advice I have provided on the basis of the advice I was given in relation to this.

The CHAIR: Minister, would you like to clarify this issue?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The information the Hon. Rob Lucas has put on record I am advised is correct. Certainly, if there were not a determination for quite some time, it would be status quo: members could use their travel allowance as they have it this year. They could not bring forward from next financial year. However, once a determination is made, and if there is a compensation from the tribunal for travel allowance, you could not use it after the time the determination has been made. The issue the Hon. Dennis Hood raised about booking before it is proclaimed—yes, you can do that, but you still cannot bring forward from 2015-16.

Schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (18:18): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (18:18): As loath as I am to keep the members of the other place waiting for us—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I am offended at the suggestions from unnamed members that I am about to filibuster; I have no intention of doing that. What I do want to do is just one final time put on the record that this is a very self-serving piece of legislation from the government. In cooperation and connivance with the opposition, they have managed to give themselves a very good deal indeed. I think that this is a very poor way for this state to set an example as to how these things should be done. We have not heard one skerrick of evidence. When I have asked for evidence, all we have heard is, 'Well, some inquiry some time ago thought it was a good idea to give people more money, so we do.'

I think this is a terrible piece of legislation. It will not pass Rob Lucas's sniff test, or the water cooler test, or the front bar test. I accept that some members think that no bill ever would have, but I think we could have done much better. I think we could have kept more accountability and we could have certainly kept more fairness. I just want to put on the record for now that, on behalf of the Greens, I will be opposing the third reading of this bill and that we will be dividing on that question.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (18:20): Very briefly, I think my contribution yesterday outlined Family First's position, but I just want to make it absolutely clear that we were predisposed to support this bill originally. However, over the course of negotiations, over the preceding several weeks in particular, we have noted a number of aspects of the bill that we do not believe are right and, because of that, as I outlined my contribution yesterday—I will not go through the detail again—we are unable to support the bill.

If some of the amendments presented today had been successful, we would have been much more inclined to support the bill, but I think the one thing that is particularly difficult in this bill is that every member of this place has constituents all over the state and, once this bill passes, we have no specific fund in order to go and see those constituents. I think that is entirely wrong. I cannot think of another job anywhere, under any circumstances, where that would be the case and, frankly, I think it is ridiculous. We will definitely be opposing the third reading.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (18:21): I have to say at the outset that when I first read the bill I was prepared to support the bill but, as I said in my second reading speech, I still believe that these matters should be dealt with by the independent Remuneration Tribunal and therefore I will not be supporting the bill.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (18:21): Just briefly, I am sure, once again, that it will not come as any surprise that Dignity for Disability will oppose the bill at this time. I am not going to go into all the reasons why because I have already put them on the record, but I will reassure you again that we are happy to break the usual protocol and rush legislation through when there is significant community interest to justify us doing that. Again, this is not an issue that demonstrates any community interest.

We did not rush to legislate the role of a disability senior practitioner to properly protect people with disabilities from restraint and other forms of abuse, we did not rush in this place to make sure that volunteer firefighters would be eligible for compensation if they got illness due to their firefighting duties. We did not rush to amend disability services legislation in this place or introduce mandatory reporting for abuse and neglect of people with disabilities.

We certainly did not rush the disability justice plan. We have seen the legislation to do with that pass this parliament just in the last few weeks, after five years of very hard lobbying. If we are not going to rush for those things, if we are not going to rush to save positive life, protecting and respecting the lives of people living with HIV in this state, then we certainly should not rush this legislation. For those reasons, on behalf of Dignity for Disability, I will oppose this bill.

The council divided on the third reading:

Ayes 13

Noes 6

Majority 7

Third reading thus carried; bill passed.