HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-11-13 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT (ENTITLEMENTS OF ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES) BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:37): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the City of Adelaide Act 1998; the Local Government Act 1999; the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 1990; the Parliamentary Superannuation Act 1974; and the Remuneration Act 1990. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:38): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Members may recall that I have previously introduced an identical bill but, due to the prorogation of parliament, I now need to reintroduce it. In essence, this bill puts in the hands of an independent tribunal all those matters referred to in the title, and that includes allowances for local government, salaries and superannuation for MPs, and other entitlements that MPs may need as a result of undertaking their duties.

This should have happened a long time ago. Allowances, superannuation and all other entitlements should have been considered by a genuinely independent tribunal. We do not have to create one; we already have one, and that tribunal makes determinations in respect of justices and other senior officers. We currently have the farcical situation where our salaries are linked to those of federal MPs which, in turn, are linked to the federal public service; and, as members know, our salary is $2,000 less than the amount federal MPs receive.

The superannuation arrangement for new MPs in this state—the ones who were elected in 2006—is very different from that for people who came in many years ago. Since entering this parliament in 1989, superannuation schemes have changed considerably. It is in the interests of not only MPs but councillors, mayors, and the like, that any pay or allowance is determined by an independent body, not by MPs or councillors themselves, or by the LGA. That is quite inappropriate, and MPs and local government would be held up not so much to ridicule, but there might be suggestions of feathering one's own nest whilst we continued with a system where we avoided having an independent tribunal determine what salaries and other benefits should be.

The tribunal is in a position to carry out a proper analysis, and I think that we would avoid the unfortunate situation that occurred following the behaviour of Mark Latham, who carried on about superannuation for federal MPs. Then, in an unfortunate reaction to what Mark Latham generated, the then prime minister, John Howard—instead of getting a considered view and putting this issue to an independent panel of experts—cut the superannuation of new members drastically in a knee-jerk reaction, and subsequently elevated it slightly for federal MPs.

Decisions about superannuation or salary should be determined by people who are expert and competent in that field; they should not involve knee-jerk reactions by people like the former MP Mark Latham who, ironically, went on to claim his full super after having helped to deny new members the benefits of the scheme that he enjoyed, and currently enjoys. So, there was an irony in his behaviour as it affects new MPs.

I am not sure what superannuation should be paid to MPs. If I knew the answer, I would not be advocating an independent tribunal, but I suspect the superannuation now payable to new MPs does not really reflect their situation vis-a-vis federal MPs, the private sector or even the wider community in terms of their responsibilities, and so on. That should be determined by an independent body. How much is an MP worth? Well, how long is a piece of string? The independent tribunal can determine judges' salaries, so I am sure that it would be quite capable of getting advice and determining MPs' salaries.

The current situation is clearly unsatisfactory. If MPs allow the situation to continue involving this fragile, flimsy and questionable arrangement whereby they are linked to the salaries of federal MPs and federal public servants, over time they leave themselves open not only to being criticised but ultimately to being subject to the whims of people such as the current Prime Minister who, as we know, has frozen the salaries of federal MPs and, as a result—as a flow on, in effect—has frozen the pay of local MPs. I took up that issue with the Prime Minister and said that I disagreed strongly with that approach. My argument is: why do you freeze the pay of MPs when you do not freeze the pay of anyone else? If you are going to have it—and I thought it was a union principle—one in, all in. Apparently, that was not to be the case. So, MPs have their pay frozen—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Well, the point I raise, and continue to raise, in this knee-jerk reaction by the Prime Minister is: what do you do next year? I have not seen the quote but I am told that he said something like, 'There will be no catch-up.' When do you adjust? When I wrote to him, the answer came back from the finance minister, Lindsay Tanner, I think, and the argument was: 'We had to freeze MPs' salaries because of inflation.' The number of MPs in Australia is not all that great—less than 1,000. If it is such a critical issue, why don't you freeze everybody's pay? It cannot be that critical.

It was a political exercise—some would say a political stunt—to freeze the pay of MPs. It achieves nothing. As I pointed out in the letter, I am in the fortunate situation where I do not have a mortgage or little children, but a lot of young MPs do and, not only that, those who are in a party have to contribute about $8,000 currently towards their party, and I think that is very reasonable. However, when you take into account that contribution to their party, their mortgage and all their other expenses—and we all know that, as MPs, we are always putting our hand in our pocket to support various things—the new MPs, in particular the younger ones, I think have been dealt with very unfairly and harshly in that move by the Prime Minister which was designed presumably to get him an extra vote.

You will not get one extra vote for freezing the pay of MPs. You could literally flog every MP on North Terrace and you will not get one extra vote. Sadly, we have had a few MPs in another place who have taken the opportunity to give their colleagues a whack around the ears over the matter of a car and, in that regard, the Hons Sandra Kanck and Nick Xenophon (former MLC), I think did not behave in the way they should have. You can always score a point by whacking other pollies around the ears.

The car deal which, once again, should have been dealt with by the independent tribunal, which is what I wanted, is not all that generous a deal when you look at it closely. It has helped country members, and I am pleased it has, because, apart from the fact that they have to drive tremendous distances, the cost to them of doing their job was really out of the ordinary. To any MP—and only a couple do not need a car, I acknowledge that—who is not using a car to do their duties as an MP, I do not know what you are doing. How can you be an effective MP without using a motor car for work purposes? We pay, as we know, $7,000 for the private benefit. When looking at the statistics, I noted that one MP used less than $1,000 worth of petrol in a year.

An honourable member: They are not doing their job then.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: They could be living at the top of a hill so that they can come down in neutral so that they are only paying for petrol to get back up. I do not understand how anyone can do their job in this day and age as an MP without using a motor car and I do not know any workplace that does not provide one for work purposes. We are not talking about pleasure, and I do not know any MP—certainly not in this house, and I am sure I speak for the other place—who does not pull their weight in terms of their job.

It is not a matter of bragging, but the other Sunday I had three functions in one day, some way down south. You have naturalisation ceremonies. It is not uncommon to be doing hundreds of kilometres a day. So, that issue should have been dealt with by an independent tribunal. It was not but it should be. Likewise, councils are going through this contorted process at the moment considering how much they should be paid in allowances. Let the independent tribunal determine it, using expert advice that is available in the community.

My plea is very simple. You see silly people suggesting things, for example, a letter yesterday implied that MPs only work when parliament is sitting. As I tell people, parliament is the smallest part of what we do—it is an important part, but it is the smallest part of what we do. So, let us have the issue of salaries, superannuation and all the other entitlements decided outside of the political process so that you do not have future prime ministers putting a freeze on or taking a freeze off. Let MPs be paid what the independent tribunal decides is appropriate. You will never convince everyone in the community about MPs because most of them do not understand what MPs actually do and, when you try to explain it, they say, 'You are a good MP.' But they categorise all other MPs as being unworthy, which is unfair and untrue.

I will try again with this bill and I suggest to members that, if you do not follow this particular path, it will not hurt me but it will hurt new members of parliament, particularly, and the younger members of parliament who are in here, and it will come back to bite you because you have not chosen to go down that independent path. I make no apology for creating a situation where MPs got a car. I think that was long overdue. I was prepared to wear the flak for it. I got some flak, but MPs should not be in a position where they flagellate themselves and do not allow themselves to be paid a proper income or get proper allowances.

Anyone who has been a minister would know that, if they are doing their job, they work their butt off and they barely have time to go to the toilet. When you compare what ministers get with those at comparable levels in the private sector, most of them, although not all, are grossly underpaid.

I commend this bill to the house and I urge the major parties, particularly, to support it, because I do not want to hear in 10 years' time or so that MPs are saying, 'We are paid a pittance and the superannuation for new members is discouraging good people from coming into parliament.' The salary should be appropriate and the superannuation should not be instead of the salary; they should all be appropriate and they should be determined by an independent tribunal, as they should for local government. I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.F. Evans.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT