HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-11-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

PARLIAMENTARY REMUNERATION (BASIC SALARY) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Treasurer, Minister for Workers Rehabilitation, Minister for Defence Industries, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (12:00): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 1990. Read a first time.

Standing Orders Suspension

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Treasurer, Minister for Workers Rehabilitation, Minister for Defence Industries, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (12:01): I move:

That standing orders be so far suspended as to enable the bill to pass through its remaining stages without delay.

The SPEAKER: Quorum not present: ring the bells.

A quorum having been formed:

Motion carried.

Second Reading

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Treasurer, Minister for Workers Rehabilitation, Minister for Defence Industries, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (12:02): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Parliamentary Remuneration Act 1990 provides that state parliamentarians have a base salary that is automatically linked to the base salary payable to a federal parliamentarian, less $2,000 per annum. Other entitlements payable to state parliamentarians, such as electoral allowances, are determined by the Remuneration Tribunal of South Australia.

It is understood that the commonwealth remuneration tribunal, which is responsible for setting federal parliamentarians' base salary, is considering whether electoral allowances should be regarded as salary, principally for reasons of clarity and transparency. If the commonwealth tribunal determines that electoral allowances are to be incorporated into commonwealth parliamentarians' base salary, there will be a direct flow-on effect to the base salary of South Australian parliamentarians, without an offsetting reduction in allowances.

This bill seeks to suspend until 30 June 2012 the existing arrangements, under which the basic salary paid to a member of parliament is automatically linked to the annual salary allowance paid to a member of the House of Representatives of the parliament of the commonwealth. It will ensure that any move to incorporate electoral allowances into commonwealth parliamentarians' base salary will not result in any unintended consequences to pay and other benefits from an automatic increase in the basic salary of South Australian parliamentarians.

A decision on whether any changes are required to the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 1990 can then be made, following the outcome of the commonwealth remuneration tribunal's review. Given the expected timing of the decision by the commonwealth tribunal later this year, this bill will need to pass parliament in this session. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (12:04): The opposition is supporting this particular piece of legislation. It is no surprise that the government would need to suspend standing orders to do this. The opposition and government have had discussions about what might be coming out of the federal arena. It is publicly reported in the federal remuneration tribunal's annual report, which was released in the last two or three weeks, that it intends to make a decision and announce a determination this side of Christmas.

What is unclear to the government is the implementation date of any change and, indeed, the nature of any change. The federal remuneration tribunal has broadly outlined some of the changes it is looking at with regard to rolling in metropolitan allowances to salary and other changes that they are considering. Until the fine detail of that is announced and the implementation date is announced, the government is quite right to suggest that, without this bill, under our legislation there would be automatic flow-on if the implementation of any change—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Thanks to a great legislator of the past.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: There would be flow-on, automatically, if the implementation date was between when the federal remuneration tribunal makes its announcement and before the parliament resits. This is a piece of legislation that is a holding pattern until 30 June, and obviously the government and opposition will have to consider what changes will be necessary (if any) following the announcement of the federal government and the remuneration tribunal's decision. The opposition supports the bill and, as there are only two clauses, we have no need to go into committee.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:06): The government has no choice, and the parliament has little choice, but to create this suspension of pay until the federal determination is announced. I think members need to remember that the federal allowances are not identical to ours, and I am sure the government is well aware of this. The other issue is that I think there will be taxation consequences, which I am sure the Treasurer would have his experts looking at. If you aggregate allowances, which, as I understand it, the tax commissioner generally regards an allowance as fully expended.

Mr Griffiths: No, they don't.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Well, they tend to look at it somewhat differently to your salary. That has been the traditional approach, I believe.

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Yes, you justify it, but the commissioner assumes you receive an allowance because you have an extra justified commitment. As I say, I am not an accountant but that is my understanding. I believe there will be taxation consequences, and I am sure the Treasurer will look at that. The point is that whatever we do with regard to salary—and I have been here long enough to know this—you will never win, because to people outside, when you are on $130,000 or a ministerial salary, it seems an enormous amount if you are a pensioner or someone on a low income. What a lot of people do not consider is that, if you look at comparable occupations—not just the hours put in, the skills and so on—MPs are generally not well paid. If you do your job as an MP properly, you are almost certainly underpaid.

That may not be a popular view out there, but that is my view. As the person who helped to bring about cars for members, I make no apology for that; that was long overdue. In most businesses, if you are carrying out a business activity, you have a car. I think members have to refrain from being apologetic. We have always had a couple of people in another place who have gone out on a limb to get the sympathy vote, but no matter what you do or what you say, you will never get support from the many people in the community who want MPs to work for nothing and go without any remuneration whatsoever.

In terms of this measure, I believe we should look at the whole lot of allowances for committees, and all those sorts of things, because there are a lot of anomalies. Unless you are the chair of a committee, I think the current rate for members who are on a select committee is about $12 a day—you would probably get more money if you were at Yatala. Some of those payments, and the way in which committee payments are dealt with, should be looked at.

I accept that this is an interim measure. As I said, I do not believe the government or the parliament has any choice, because we would be well and truly crucified if we accepted something automatically from the federal government which is put together on a different basis from the allowances that we currently receive. I support this measure, but I do not believe anyone will be re-elected in here on the platform of advocating an increase in salary for MPs.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (12:10): I certainly support this amendment bill and the fact that there should be a review of the whole gambit of allowances that are paid to elected members. As far as I am concerned, we should be open and transparent with the electorate. It is those people who employ us through the election process and pay us through our taxation, so we should be as open and transparent as humanly possible on what we receive. I certainly support the fact that there will be a review and that there will be a freeze until the end of June so that that review can be done.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Treasurer, Minister for Workers Rehabilitation, Minister for Defence Industries, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (12:11): I thank honourable members for their contributions in support of the bill. I would particularly like to thank the house and the opposition for their cooperation in enabling standing orders to be suspended so as to expedite the passage of the bill. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Treasurer, Minister for Workers Rehabilitation, Minister for Defence Industries, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (12:11): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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