HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-11-22 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Ministerial Statement

MEMBERS' TRAVEL PROVISIONS

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (14:26): I table a copy of a ministerial statement by the Premier, the Hon. Jay Weatherill from another place, on travel allowances. I think it is important enough to actually read his ministerial statement in this chamber:

Madam Speaker, over the past week there has been significant debate about the use of travel allowances by members of parliament. I think there is legitimate community concern about aspects of the travel provisions, and so I intend to initiate a review into those arrangements.

The debate I spoke of has focused upon, but not been confined to, the use of the allowance by the Minister for Education and Child Development for her daughter to travel with her to India in April this year. As we know, the minister had enquired in 2007 whether she was entitled to have her daughter as her nominated travel companion in lieu of her partner. This was approved, and then re-approved following the March 2010 election.

This approval was provided by officers of the parliament quite independent of the political process. This process of approval by officers of the parliament was the same process as has been applied to a number of members on both sides of the chamber who have nominated their children as their nominated travel partner. And of course, the actual travel itself was approved.

It has been suggested in the media and by others that the officers of the parliament should not have been deciding who the travel partners should be. There has been a suggestion, in particular by the Hon. Robert Lucas in another place, that decisions about application of the rules—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: They are a bit slow, Mr President; I indicated that I would be reading the statement by the Premier, so they are a little slow. I will just repeat that:

There has been a suggestion, in particular by the Hon. Robert Lucas, that decisions about application of the rules can only be made by cabinet. I find this odd, given that these are the travel rules essentially put in place by the previous government—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! You might want to listen.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I will repeat that, Mr President—

The PRESIDENT: Hear, hear!

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: —because of the rowdy lot opposite me. They are embarrassed, Mr President.

I find this odd, given that these are the travel rules essentially put in place by the previous government, and in respect of which Mr Lucas, when treasurer, advised the speaker, 'ultimately, these matters will be a matter for judgement for you as Speaker, as all possible circumstances of travel for members cannot be explicitly provided for in any guidelines'.

So when in government, [the Hon.] Mr Lucas obviously understood the travel provisions to be guidelines, and ones which leave judgement to the Speaker, whereas now in opposition he has tried to persuade the public that they are rules of strict application allowing for no decision-making. But Madam Speaker, there is community disquiet about the travel entitlements—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: —in so far as they provide for spouse, partner and family member travel. In respect of travel generally, while I accept that travel for members of parliament is not particularly popular, I believe that it makes a very valuable contribution to our legislature. If people want to debate the merits or otherwise of any particular travel, the system is transparent and the fact of the travel is all laid out for them in the mandatory travel reports.

For my part, I make clear that I would not want to limit any members from pursuing the ideas or concepts that they believe will assist them to discharge their duties. But I share with the community their concern about whether accessing travel allowance for partners and/or family remains appropriate in the 21st century. It is not something that is commonly provided for people in other walks of life. But I also accept that there may be occasions where it may be appropriate for the member of parliament to be accompanied by a family member.

Last week the Leader of the Opposition stated that she thought a review of the use of travel allowance was appropriate. I indicated that I would support such a review, if undertaken on a bipartisan basis. I spoke to the Leader yesterday to foreshadow an approach which I think is reasonable, independent and allows bipartisan input. I therefore announce that I will refer to the remuneration tribunal the issue of the entitlement of members of parliament to access parliamentary travel allowance to provide for their spouse or partner or family member to accompany them.

I will request that the tribunal convene a sitting for these purposes pursuant to section 8(1) of the Remuneration Act. The government will make a submission to the tribunal. I invite the opposition to do so, as well as individual members, [and other interested parties] and [of course] the public. I will request that the tribunal report on its deliberations by the time parliament reconvenes in the new year.

I call on those members opposite who are genuinely interested in the policy debate and the improvement of the lives of South Australians, rather than political point scoring, to counsel their colleagues to take a bipartisan approach to matters such as this.

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