Disallowance - Parliamentary Salaries, Superannuation and Allowances Act 2012

[12.18 p.m.] MrABETZ(Franklin-LeaderofGovernmentBusiness)-HonourableSpeaker,Imove -

That the House disallows, in accordance with section 3G of the Parliamentary Salaries, Superannuation and Allowances Act 2012, the determination contained in the May 2025 Report of the Full Bench of the Tasmanian Industrial Commission into Parliamentary Salaries and Allowances, laid upon the Table of the House on Tuesday, 3 June 2025.

This motion moves that the House disallows the determination I have just referred to that would see parliamentarians provided with a salary increase of 22.36 per cent. The determination would also see increases in certain allowances and sitting fees. Should the motion before us today and in the other place not pass, the determination will be gazetted and come into effect with backpay from 1 July 2025. The government's position is that the Commission's determination should be disallowed, in that the increase is out of step with community expectations. To provide some context to our debate today and for the benefit of newer members - and I include myself in that - the Parliamentary Salary, Superannuation and Allowances Act 2012 provides the process for the setting of salaries, allowances and benefits for members of the Tasmanian parliament. Under the act, the Tasmanian Industrial Commission may inquire, report and make determinations from time to time on the amount of the basic salary for parliamentary members, the kind and amount of any additional salary paid

for roles including the Premier, Deputy Premier, ministers of the Crown, Secretary to Cabinet, and certain offices of parliament, and allowances and related matters.

The most recent report of the Industrial Commission was completed in May 2025. Its determination of the salary levels and allowances that should apply to parliamentarians relates to the period 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2025, a period of some seven years. A determination of the Commission will be implemented automatically unless within 10 sitting days of the determination being tabled in the parliament both Houses pass a resolution requesting that the determination be disallowed and not be implemented.

If a determination is not disallowed, the Commission will gazette a notice setting out the determination. This would result in the suggested specified amounts of the basic salary, additional salary payable for certain positions and the allowances and benefits coming into effect. If a determination does not come into effect when it is due, either because it has not been made by the TIC or disallowed by the parliament, the existing basic salary, additional salary and the allowances for MPs continue until a new determination is made. If a determination is disallowed, the Commission must, within 12 months from the date of this allowance, make a new determination.

The report which I referred was tabled in both Houses on 3 June 2025. As the sitting days and the Houses vary, there are two different dates for which a disallowance motion has to be passed. For the House of Assembly, that is today, and for the Legislative Council, 4 November 2025. However, it is noted that the other place is dealing with the matter today, indeed, as we speak. The determination can only be disallowed in its entirety, not in part. If either House does not pass a disallowance motion, the determination will be gazetted and come into effect with backpay until 1 July 2025.

The determination would see the basic salary for Tasmanian MPs rise from $140,185 per annum to $171,527.50. It's clear that the current process for determining parliamentary salaries and allowances is not functioning well. The fact that a pay rise has not been forthcoming since 2019 clearly points to the need for an alternative system that removes the onus on parliamentarians to accept or reject a determination. I am advised that since 1973, at least eight different methodologiesforparliamentarysalaries in Tasmania havebeenadopted and subsequently abandoned.

Gradual increases over time in the context of the budget repair process are considered preferable to lump sum catch ups over seven years in a single year. This would better align with community expectations and the experience of many Tasmanians where modest annual salary increases are received. The government will work through alternative proposals for addressing this issue. I think I speak for everyone here when I say that we collectively entered this place for reasons of public service. We stand committed as a government to a fair and transparent remuneration system that balances the load we bear as MPs with commonsense expectations which would not see an immediate 22 per cent catch-up.

[12.24 p.m.] Ms HADDAD (Clark) - The upper House has just voted, so it's a moot point, really, Speaker. I will nonetheless put a statement on the record, which has been shared in the upper House by my colleague, member for Rumney, Sarah Lovell.

MP salaries are always an uncomfortably contentious issue, but this comes down to a very simple principle: who should be deciding how much members of parliament get paid?

Aprevious parliament decidedto givethis workto theTasmanian Industrial Commission for very good reason. The last people who should be deciding on how much members of parliament get paid is members of parliament. It's important to recognise that members of parliament are in a position of power that can easily be abused. It's not healthy for democracy for members of parliament to have any say in their own pay.

I note the Unions Tasmania submission to the work of the Industrial Commission, dated April 2019, concludes with this comment:

A transparent and fair system of remuneration for MPs should not allow parliament to veto increases awarded through any independent, external statutory mechanism. Legislation which enables political interference with recommendations arising from annual reviews of salaries must be disallowed.

Inextraordinarycircumstanceswhereitistheview oftheparliament that the decision of the Commission should not be implemented, then those arguments should be put before the Commission. [tbc]

This comes down to a fundamental principle of who should be deciding how much parliamentarians are paid. It should not be members of parliament who make this decision, and I believe that is what most in the community would expect.

After much consideration and discussion with members of parliament from all political parties, including independents, Labor will not be supporting the disallowance.

[12.26 p.m.] Dr WOODRUFF (Franklin - Leader of the Greens) - Honourable Speaker, the Tasmanian Industrial Commission has made their assessment, and we note that their determination is legitimate and they went through a proper process, and that the pay rise they recommend is legitimate according to the process they have enacted.

There has been a freeze on MPs' salaries since the 2018 determination, effectively 2019, and also, I note, on electorate allowances for that period. That has an impact on the manner in which we can contribute to the community in the work that we do.

There's no doubt for Tasmanian MPs that our pay is far below those of MPs in other states. At the moment I believe it's 58 per cent of a federal government backbencher. It used to be much higher than that. I also recognise that different members of parliament have different personal and financial circumstances, and to have had no pay change at all for eight years, for many, seems hardly reasonable.

However, the Greens are deeply uncomfortable supporting a 22 per cent pay rise. In the current circumstances in Tasmania we find that a very difficult position to be involved in adopting. It is a very large correction in one hit - 22 per cent is not in line with community expectations for pay rises.

We have previously voted against substantially very large pay corrections that occurred in 1996. I believe it was a huge debate in the community, the 40 per cent pay rise that Tasmanian MPs received. I think MPs were earning $35,000 then, and that was a very big community discussion.

We also supported the 2012 decision not to make the big pay rise correction then. We acknowledge the situation now, as it was then, is that these large corrections are not in line with community expectations. We agree with the Treasurer. I believe the shadow, Ms Haddad, also mentioned that we need a system that is enduring that takes it out of the hands of MPs having anything to do with voting for or against disallowance motions which are effectively making decisions about our pay. That is not a place any of us want to be in.

We would encourage and recommend we work with government to bring in legislation - with other members of parliament; it affects us all - so that parliament can develop a mechanism. There arepretty obvious examples suchas a wage priceindex orsomesortof glide path to getting over a decade-long period or something that would slowly move us into better parity with other members of parliament in other states. That would be preferable. On the basis of that we will be supporting this disallowance motion today.

[12.30 p.m.] Mr GEORGE (Franklin) - Honourable Speaker, I rise with some trepidation to oppose the motion. I have noted in this very short time I have been in parliament the hard work that members on every side of this parliament put into it, the dedication and the time, the effort and the experience. I note particularly the stellar performances in parliament of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Opposition's Treasury spokesperson and the honourable Treasurer. They speak in the most bullish, passionate and often entertaining manner. That comes from the fact that they know what they're doing, they have experience and they are dedicated and believe in what they are doing. They are hardworking and dedicated.

Their timidity on this issue astonishes me because this is something we need to bite the bullet on. These parliamentarians deserve the recognition, which includes remuneration, for their dedication, their hard work, and the fact they are doing a job which does not even have job stability or guarantees to it. They carry a great load and a great burden. They have to face their community every day. I already know what it's like to face social media and people in the street who want to tear you down, who do not recognise the effort, the work, the dedication and the sense of public service that everybody in this House brings to their work. On the other hand, I also recognise the number of times that I've been stopped in the streets and I am sure the same would apply to other honourable members, where people actually do recognise that the job that we are doing is intended for the benefit of Tasmania.

There are a number of reasons that I oppose this motion. The first is that, even by comparison to our federal colleagues, honourable members here experience far less remuneration for their effort. Although the amount of salary increase may seem huge, it is not when it compares to the salaries that have been increased even in the public service, let alone in the private sector, over the past seven years. We need to attract candidates from all sections of society with all sorts of backgrounds of experience. By increasing salaries to a just level that is actually in line with other states and with our colleagues in the federal parliament, we will attract people who might not otherwise be able to do it, particularly for younger people with experience who can bring that experience and that capacity to parliament, particularly if they are single parents or a single-salary family.

It's been seven years since the commission began to look into state parliament wages. Seven years has been a long time. We need to bite the bullet, be brave and stand up and say this is our job. We don't need to hide our light under a bushel. We need to be able to stand up and say proudly, 'This is the work we do, even if necessary these are the hours we work. These are these are the things we do for the benefit of Tasmania.' Much as I feel some reservation standing up as a brand new member of parliament and will be no doubt criticised for looking after my own income as opposed to looking after the incomes of Tasmanians in general, I think it's time that we bit the bullet, take the opprobrium we are likely to get from the public, and move on.

[12.34 p.m.] Mr GARLAND (Braddon) - Honourable Speaker, long before I got involved in politics and gave two bobs' notice to it all, I remember in this place they gave themselves a 40 per cent pay rise and the reaction from the community is still out there; it still gets mentioned. I do not believe that it should be up to us to determine what we should or should not be paid. There's an old saying that you get what you pay for and in my view, since I have been here, you could not pay a person enough to do this job properly because of the importance of the work we are going over.

You might recall just while back we had TasNetworks in here and they were complaining they were not on the same parity as what was being paid on the mainland. You do not want to create that division and I can guarantee you somewhere down the track, if we forgo whatever is put forward for us, there will be people who will resent that and that will rise to the surface. I do not believe it is our role to be determining what we are paid. You don't go out and give yourself a game in your local football side and you should not be doing the same with this pay. I will not be supporting this motion.

Mr O'BYRNE (Franklin) - Honourable Speaker, this is a bit of a merry mess we have got ourselves in, isn't it? I agree in principle that politicians should not be setting their own wages. The Industrial Commission is an independent body which should be respected and given power with public servants and private and public sector workers. They either go to the Fair Work Commission or the commission to seek a determination and we all accept the umpire's decision.

I was a young union organiser around the time of the 40 per cent pay rise. I remember the stickers. In fact, I've still got a couple of stickers at home. It was a time when the issue of politicians' pay came up, because politicians in the 1980s and early 90s kicked the can down the road and created the problem.

No-one in this House comes here for the money because our hourly rates, for those who do the work, are pretty low. I am not complaining about that and, for the record, none of us are sitting on a big superannuation payout when we leave here; we all get the minimum Commonwealthguaranteethatwegetpaidinourownsuper,but Iwillsupportthedisallowance motion, although it is a moot point, because of the upper House.

Whilst I believe the independent commission should be respected and that politicians should not be setting their own wage, we cannot ignore the fact that politics has been played with this issue for the last decade. The Giddings government broke the nexus between state and federal because of the politics under pressure from the then Liberal opposition, and subsequent

leaders, both Liberal and Labor, played politics with it as well - 'We're not going to take the wage increase, you take the wage increase.' It was a competition about who could threaten each other and play politics. We played politics with our own wages and conditions.

I was re-elected in 2018 and was told, 'We're going to have another crack at this. We should all write letters and we're not going to accept a pay increase', continuing the politics. I disagreed with it then and I disagree with it now around the politics of our salaries and allowances, but when we've got the budget the way we are, and I know that the wage increase will not necessarily be a huge number, but we're talking to cleaners and hospital staff about 3 per cent and saying we need to have wage constraint, yet we would accept a 20 odd per cent wage increase as a one-off payment on a matter of principle, which I agree with, but we are ignoring this Chamber and the politics and collective behaviour which has led us to this point.

I don't believe we should kick the can down the road. I don't believe we should just wait for another five years and then it will get to 30 per cent, 35 per cent and we are back here again. I was advocating in discussions with people for an alternative pathway so that we wouldn't get the 22 per cent bump. We would start to draw down on the difference between a state [TBC 12.39.14] and a federal parliamentarian's wage, consistent with the commission, but to do it in a way which avoided the big bump.

It is clear the other House has a different view. I don't reflect on them. Their arguments and the arguments put forward by those members who will vote against the disallowance motion are all principled. I agree with you. However, to do it in isolation and ignorance of this Chamber and the politics of this issue for the last decade just does not smell well.

I wouldn't support the disallowance motion if it was kicking the can down the road. I would support it on the basis that there would be a discussion to deal with another pathway forward so that over a period of time, we would phase in the catch-up between state and federal politicians, respecting the Tasmanian Industrial Commission's decision but acknowledging a one-off bump is a shocker.

Obviously, that is moot now. The upper House has made its decision and I respect them. I have listened to some of their arguments and I cannot disagree. However, I believe we have an opportunity to stand on principle and also take responsibility for the politics of this.

The SPEAKER (Mrs Petrusma) - The question is that the motion be agreed to.

The House divided -

AYES 19

NOES 14

Mr Abetz Mrs Archer Ms Badger Mr Barnett Mr Bayley Mr Ellis Mr Fairs Mr Ferguson Ms Howlett

Dr Broad Ms Brown Ms Butler Mr Di Falco Ms Dow Ms Finlay Mr Garland Mr George Mrs Greene

Mr Jaensch Mr O'Byrne Ms Ogilvie Mr Pearce Prof Razay Mr Rockliff Ms Rosol Mr Shelton Mr Vermey Dr Woodruff (Teller)

Ms Haddad Ms Johnston Mr Mitchell Mr Willie Mr Winter (Teller)

Motion agreed to.