Links

• Western Australian Salaries and Allowances Tribunal
• Commonwealth Remuneration Tribunal
• Remuneration Tribunal of South Australia
• Northern Territory Government Remuneration Tribunal
• ACT Remuneration Tribunal
• NSW Department of Local Government
• NSW Local Government and Shires Association
• Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government

PDF Version

PARLIAMENTARY REMUNERATION ACT 1989

REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13(1) OF THE ACT

INTRODUCTION

Section 11 of the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 1989 (“the Act”) prescribes that the Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) shall make an annual Determination as to the additional entitlements for Members and Recognised Office Holders (as defined under the Act) on or before 1 June in each year or on such later date as the President of the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales determines. On this occasion the President directed that the Determination shall be made on or before 14 July 2006.

Section 13 (1) of the Act requires that the Tribunal makes a report to the President of the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales for each Determination made by the Tribunal. The President is then required, as soon as practicable after receipt of the report, to forward it to the Minister (see section 13(2)).

The Tribunal commenced proceedings in relation to the annual Determination required for the year 2006 by writing to all Members on 14 February 2006 and inviting submissions. In addition to submissions on additional entitlements, the Tribunal informed Members that it intended to review staffing levels available to Members and invited submissions on this matter. The Tribunal received submissions from the major political parties, individual Members and the Presiding Officers.

Part One of this Report will outline general matters raised as part of the annual review and any adjustments to additional entitlements. In regard to the general review, the Tribunal has made changes that are considered minor or of an administrative nature to the Determination without the need for detailed separate reasons being provided. The submissions have, however, also raised a number of substantive issues which, in the Tribunal’s view, merit further consideration.

Part Two of the Report will deal with the specific review of staffing levels for Members in electorate offices and Parliament House.

A summary of the 2006 Determination appears in Part Three of the Report and Part Four is the Tribunal's response to the Treasury Secretary's submission on the financial implications of the Determination.

PART ONE

---

1. GENERAL MATTERS RAISED

Electoral Redistribution:

1. Section 27(1)(c) of the Constitution Act 1902 requires that a redistribution of electoral boundaries take place after two elections have been conducted using the same electoral boundaries. Electoral redistributions are undertaken pursuant to the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912 (PEAndE Act). Section 15 of the PEAndE Act provides:

   1. The commissioners shall report to the Governor the names and boundaries of the electoral districts determined by them under any provision of this Part.
      
   2. The Governor shall thereupon cause a proclamation setting out the names of such electoral districts and the boundaries thereof to be published in the Gazette.
      
   3. Upon publication of a proclamation under subsection (2), the electoral districts specified in the proclamation shall, until altered by a further distribution under the Constitution Act 1902 , be the electoral districts of New South Wales.
      
   4. Notwithstanding subsection (3), the electoral districts existing immediately before the publication of a proclamation under subsection (2) shall, for the purposes of any by-election to be held before the dissolution or expiry of the Assembly next succeeding that publication, be the electoral districts of New South Wales.

In accordance with section 15(3) of the PEAndE Act the new electorates came into existence at the time of gazettal. The 2004 Redistribution Proclamation was published on 21 December 2004. Therefore, the new electorates came into existence from that date.

While the new electorates come into effect from that date, pursuant to section 15(4) of the PEAndE Act the “former” electorates remain in place for the purposes of any by-elections that may occur prior to the general election. Members remain the elected representatives of those electorates until the time of the next State general election, ie, 24 March 2007.

Many of the additional entitlements determined by the Tribunal, pursuant to section 10 of the Act are based on electoral groupings also determined by the Tribunal. The Tribunal reviews electorates prior to the general election and has done so again on this occasion.

The Tribunal has examined the changes to the Electorates and grouped them accordingly. The Tribunal has had regard to historical factors in grouping the electorates. The Tribunal has again grouped the electorates for allowance purposes by using a range of factors including electorate size, distance from Sydney, transport links and the number of urban centres in the electorate.

As previously stated by the Tribunal, the distance from Sydney, and the time spent travelling to and from Sydney, are key factors in establishing eligibility for the Sydney Allowance. Since the last review the Tribunal has noted that opening of expressways in the Sydney metropolitan area has significantly reduced travel times between the outer metropolitan area and the city. This is particularly the case with the opening of the M5 and M7.

As a result of these changes the Tribunal has decided that on and from the date of the next election the electorates of Campbelltown and Camden will be re-categorised into Group 1 for Electorate Allowance purposes. The Tribunal has also had regard to the changes made to Londonderry and considers that, on balance, this electorate should also be re-categorised into Group 1.

The Tribunal has also noted the significant increase in the size of the electorate of Barwon, which has nearly doubled in size as a result of the redistribution and is now almost equal in size to the electorate of Murray Darling. As a result of these changes the Tribunal considers that the Electorates of Barwon and Murray Darling should receive identical levels of Electorate Allowance and other additional entitlements.

The Tribunal will not determine, as part of this review an additional electorate office for the Member for Barwon but would welcome submissions on this matter as part of the 2007 annual review when the requirements of the Member, in servicing the electorate, become clearer.

Additional entitlements for the new electorates will take effect on and from the date of the State General Election to be held on 24 March 2007. As this annual determination takes effect on and from 1 July 2006 it will be necessary for the Tribunal to make two determinations as part of this review. The first will apply from 1 July 2006 to 23 March 2007 (inclusive). The second determination will apply on and from 24 March 2007 until 30 June 2007.

Sydney Allowance

The Tribunal reviewed this Allowance as part of the 2005 annual review. Submissions have been received seeking clarification of certain matters pertaining to the entitlement when the Member does not rent commercial accommodation but has arranged for a lease or is repaying a mortgage on the property.

Details of the history of the Sydney Allowance were provided in the 2005 review and need not be repeated here other than to state the broad principles upon which this entitlement was established, viz., where Members from non metropolitan electorates are required to incur additional costs for coming to and staying in Sydney to attend sittings of Parliament or attend to parliamentary duties. The Sydney Allowance was established to assist Members meet those additional expenses.

The rate of the Sydney Allowance has always been set at a lower level than that of the public sector daily allowance rate for Sydney because that rate is meant to cover one-off travel arrangements to Sydney where it is necessary to incur a commercial overnight rate. Members, on the other hand, once elected would know that parliamentary duties would require them to be in Sydney for regular periods in each of the four years for which they were elected.

It was for this reason that the Tribunal encouraged Members to make longer-term accommodation arrangements where Members could, if they chose, lease accommodation at cheaper rates than commercial accommodation or, if they chose, could purchase property for this purpose. It is understood that there is a mix of these kinds of accommodation arrangements currently in place.

The Tribunal, in its 2005 determination, provided for an annual and daily rate of Sydney Allowance. Up to the maximum number of overnight stays determined by the Tribunal the Member can receive the daily rate without the production of receipts.

Where a Member exceeds the maximum number of overnight stays in a year, then for each occasion this occurs the Member must substantiate the reason for each such occasion (ie, certify that it was for parliamentary business) and may be reimbursed an amount up to the daily maximum upon production of receipts.

The Tribunal reaffirms that only receipts for actual expenditure up to the daily maximum will be considered for reimbursement.
The Tribunal has also reviewed the annual Sydney Allowance entitlement and notes the significant administrative problems associated with reconciling the annual amount at the end of each financial year.

The Tribunal is mindful of these problems and is minded to abolish the annual entitlement, retaining only the daily rate for all Members. The Tribunal will not do so at this time as it may cause hardship to those who have made particular arrangements and require the cash flow provided by the annual rate.

The Tribunal intends to remove this entitlement as part of the 2008 annual review unless there are compelling reasons why this should not be the case. The Tribunal is prepared to receive submissions on this matter from those Members that may be affected.

In light of the electoral redistribution the Tribunal has also reassessed electorates which qualify for the Sydney Allowance.

Electorate to Sydney Travel Warrants

In 2005 the Tribunal noted the following matter had been raised concerning the Electorate to Sydney Travel.

The Tribunal has received further submissions on this matter seeking again to extend the value of the Electorate to Sydney travel warrant to meet the cost of additional travel expenses getting to and from the airport. Also, Members have sought flexibility in the use of the Electorate to Sydney travel entitlement so that they may break journeys along the way to conduct parliamentary business.

The Tribunal has considered this matter carefully but is of the view the existing arrangements are adequate. The Electorate to Sydney travel warrants are for exactly that purpose – travel to and from Sydney. Each warrant has a value based on the cost of the airline ticket from the airport nearest the Member’s home to Sydney. Members have the additional flexibility of using whatever means they wish to travel to Sydney provided the cost does not exceed the value of the warrant. Any extra travel required is to be met from the LSA or the Members’ electorate allowance.

List of Approved Items in the Logistic Support Allocation (LSA)

Each year the Presiding Officers and/or Members write to the Tribunal seeking to add to the list of items for which the LSA may be used. This is unnecessary. Members should have the flexibility to use their LSA in a manner that best suits the Member. Provided the Member certifies that he or she is expending funds from the LSA for the purpose of undertaking parliamentary duties and provided the Member has sufficient funds in the LSA then he or she should be able to expend funds from the LSA for that purpose.

This is particularly the case with improvements in technology. Members may now be able to obtain cheaper mobile telephones and mobile telephone packages than the Parliament can provide. Other Members may require another laptop computer; still other Members may need additional equipment at home.

In these circumstances, and provided the basic conditions of this entitlement are adhered to, then the Tribunal sees no reason why Members should not be able to use their LSA for such purposes. The Tribunal would, however, add that in purchasing equipment Members must abide by the Treasury rules regarding disclosure of assets and if any maintenance agreements are required then the Member must ensure that he or she has the approval of the Presiding Officer.

As to the broader question of the list, unless it is convinced otherwise, the Tribunal intends to remove the list of items for which the LSA may be used as part of its next determination. This will allow Members and/or the Presiding Officers to make submissions on this matter for the Tribunal’s consideration.

Guidelines and Conditions

Additional entitlements are made available to assist Members in the performance of their parliamentary duties. Following a request for a Ruling from the Presiding Officers, the guidelines have been expanded to exclude costs associated with pre-selection activities. Pre-selection activities are considered party political activities and should be funded by the candidate from his or her own private resources or by the relevant party.

2. REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENTS

Electoral Allowance

The Tribunal has received a number of submissions seeking adjustments to the Electoral Allowance in line with movements in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) having particular regard to the high cost of fuel. The submissions sought an increase beyond the general CPI for this purpose.

The Tribunal recognises that fuel costs, particularly for Members in country electorates, are becoming a significant expense for such Members. Of course, that is also the case for people generally, living in rural and regional New South Wales (as well as the City, for that matter). It would not be appropriate, in the Tribunal's opinion, to provide relief for Members of Parliament in respect of the rising cost of fuel when their constituents will have no relief. Moreover, to provide an additional allowance to compensate for the increased cost of fuel would amount to double counting, given that the CPI already has a fuel component.

For this review the Tribunal has adopted its standard approach and increased the electoral allowance by 3.0 per cent.

Sydney Allowance

The Tribunal has reviewed the Sydney Allowance in accordance with its standard methodology and provided an increase of 3.0 per cent in the daily rate. In addition, following a request for a Ruling from the Presiding Officers, the conditions of use for this entitlement have been clarified. Eligible Members may only receive actual expenses for “in transit” travel to and from Sydney and their home when the Member is travelling to Sydney and will be staying overnight in Sydney or travelling home from Sydney following an overnight stay.

Logistic Support Allocation (LSA)

The Tribunal has reviewed the Logistic Support Allocation in accordance with its standard methodology and provided an increase of 3.0 per cent in the daily rate.

Committee Allowance

The purpose of this Allowance is to remunerate Members serving as Chairpersons on Committees for the extra time and effort required to carry out this role. In previous Determinations this allowance has been increased in line with Members’ salary increases.

Since these rates were last adjusted in the 2005 annual review, Members' salaries were increased from 1 July 2005 by 4.12 per cent and a further 7 per cent from 1 July 2006. In accordance with normal practice, therefore, the Committee Allowance will be increased by 11 per cent.

Electorate Mail-out Account (EMA)

The EMA has been adjusted to reflect enrolment statistics for the period 1 July 2006 to 23 March 2007. These rates are based on the enrolment statistics as of 8 May 2006 and are outlined in Appendix 4 of the Determination.

Appendix 4A of the Determination outlines the EMA for the period 24 March 2007 to 30 June 2007. The enrolment statistics for this period are based on predicted electors as noted in the 2004 Electoral Districts Commissioners Report, pp. XIV-XV.

In addition, the Tribunal’s determination of 18 May 2006 has broadened the use of this entitlement following electoral redistributions. The conditions for this entitlement have been expanded to provide for this additional application.

Reimbursement of Expenses for Charter Transport for Members of the Legislative Assembly

Electorate charter transport allowances for Members of the Legislative Assembly were last adjusted in 2004 when the Tribunal provided for an increase of 8 per cent. No further increase was provided following the 2005 review.

As part of the 2006 review the Tribunal has considered the cost of charter transport and the use of this entitlement. Whilst a survey of fees charged by air charter transport operators indicates that there has been a modest increase in the cost of these services, based on actual usage, the current rates provided by the Tribunal appear to be sufficient. Over the past two years Members have not utilised the full allowance, with actual reimbursements to Members leaving some of the allowance unspent.

Having regard to the above, the Tribunal has determined that there will be no increase in the maximum amount reimbursable for charter transport for members of the Legislative Assembly. Actual amounts and conditions applying in respect of charter transport allowances are specified in the annual Determination.

Travelling Allowances for Recognised Office Holders

The Tribunal has undertaken a review of the travelling allowances paid to Recognised Office Holders. The Tribunal’s Determination is based on those rates provided to NSW Public Servants and those deemed “reasonable” by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). In both the NSW Public Sector and ATO guidelines, travel allowances are differentiated on the basis of destination and salary level of officer. The Tribunal has adjusted the membership of each Group to better reflect salary levels.

PART TWO

---

STAFFING LEVELS FOR MEMBERS

Background to Staff Entitlements

Prior to the 1998 amendments to the Act the Tribunal made recommendations to the Premier of the day on matters such as electorate office staffing. It was a matter for the Premier of the day to consider and approve recommendations made by the Tribunal. While the Premier approved the recommendations, matters such as staffing for Members was the responsibility of the Presiding Officers.

Members of the Legislative Assembly have been entitled to an office and secretary, effective from 1 July 1975, in either their electorate or in Sydney’s CBD. This was approved by the Premier and to be administered by the Speaker. This followed a pilot scheme which utilised government accommodation to provide office space to a number of Members.

The 1966 Matthews Report had highlighted the use of Court Houses by Members on an ad hoc basis for meeting constituents and recommended utilising other government offices in addition to Court Houses for these purposes. The 1971 Goodsell Report indicated that many Members maintained an office and part-time secretary in their electorate at their own expense, compared to Members in the Commonwealth Parliament, who were provided with an office and full-time secretary in their electorate. Much of the discussion on secretarial/research assistance in these reports focused on provision within Parliament rather than in Members’ electorates.

From 1 February 1985 Members were entitled to an additional staff member in their electoral office, designated as an Electorate Assistant. This was approved by the Premier and to be administered by the Speaker.

In 1991 the Premier approved Independent Members being provided with an additional electorate staff member. Members of the Legislative Council from the same date were also entitled to a Secretary/Research Assistant, with Cross Bench Members entitled to an additional staff member.

The 1998 amendments to the Act provide for the Tribunal to make determinations on staffing. Since then the Tribunal has maintained the status quo in its annual Determinations but now considers some changes are required to meet the changing circumstances of Members in meeting the needs of the electorate.

It is noted the Member for Murray-Darling has been entitled to a second electoral office since 31 December 2000.

Submissions received

Most submissions from the Legislative Assembly have noted the increase in constituent participation in electorate matters and, therefore, a consequent increase in workload. This workload manifests itself in electorate staff working through their lunch hours and working longer hours.

Many of the submissions pointed out that when Parliament is sitting Members need to bring one electorate officer to Sydney and this creates an occupational health and safety issue for the officer remaining in the electorate office.

The submission from the Presiding Officers included the results of a survey undertaken by the Occupational Health and Safety representative of electorate office staff. The issues raised by the survey were consistent with the submissions received by the Tribunal ie, work load and safety.

In summary the submission from the Speaker made the following recommendations:

1. Provide each member of the Legislative Assembly with a third staff member;
2. Provide for an overtime budget for existing staff;
3. Provide an office budget for additional casual staff.

In addition, the Tribunal has received submissions from Members seeking a determination in relation to additional administrative assistance to be provided to the Government and Opposition Party Whips.

Current Entitlements

Electorate Office	Legislative Assembly
	Government/Opposition	2 electorate office staff
	Independent Members	2 electorate office staff plus
		1 Research Officer
Parliament House	Legislative Assembly
	6 stenographers available to all Members and allocate as follows:
	Government 2	Stenographers
	Opposition	3 Stenographers
	Independents	1 Stenographer
Parliament House	Legislative Council
	Government/Opposition Parties	1 staff member
	Cross bench Members	2 staff members

Whips

Government Whips are provided with administrative support from the allocation of the Leader of the House’s Ministerial Office.

Non Government Whips (Liberal and National Party) by way of an informal arrangement are each provided with one of the stenographers.

In both cases the arrangements are informal and need to be addressed to provide certainty in entitlements for these office holders.

Electorate Offices

In respect of workload, the Tribunal has been advised that since 1975 the average number of electorate voters has nearly doubled, as has the average population per electorate. The Tribunal also notes that in 1991 the number of electorates was reduced from 109 to 99 and that since 1999 there have been 93 electorates.

The Tribunal accepts that since 1991 the reduction in the number of electorates can only mean that each of the remaining electorates became larger in terms of constituents. This, of course, has resulted in an increased workload for the Member.

The question for the Tribunal to consider is whether the level of increase in workload has been uniform across electorates and whether the amount of increase warrants a third, full time staff member.

The Tribunal considers that the increase in the population of electorates and the number of voters in those electorates must have translated into some increase in workload for the electorate offices. There are, for instance, more people to communicate with and more people who potentially require assistance from their local Member. The increases in population, etc., have not, however, necessarily translated into a uniform increase in workload for all electorate offices and this was borne out by the Tribunal's inspection of offices during May 2006. Some offices have experienced only a slight rise in workload whilst others, especially those associated with Shadow Ministers, have experienced a notable increase in workload. Workload may depend on just how active the Member is in the electorate or the overall political awareness of a particular electorate.

Another matter that became apparent on the Tribunal's inspection was that workloads will vary, not only from electorate office to electorate office but within an office over the year. In other words, electorate offices will experience peak (and low) periods of activity. This may depend, for example, on whether an issue arises in an electorate that provokes significant community interest.

Another matter that has been brought to the Tribunal’s attention is the practice by some Members to bring one electorate officer into Parliament at times when Parliament is sitting. This practice is not restricted to non-metropolitan Members but also Sydney based Members and, in particular, Shadow Ministers.

As a result of this practice it was pointed out to the Tribunal that leaving one electorate officer in the electorate office on such occasions can pose occupational health and safety risks for the officer in the electorate office.

The Tribunal has been advised that Members bring an electorate officer into Parliament on sitting days to provide continuity with electorate office work and to assist the Member with his/her electorate workload on these occasions.

In respect of Shadow Ministers it was pointed out to the Tribunal that the electorate officer is used as a research assistant for the Shadow Minister for the shadow portfolio duties.

Parliament House

While electorate office staff are exclusively employed to assist Members of the Legislative Assembly, in Parliament House, Members’ staff are predominantly employed to assist members of the Legislative Council. This group of employees is located in Parliament House and are provided on the following basis:

• Each cross bench Member of the Legislative Council who was elected as a cross bench Member is entitled to two staff members;

• Each other Member of the Legislative Council ie, Labor, Liberal or National Party Member, is entitled to one staff member.

In addition, the Speaker also employs six stenographers who are required to provide general secretarial support to all Members of the Legislative Assembly.

The allocation of these stenographers is a matter for the Presiding Officer. The Tribunal understands that when Parliament is sitting their workload is at its peak but declines significantly when Parliament is not sitting. This arrangement is further complicated because, over time, the stenographers have gravitated to working exclusively for one Party or another and there is a reluctance by Members to allocate work to stenographers working for different Parties. This can result in uneven distribution of workloads.

To overcome this the Tribunal would recommend that the existing group of stenographers work in a pool arrangement where their services can be utilised equally by all Members and any association with a particular Party be severed. The stenographers were, after all, employed to provide stenographic support for all Members and were not to be assigned to Parties. The Tribunal also suggests that the scope of work of a person required to perform only stenographic duties may be unnecessarily limited both from the individual's point of view and that of Members. Again, whilst it is a matter for the Presiding Officer how best to utilise these officers it would seem to the Tribunal that Members would be better served by expanding the role of the stenographers.

Should training be needed to enable the stenographers to undertake a broader role then this should be provided.

Safety

As earlier noted, the Tribunal has been informed of the safety concerns for staff. In particular, in those instances when only one electorate officer is on duty in the electorate office. This may occur when the other officer is required to accompany the Member to Parliament House on sitting days, or travel, or attend meetings either with or on behalf of the Member.

This issue has been raised with the Tribunal on a number of occasions in the past. On such occasions the Tribunal has noted that the Presiding Officer, as the employer of electorate office staff, is required to comply with the provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000.

The Tribunal has also been informed that whilst the Presiding Officer is the employer, the direction of electorate office staff in their day-to-day duties is left to the discretion of individual Members.

The Tribunal acknowledges that the safety concerns in respect of electorate office staff have not been ignored. Advice from the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly is that security reviews of electorate offices are undertaken as and when required by the Parliamentary Security Service and recommendations arising from these reviews are implemented where practicable following discussions between the Clerk, the Member and the electorate officers concerned. Measures introduced include security screens, duress buttons, safe rooms and rear exits.

The final matter that needs to be noted is that like the workload issue not all members bring electorate staff into Parliament when it is sitting. Individual circumstances dictate the needs of the Member.

Whips

The Australian Parliament House website defines the duties of the Whip as:

The Parliamentary Education Office website provides some additional detail:

It is clear that the Whip performs an important function for his or her Party. There is a significantly higher administrative and managerial burden placed on this Member and in recognition of these additional duties and responsibilities Whips in both Houses receive remuneration as noted in Schedule 1 of the Act.

The Whips do not, however, receive additional support for undertaking these responsibilities and the Tribunal has been informed that this has been recognised informally by the Presiding Officers by allocating support staff to the Whips to provide the necessary administrative assistance.

The Tribunal considers that this arrangement should be formalised and will be making a determination providing that the Whip of each recognised political party of not less than 10 members to each be provided with one dedicated support staff.

Conclusion

As part of the review of staff matters, the Tribunal visited Parliament House and a number of electorate offices to inform itself on the issues affecting electorate office staff. The Tribunal has examined the material put before it and considers that, overall, there has been an increase in the workload of electorate officers to warrant additional support. The Tribunal is not satisfied, however, that the workload is such in all electorate offices as to justify the salary, on cost and the additional cost of refitting electorate offices for a third full time electorate officer at this stage.

The Tribunal proposes, therefore, to determine that additional funding be provided to each Member who is currently allocated two electorate officers (Independent members are already provided with three electorate office staff) so that they may employ casual relief staff equivalent to the (average) number of days that Parliament is sitting. The average number of days the Legislative Assembly sat since 2000 is 61 days.

The entitlement will provide a budget specific for recruitment of temporary staff. The budget is to be equivalent to the salary of an electorate officer Grade 2 for a period of 61 days per annum. This will allow those members who bring staff into Parliament to employ a person at the electorate office. The funds are to be used for no other purpose.

In respect of Shadow Ministers, the Tribunal does not consider the casual relief it has provided for in this Determination is sufficient to meet the needs of those Members. In order to undertake their electorate work and their role as a Shadow Minister it is undoubtedly the case that a third full time staff member is required. It is wholly inequitable, for instance, that Independents are entitled to three staff and Shadow Ministers are limited to two, given the latter's role and responsibilities in the Parliament. In the Tribunal's opinion, the absence of a third full time staff member for Shadow Ministers is untenable.

It would appear to be the case that the Act does not enable the Tribunal to make the necessary determination to provide Shadow Ministers with an additional staff member (or additional funding for that purpose) they not being Recognised Office Holders. Instead, the Tribunal has been restricted to making recommendations in this respect, which have been consistently rejected. The Tribunal makes a further strong recommendation that an additional staff member be provided to Shadow Ministers. If such recommendation is not acted upon on this occasion the Tribunal does not propose in future determinations to make any further recommendations, it being obviously futile.

In relation to the issue of overtime budgets for electorate staff raised by the Speaker, the Tribunal would observe that the payment of overtime is a matter better managed through the appropriate industrial instrument rather than the provision of a budget determined by the Tribunal for this purpose. If staff work overtime then it should be paid for in accordance with the relevant Award or Agreement that applies.

In respect of the Whips, the Tribunal will make a determination that each Government and non Government Whip be provided with an additional staff member.

PART THREE

---

SUMMARY OF 2006 DETERMINATION

Electoral Allowance	3.0 per cent increase
Sydney Allowance	3.0 per cent increase
Logistic Support Allocation	3.0 per cent increase
Electorate Mailout Account	No increase
Committee Allowance	11.0 per cent increase
Electorate Charter Allowance	No increase
Travel Allowances	Increase generally to public sector rates

Dated this 13th day of July 2006

The Honourable Justice R Boland

THE PARLIAMENTARY REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL

PART FOUR

---

RESPONSE TO ACTING SECRETARY'S SUBMISSION

Pursuant to s 12A of the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 1989, the Tribunal is required to have regard to the financial implications of its determination for the State. Further, the Tribunal is required to invite the Secretary of the Treasury to make submissions to the Tribunal about those financial implications and to take any submission so made into account before making the determination.

Following the issuing of an invitation to the Treasury Secretary on 27 June 2006 the Acting Secretary made a submission on 10 July 2006. A copy of the submission is annexed to the determination as required by s 12A(3) of the Act.

The submission notes that the increase in total minimum expenditure of Part 1 of the Tribunal's determination would be $224,015 or an increase of 1.3 per cent. The submission also notes that the principal basis for the increase, namely the Consumer Price Index, is forecast to increase by 2¾ per cent in 2006-07 and not 3 per cent, which was the estimate relied upon by the Tribunal for the purpose of adjusting the allowances in Part 1.

In addition to pointing out the forecast increase of 2¾ per cent in the CPI, the Acting Secretary also noted in relation to Part 1 of the determination the Committee Allowance was to increase by 11 per cent. It was submitted the increase to this Allowance should be limited to 4.12 per cent, that is an increase equivalent to the increase in Members' salaries for 2005-06 and that the most recent increase in salaries of 7 per cent should be disregarded for the purpose of adjusting the Committee Allowance.

In relation to the Tribunal's intention to enable Members of the Legislative Assembly (other than Independents) to employ an additional staff member for 61 days that Parliament sits, the submission indicated that the additional cost would be $1.154 million per annum. In relation to the Tribunal's recommendation that Shadow Ministers be allocated an additional staff member the cost was estimated to be $1.686 million.

The submission proposed that the Tribunal might wish to consider its determination in light of the fact that the increase in electorate office staff will worsen the Budget position in circumstances where the State is currently budgeting for a deficit of $696 million in 2006-07. Given this it was submitted, "and the need to direct expenditures into high priority areas, it is important that all other costs are minimised wherever practical". The submission referred to staffing arrangements in the Victorian and Commonwealth Parliaments.

The increases in entitlements under Part I of the determination could only be described as minimalist and the adjustments are consistent with the practice that has been adopted by the Tribunal in past determinations. The cost of the increases according to the Acting Secretary's submission was estimated to be $224,015, or an increase of 1.3 per cent.

It may be noted that as a result of this determination the Chairpersons of Committees’ daily rate has increased from $145.00 per day to $160.00 per day and the annual rate for Members of the Public Accounts Committee has increased from $3,295 per annum to $3,660 per annum i.e., an increase of $365 per annum per Member.

The Chairpersons' rate has historically been adjusted according to movements in base salaries. This Tribunal has no role in respect of base salaries, which have recently increased. Any increase in the base salaries of Members of the New South Wales Parliament depend on determinations of the Commonwealth Remuneration Tribunal. These increases flow virtually automatically (see s 4 of the Parliamentary Remuneration Act). Whilst the Acting Secretary has taken issue with the very modest cost increase arising from the adjustments to committee allowances because of the financial implications, it may be observed that the 7 per cent increase in base salaries is not subject to any scrutiny in respect of the financial implications. Moreover, as this Tribunal has no role in respect of base salaries it is unable, as part of its deliberations, to make an overall assessment of the financial implications of its determination because it will often not be aware of what increases in base salaries are being considered by the Commonwealth Tribunal.

The submission referred to the Tribunal's recommendation regarding additional staff for Shadow Ministers. The cost of providing extra staff is, in the Tribunal's opinion, relatively modest and its financial implications do not outweigh what has been a clear need for a number of years. In past years the Government has chosen not to implement the Tribunal's recommendation regarding additional staff for Shadow Ministers. It is a matter for the Government whether it will implement the Tribunal's recommendation although the Tribunal's view is that it should do so.

It is apparent from the Acting Secretary's submission that the principal concern regarding the cost implications of the Tribunal's determination is the Tribunal's intention to provide additional staffing for Members of the Legislative Assembly. There are a number of matters regarding the Tribunal's determination that need to be expanded upon in light of the Acting Secretary's submission that the Tribunal should reconsider its determination in this respect.

First, the decision to grant additional staff was arrived at following a proper process of notification and investigation:

• The Tribunal foreshadowed a review of electorate and Parliament House staffing levels in its 2005 annual review.

• Letters were sent to all Members, including Ministers and other recognised office holders, in February 2006 inviting submissions on additional entitlements, including staffing levels for Members.

• Nearly all submissions on staffing levels supported an increase in electorate office staffing. Submissions were received from all the major parties, Independents as well as the Speaker.

• The Tribunal met with representatives of the major political parties to discuss their submissions and the Tribunal visited both Parliament House and a number of Electorate Offices in city and country electorates to satisfy itself there was a proper foundation for the claims regarding Electorate Office staffing levels.

Secondly, in respect of the staffing review the Tribunal, as noted in its Report, found that overall there had been an increase in the workload of Members. As noted in the Report, the workload increase was not uniform for all Members.

The Tribunal was also made aware of the practice of some Members, where they bring to Sydney one of their Electorate Office staff to work from Parliament House on parliamentary duties, while leaving the other officer alone to maintain a two-person office. There was concern voiced about the safety of one officer manning an electorate office and that officer being exposed to the pressures of working alone, including having to deal with angry or volatile constituents.

Given the extra workload and, in particular, the occupational health and safety concerns, which the Tribunal accepts as real concerns, the Tribunal made its determination for additional staffing support in the electorate office to be available if needed only while Parliament is sitting. Those Members who do not bring an electorate officer to Parliament House would not be eligible to receive this additional staffing assistance as determined by the Tribunal. The determination in respect of staff levels is considerably less than what was sought by the major parties.

The Acting Secretary's submission has drawn attention to the budget deficit of $696 million and the need to direct expenditures into "high priority areas". The Tribunal accepts that submission as being uncontroversial. However, the Tribunal does not understand the submission to contend that the State is experiencing such difficult economic or financial conditions that the increases in entitlements for Members of Parliament are financially unsustainable. The Tribunal notes the evidence of a senior Treasury official in the recent State Wage Case before the Full Bench of the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales where the State Government supported an increase of $20 in minimum award wages:

The Full Bench in the State Wage Case decision ([2006] NSWIRComm 204) found that the economic fundamentals of the New South Wales economy were "strong and positive". Nothing that has been put in the Acting Secretary's submission leads the Tribunal to make any amendment to its determination because of financial implications.

Finally, the Tribunal takes the opportunity to make some observations regarding s 12A of the Parliamentary Remuneration Act. The Tribunal is required to make what, in effect, is a draft determination, which is then to be submitted to the Treasury Secretary for him to assess the financial implications and make a submission about the affordability of what is proposed by the Tribunal. This arrangement has the potential to undermine the integrity and independence of the Tribunal, particularly where the Treasury Secretary in his submission intrudes into the merits of the reasons for the determination as he has done on this occasion as distinct from the financial implications.

The Tribunal knows of no other circumstance where a party with an interest in the outcome of a judicially constituted Tribunal's deliberations has the opportunity to see the proposed outcome before it is published, make comment on or critique the outcome without any other party having had a chance to do likewise and then have the comment or critique published together with the final determination.

The Tribunal is of the opinion a case may exist for amending s 12A of the Act.

The Tribunal has had regard to the financial implications of its determination for the State and has taken into account the submission of the Acting Secretary about those financial implications. Having done so the Tribunal considers that no case exists for amending its determination because of financial implications.

Dated this 13th day of July 2006

The Honourable Justice R Boland

THE PARLIAMENTARY REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL