FOR PRESS PM No. 99/ 1971
PARLIAMENTARY SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES
Statement by the Prime Minister Mx. William McMahon
The Government has decided not to proceed with any
of the three Bills relating to increases in Parliamentary A'alaries
and allowances. In practical terms this means tZhat Parlian~ entary
salaries will not be increased in the life of this Parliament.
Parliamentary salary determinations are a difficult subject at any
time. They give rise to a variety of public consideration and
emotions. For this reason, it has been customary to proceed in the
Parliament only on the basis of unanimity or near unanimity, The
recent decision to have the salaries and allowances independ~ ently
reviewed was initiated on that basis.
The Leader of the Opposition wrote to me on
13 September, 1971 and said that his executive had discusse4 replies
which I had given in answer to questions in the House concerning
Parliamentary salaries. He went on to say that, in the opinion of
the executive, the salaries should be periodically reviewed by a
member of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission or by an
industrial judge in the same way as salaries of other citizens.
Further on 16 September, after I had decided upon an
inquiry into Parliamentary salaries and allowances, the Leader of
the Opposition, in a statement in support, said that the opposition
had suggested, and had supported, the approach which the Government
had adopted. Also he expressed pleasure that the Government had
sought and secured the services of a judge of such distipction in
industrial matters. Mr. Justice Kerr submitted his report in which he put
forward a set of detailed recommendations. He expressed the view'
t~ iat the report should be considered as a whole. In paragraph 217,
from which I quote, he said:-
" I have considered remuneration as a whole an4 my
r~ commendations in respect of particular financial matters are
cOnnected with my recommendations on other related matters and the
results should be looked at as a whole."
The Government exercising its responsibility put forward
to the Parliament proposals based on Judge Kerr's recommendations.
The one point of difference was that exercising its responsibility
to give leadership in the present situation of wage and salary
pressures it proposed that the salary increases recommended by
Judge Kerr should in all instances members, ministers and other
office holders be reduced by 28.6% This is not in conflict with
the Judge's recommendation that the report be treated as a whole.
Judge Kerr said that he did not recommend any reduction by way of
creating an example. But he also stated that it was a matter for
Parliament to decide what, if anything, it should do along these
lines.
The Opposition has indicated that it does not accept
the Government's proposals. Instead it proposes. that only those
sections of the Bills relating to the basic salary and allowances of
Senators and Members should be adopted. This would upset and
distort the pattern of Judge Kerr's recommendations. Further, there
would be no unanimity between the parties. In the circumstances,
the Government sees only one responsible course. This course is
not to proceed with any of the three Bills. Whatever procedural
steps are necessary for their ,. ithdrawal-will be taken.
9 DECEMBER, 1971.