Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I was one of those who sat in the House between 1993 and 1996, during the dying days of the Hawke and Keating governments. I can recall ministerial scandal after ministerial scandal. I can remember very well how ministers were called to the dispatch box. I can also remember how those on the back bench and those on the middle bench of the then government rejoiced in the difficulties their ministers were experiencing, knowing of course that, if a ministerial vacancy occurred—given the fact that hope springs eternal—there was a prospect of promotion. I am not suggesting for a moment that even on our side, if a minister were in trouble—during the period the minister is in trouble we all support the minister totally—those who were not in the ministry would not relish the opportunity of a ministerial vacancy and the possibility of a promotion.

When one listens to what the honourable member for Cunningham said in her contribution on the bill, one could somehow think that this government is without ministerial standards. I do not think anyone could realistically suggest that to be the case. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer, as the leaders of the Liberal Party, have ensured that there has been a very high level of scrupulous behaviour on the part of ministers and those who are entrusted to that high office. Similarly, the National Party has also ensured that its ministers act in a very responsible way. I think it is totally inappropriate for the member opposite to suggest in some way, shape or form that this government has thrown ministerial standards out the window. I am not saying that those of us who are not presently in the ministry would not rejoice if the opportunity to enter the ministry were to occur, but I do think that it is wrong to suggest in some way that our current ministers have performed in a less than appropriate manner.

The Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2005 is an important bill. In many respects it is a machinery bill, but it is important notwithstanding. I note in the second reading amendment to the bill moved by the honourable member for Wills that the opposition does not want to decline the bill a second reading but ‘condemns the government for allowing ministerial standards and accountability to decline at the same time as ministerial salaries are increasing’. I think ministerial salaries in Australia are appallingly low. When one compares what the Prime Minister of this country is paid with what the Prime Minister of Singapore and the ministers and parliamentary secretaries in Singapore are paid, it is pretty clear that our Prime Minister works virtually for nothing. Given the heavy responsibilities of ministers and parliamentary secretaries—who in this country, under the Ministers of State Act, are also ministers—they are paid only a pittance of what their counterparts are paid in other countries. So I think it is wrong to suggest, as the member for Wills does, that in some way ministerial salaries are inappropriately high.

One also ought to recognise that the opposition in this country currently comprise members of the Australian Labor Party. Some of those members would be well aware of the situation that occurred in the state of New South Wales. Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, I understand that you were a former distinguished minister in the New South Wales parliament, and I suspect that you, like me, would be looking very carefully at the ministerial scandals that almost on a daily basis unfold in that jurisdiction not very far away from Canberra. The opposition might well complain about accountability. However, one ought to look at Labor in government. One ought not to listen to what people say; one ought to look at how their party acts when entrusted with the keys of government.

It is a tragic situation to see what is happening in New South Wales. The ministers of that state do not even front the media on crises in their portfolios. They send out the head of their department. When the opposition in the Australian parliament criticises Australian ministers, could you imagine what would happen if we were to send out not the minister himself, which is what we do, but the head of the department—the unelected, unaccountable person who probably gets paid two or three times what the minister does—to respond to queries about departmental and ministerial behaviour? I find that to be quite a bizarre situation. For the member for Cunningham to come into the House and suggest that somehow this government is without standards is just breathtaking hypocrisy on the part of the opposition.

When you look at the Labor Party in government in New South Wales and at the Labor Party in government in Canberra between 1993 and 1996, you see that ministerial standards were non-existent in the government in Canberra and they are currently non-existent at Macquarie Street in Sydney. The member for Cunningham had a straight face. To be honest, you have to give it to her; I do not know how she managed to muster it all together—but she did. She went through a 20-minute diatribe, criticising the current government for our ministerial standards when, in reality, she comes from a party which historically has not had any standards in government at all.

Mr Speaker—and I welcome you to the chair—this bill aims to ensure that the Ministers of State Act 1952 has the capacity to meet the tasks that it was designed to do—in particular, to facilitate the remuneration increments to which government ministers are entitled. As the entitlements of ministers are tied to those of members and senators, which were subject to an inflationary increment last year, the ministerial entitlements have also been subject to an increment. In consequence, the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2005 provides the mechanism that allows for the allocation of the extra remuneration required to meet those inflationary increases. This is not a controversial bill. I recall in my prior manifestation as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration that I regularly used to have to introduce similar bills to the House to make the necessary adjustments to meet changed financial situations.

The Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2005 initiates an increase from $2.8 million to $3.2 million to be used for the purpose of ministerial remuneration. This is a special appropriation of consolidated revenue funds that are administered by the Department of Finance and Administration. The provisions of the bill enable the modification of the act to enable the increment and to allow that increment to commence from 1 July last year—that is, 1 July 2005.

As all members are aware, as each year goes by the workload of elected representatives of parliament increases and, of course, the workload of ministers is no different. Ministers have very heavy responsibilities and, as I said earlier in my contribution, I am of the view that this parliament does not adequately remunerate members of the executive and that sooner or later some government is going to be prepared to grasp the nettle and make the necessary changes to ensure that those people who have a very heavy responsibility—a responsibility that in many cases exceeds that of CEOs—are adequately remunerated. This bill, though, is a mechanism bill, a machinery bill, which just seeks to remedy certain necessary changes, given the impact of inflation and flow-on of increases of ministerial salary.

Debate interrupted.

See this speech in context