5th Sep 2006, 6:25 PM – Senate Motions - Remuneration and Allowances - Pay rise

The majority voted against disapproving clause 2.2 of a determination made by the Remunerations Tribunal.

The explanatory memorandum for this determination explained that:

Clause 2.2 ... reflect[s] the outcomes of the Remuneration Tribunal’s annual review of remuneration ... [T]he upper end of the bands for both superannuation salary and total remuneration have been increased by 4.4 per cent (rounded up).

So this motion was against the 4.4% pay rise for public office holders and Members of Parliament, but the majority disagreed and the motion was unsuccessful.

What does this mean?

Greens Senator Bob Brown introduced the motion and explained:

The Remuneration Tribunal has made two determinations on pay rises. The first was No. 9, which was made on 23 May and was for a 2.5 per cent rise for MPs, and the second was made on 20 June and was for a 4.4 per cent rise. These came into effect on 1 July because of the government’s motion and were effectively retrospective. This motion of disallowance is dealing with that 4.4 per cent rise, the second rise, and would, if successful, leave MPs with the 2.5 per cent increase.

Effectively what the government announced was a seven per cent pay rise. The latest pay increases would put the Prime Minister’s salary up by more than $20,000 to about $309,000, and the Leader of the Opposition’s salary would go up by $14,000 to about $220,000.

Motion text

That clause 2.2 of Determination 2006/11: Remuneration and Allowances for Holders of Public Office and Members of Parliament, made pursuant to subsections 5(2A), 7(1), 7(3), 7(3D) and 7(4) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973, be disapproved.