Motion moved:
Mr VINCENT (Prosser- Deputy Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council) – Mr President, I move –
That the Legislative Council disallow, 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.
Ms FORREST (Murchison) – Mr President, what value do we place on our work? What value do we place on the work of elected members of parliament? What value does the government place on the work of elected members of parliament? What value does the public place on the work of elected members of parliament? What are community expectations actually? And who should decide the monetary value of this important work? These are fundamental questions when we contemplate this motion before us. Incredibly, we’re here today responding to a matter of political interference in the setting of Tasmanian MP salaries and allowances. This is inappropriate and it’s wrong.
On the matter of parliamentary salaries, some members of the public would say we shouldn’t be paid at all. We’ve all heard people say that.
However, there are far more members of the public who say to me that we should be paid more than we are. Many say they wouldn’t want the job because they recognise the downsides of the job as well as the more visible upsides. I acknowledge the contributions of my colleagues here who have already spoken and that indeed there are many benefits and privileges of being elected to this place. However, the job comes with components that other workers and other public servants don’t experience. I will come a little bit to that.
This job also impacts on our families, particularly those who don’t live in and around Hobart and on a number of occasions has caused us to miss important family events. Regardless of this – and germane to this disallowance motion – is that most, if not all, agree that it should not be elected members themselves who decide what the right remuneration is.
The matter of salaries for MPs is political dynamite and a reason we should keep right out of it. Whilst not the first time this has occurred – and I am one of the longest serving members that others have referred to – the government’s intention to disallow the decision made by the independent Tasmania Industrial Commission regarding parliamentary salaries and allowances represents another dangerous departure from the principles of independent determination on such matters.
This should not be a decision based on anyone’s personal circumstance – the member for Nelson went to that point – whereby any individual may be in a position to say they don’t personally wish the determination to be provided because of their personal circumstance. That is not what the TIC considered and it’s not what we should be considering.
As has been mentioned by other members, any member can and has always had the opportunity to direct the pay office not to apply any increase now or in the future. Let that be on an individual basis, if any individual wishes to take that approach but don’t interfere with the independent process that was tasked to do this work.
We have been here before. I have anyway –
Ms Rattray – And I have.
Ms FORREST – and the member for McIntyre, absolutely, but I will say again, we should not be setting our own salaries and allowances. I have been through this a number of times here and we absolutely need a proper, timely process that is not dependent on our approval or disapproval to set Tasmanian parliamentarian salaries. We need a process that is transparent, that does meet community expectations.
If you want to talk about community expectations, that’s what they expect. A proper process that’s adopted and applied. They want a process that is done independently from us so that we are not the ones setting our own salaries and allowances.
On this matter I have remained consistent throughout my time in this place, and we should not be able to interfere with the independent umpire’s decision.
This is a problem to be fixed, so we are not back here again in a few years having another experience of deja vu as I’ve been having since this report landed, and on the day it landed, the Premier announced this course of action, months ago without even considering, it seems any impact that would have on his colleagues.
The former members for Windermere and Western Tiers who may or may not be watching warned of this very event in 2015 as well last time we were asked to interfere. Surely, they’ll be rolling their eyes that we have not acted on fixing this process that seems broken.
I will mention a couple of comments reported in the media related to comments they made in this place at that time. (tbc 11.42)
Independent Windermere MLC, Ivan Dean, said:
The veto powers were nonsense.
It still gives the parliament a say on parliamentary salaries, and we should be as far removed from that in all circumstances.
You can hear him saying that. Can’t you, member for McIntyre?
Ms Rattray – From over there.
Ms FORREST – Yes, from over there.
The independent Western Tiers MLC, Greg Hall, agreed that the TIC’s ruling should be binding.
The parliament should simply accept the TIC’s decision.
He said –
They are the independent umpire.
And then Mr Dean went on to say further:
The further we fall behind, the greater the amount it is going to be in the long run.
He said. This is in 2015:
You can just see that in 8 to 10 years, a big catch up and no one will stand for that.
Where are we right here, right now? You could call them prophets.
Mr PRESIDENT – Nostradamus.
Ms FORREST – They didn’t need a great deal of Nostradamus’s skills to predict whether we would end up here.
We cannot and should not be cherry picking determinations, choosing those we agree with while ignoring those we don’t. Such selective acceptance undermines the very foundation of independent determinations made at arms’ length from MPs themselves. Yes, parliament does have the power to move disallowance on a range of matters and that is an important power the parliament has, but one that relates to a matter where all members are conflicted is inappropriate and it’s wrong. Any individual members, as I’ve said, can elect not to take a salary increase if they wish. That’s a personal decision and it will remain so.
The Tasmanian Industrial Commission determination results in a decision to pay members of parliament a salary that reflects the salary increases given to every other public servant over the last seven to eight years, while our salaries have remained entirely frozen.
This is a catch-up adjustment, and it does not even include back pay for those seven years. The back pay the minister mentioned was back until July this year, because that’s when the determination would start if this disallowance were rejected. As other members have said, that would be unacceptable in the other workplace.
Let us be clear be clear about just a few of our different employment arrangements that also need to be put into the mix of this discussion. Members of parliament do not receive long service leave and there are paid superannuation in line with other public servants. There is no big superannuation package waiting for us when we leave.
Ms O’Connor – Everyone thinks we do.
Ms FORREST – I know. Despite the public perception that we do, we do not. We do not get any payout when we walk out this door. When we leave office, for whatever reason, whether we retire, we die, or we lose an election and subsequently leave as a result of that, the pay stops and there is nothing. Nothing. No payout, no annual leave catch-up. The superannuation we’ve accumulated is the same as every other public servant in the state.
This is something that has been looked at in other jurisdictions because it’s often quite difficult for a member of parliament leaving this place to transition to alternative employment. If they’ve just spent a lot of money on an election, this is the only job we have to pay money to get the job –
Ms Webb – To re-apply for it.
Ms FORREST – Yes, but I don’t have a problem with putting yourself out to the people again. That’s democracy. It is an important part of our democracy. However, if you’ve just spent a significant amount of your own money, money you may have had to borrow to run an election campaign, as I did in my first election – I had to borrow money to do it – then, having nothing when you leave and a limited opportunity for transition to further employment is another issue that we deal with. I believe the salary determination that we are provided takes that into consideration to some degree. I believe it adequately addresses that, but that’s a matter for another day.
It is an honour and a privilege to be a public servant in this way. I don’t diminish that at all. We don’t do it for the money. Many members of this place, the parliament as a whole, could earn far more in other areas. If I’d stayed on my pathway in my formal role, I would now be on more money than I am now. As long as I was given the opportunities for promotion and things like that, which would be a matter for me to demonstrate I was worthy.
This is an independent determination that sets what the commission believes after investigating this question for years, is the appropriate salary allowances that at Tasmanian MPs should receive. If the process has been ineffective, or have taken too long to reach a conclusion, then this should result in fixing the process not determining our own salaries. A disallowance would mean that Tasmanian MPs will continue to fall further behind comparable positions, thus negatively impacting our ability to encourage members of the Tasmanian community to run for office. Whilst not directly relevant to the actual TIC determination, freezing salaries as has occurred and falling further behind particularly disproportionately negatively impacts members who don’t do not have independent wealth.
None of us does it for the money, as I said. Single income families, women, single parent families, members of both genders with young families who live outside of Hobart, particularly those with partners who are unable to maintain full-time employment due to the demanding hours worked by a member of parliament, their partner, combined with a high cost and in our regional areas, very limited capacity to access childcare.
Members have also observed that due to the high cost of living we all face, community organisations have increased their expectations of support. Local sporting clubs, of which I have many in my electorate, arts organisations. I support arts organisations around the state, because they really struggle for funding. Other community groups and young people seeking to support to fund opportunities to advance their personal growth have seen their needs and their costs increase significantly. The requests that we get through office, that is part of our allowance for financial support, have increased to the point where current allowances have not kept pace with these rising costs. Undermining, our capacity to assist those vital committee organisations in a meaningful way.
I know this because of what I could do when I first came in here and what I can’t do now for the same organisations. We operate with one staff member to manage our electorate offices. This has not changed for Legislative Council members, whereas members of the House of Assembly currently have 2.5 FTE positions, enabling them to employ advisers. There is no equity in this arrangement, and it compounds our already substantial workload. This government decision, if it was to be supported, would further diminish the importance of the workload that we undertake and diminish the value of our worth as elected members.
I conclude with a quote from editorial by Anthony Hanover, the editor The Advocate newspaper, published on the 10 June 2025. This is when this thing first landed. I am going to quote directly, so this may be one word of unparliamentary language in here. (OK)
Our pollies deserve a bloody big pay rise, and, no, this is not a joke.
And he starts by mentioning me so I will use a bit of self-congratulations here.
Ruth Forrest is – as often the case – absolutely spot on.
While others play in the shallow end of politics, the upper house independent goes deeper. It would be slightly unfair to say Ms Forest is supporting a huge hike in politicians’ paychecks.
Maybe she does, maybe she doesn’t, but that’s not the point.
What Ms Forrest is arguing is for is that the salaries should be taken out of their hands and linked to public sector wages.
That was the question that was put to me, and I responded that would be another way that could be done other than the current mechanism.
This makes sense and would avoid several issues.
More importantly, it would mean we wouldn’t have headlines saying they are in line for a massive increase.
You couldn’t say giving politicians 22.36 per cent pay bump passes the so-called pub test.
No one wants to sell that one, and especially not when they’re about to head to an election.
There are older voters who still talk about a 40 per cent rise in state pollies gave themselves in in the early 1990s.
Bumper stickers said ’40 per cent never forget’.
It’s questionable if those outraged at the time, or now, understood the reason behind the big pay rise.
Too often, the playing of politics trumps a debate of substance.
That deeply unpopular move 30-odd years ago linking the wage of a state politician to 90 per cent of that of a federal one.
Ms O’Connor – It was 85.
Ms FORREST – I am quoting from an article.
Doesn’t that actually sound fair?
Similarly, the recommendation last week is based on what the state public servants have received in pay rises over the past seven years.
Over that time, politicians have, in contrast, had their wages frozen.
The disparity between the Tasmanian state MPs are receiving compared to their federal and interstate counterparts has blown out.
The base salary is more than $30,000 lower than any other state or territory, while a federal MP gets at least $70,000 more.
Few might sympathise with the idea that our elected members deserve a fair go, especially given recent events, but they do.
As Ms Forrest says, pollies pays is never going to be popular, and that’s why it shouldn’t be in their hands.
I was really encouraged to see an editor of newspaper recognise that when most of the media coverage is about the big bucket of money we’re about to get, if that was to be delivered.
The government’s intention to disallow this independent determination sets a concerning precedent. It undermines the integrity of independent industrial processes and determination, and it devalues the work of elected representatives. We must ask ourselves, what value do we place on democratic representation. What message does this send to potential future candidates, and what precedent are we setting for future governments who may wish to cherry pick the decisions of independent bodies.
I will respect the independence and expertise of the Tasmanian Industrial Commission. I will not be drawn into setting my own salary as I’ve not supported this in the past, but I do agree we need to fix the problem that exists if the process is taking too long, and it does.
The fact that this process has taken too long doesn’t make the decision wrong. It’s the process that needs fixing and we need to stay well away from setting our own salaries. That is the bottom line. As I said back in June this year, politicians pay is never going to be popular and that’s why we shouldn’t be in our hands. It’s political dynamite and the reason to keep right out of it.
We should not be able to amend or reject umpires’ decision and that’s what we’re being asked to do and that’s wrong, it’s inappropriate and I’m so disappointed to find ourselves here.
END OF SPEECH
After the Legislative Council voted on the Motion 10 against the disallowance, 4 in favour of the disallowance, the Premier released this social media post:
I responded to this on adjournment with the following speech:
Premier’s Social Media Post – Parliamentary Salaries and Allowances –
Disallowance Motion
Ms FORREST (Murchison) – Mr President, I rise to speak briefly on adjournment to express my profound disappointment with the actions of the Premier today. He has acted in a childish, disrespectful, dishonest and profoundly disappointing manner today. This is a premier who promised a respectful, collaborative approach across the parliament. He is doing anything but. His actions today are not those of a leader, they are not those of a respected parliamentarian, and they are not those actions of a good bloke.
Why am I saying this? After the vote on the disallowance motion in this House related to parliamentary salaries and allowances, he put out a social media post. Concern was expressed during the debate on this matter. I will just read it briefly:
Very disappointed to see Labor just vote for a 22 per cent pay rise for politicians. I will personally be knocking it back. Three per cent, the same as what is being offered to our public workers is fair and reasonable.
Public sector workers – not ‘public workers’ – have not had a wage freeze. It is not a legitimate comparison.
This is wrong on so many levels. The post is not true, it’s not factual, and it’s dishonest because even if Labor had supported the disallowance motion and lined up with the government on this, it would have been lost.
These comments come from a Premier already on $300,000 a year. I will quote from the ABC online regarding this matter. It says:
Tasmania’s Industrial Commission in June determined that MPs – whose pay has been frozen since 2018 – should have their base pay rise to $171,527, up from $140,185. The pay increase would still leave Tasmanian MPs with the lowest base pay of any politicians in the nation, but only slightly behind New South Wales ($172,576), Western Australia ($173,393), and the Northern Terrritory ($175,000).
I believe it’s important that we put this in context, Mr President. It goes on:
Premier Jeremy Rockliff’s pay will increase to almost $369,000, a rise of almost $68,000, while ministers will receive a base salary of $291,597.
Now, he has made a commitment he’s not going to take it, and only take the 3 per cent. Well, that’s fine. That’s from a man who’s already on $300,000 a year with a driver, with multitudes of staff, et cetera. This should never be about one person. It should have been about the principle, and he took us down to the gutter.
I am very disappointed. He may not be a maths scholar, but the vote was 10 to 4, and if Labor had changed their vote, it would have been 8 to 6 in this House, with the result exactly the same.
It’s childish, small minded and a dishonest thing to do. If you want to go after anyone, go after the whole lot of us. We’re big enough to stand on our own two feet. Stop playing cheap, stupid, political games that he accuses the Labor Party of all the time.
I hope the Premier reads this. I hope that he reads the whole debate in our House to fully inform himself of the reason Independent and Labor members in this House made this very challenging, difficult decision – a decision we should never have been called on to make.
One more thing, I hope he grows up. I hope he stops playing silly, childish, political games and misrepresenting the truth to the public and starts to act respectfully and collaboratively as he promised he would. I am beyond disappointed, Mr President, in the leader, so-called, of this state.