Mr GREG PIPER (Lake Macquarie) (15:00): I have listened to the Minister for Roads and the member for Wahroonga in debate on the Parliamentary Remuneration Amendment (Basic Salary and Additional Entitlements) Bill 2026. I am in general agreement with them but not necessarily for the same reasons. The member for Wahroonga spoke about remuneration and the provision of entitlements for members being important to make sure that we have a robust and functioning democracy. I could not agree more. The rot in New South Wales started quite some time ago. It probably started around about when I came into this Parliament, but not because I came into this Parliament. That was when attacks on what was seen as the privilege of members of the Legislative Assembly started.
There was a push back against entitlements such as the pensions for members that had been incorporated to allow professionals in particular to be able to enter Parliament and not be disadvantaged by giving service to the people of New South Wales. That was seen as something that could not be sustained or supported, not financially but politically. We used to have our salaries pegged to the Commonwealth Parliament—I think we got what they got, less $500. There might be some argument to adjust that, but right now I think a parliamentarian in New South Wales receives more than $12,000 less. We were the second lowest paid members of Parliament in the country after Tasmania. That is extraordinary. But I am not here to complain. I am here to say that we wish to inspire people to come into this Parliament to contest ideas. We want to have a healthy and robust Parliament made up of people of talent and wide experience in New South Wales.
I was shocked when I saw the determination that came down late last week. I was also somewhat surprised at the number of references to consultation with the Presiding Officers, the Hon. Ben Franklin as President of the Legislative Council and me as the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. It is true that the Hon. Ben Franklin and I have had a number of meetings with Commissioner Schmidt of the Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal but certainly not for something like 12 months. It was most surprising and perplexing to see references to that type of consultation on such an enormous determination that has huge implications for members and for the Parliament.
The Presiding Officers, along with the executive group, argue hard every year for an appropriate amount of funds to manage the Parliament and our respective legislatures. It is always difficult. That is the nature of dealing with Treasury, with the Treasurer and with the Executive Government in looking at how to fund a Parliament. I have to say it becomes a false economy if you keep throttling back on what the Parliament can receive, particularly when we have the oldest continuously open public building in Australia and the costs inherent with that. But that is not the main issue. The main issue is that we were blindsided by a determination that allowed for significant additional staff for members of the Legislative Council and of the Legislative Assembly.
Under the determination, every member of a major party in this House would receive an extra staff member. That is fantastic, and I do not argue against the views of the member for Wahroonga that members have difficulties with the range of responsibilities and expectations placed on them. This would certainly help them to be able to carry out their task of representing their communities. A proposal for 42 additional staff for the Legislative Council is wonderful, but this building is absolutely at its maximum capacity. We do not have anywhere to accommodate 42 additional staff on level 11.
We have 93 electorates and some 98 electorate offices around the State. Two-thirds of them probably could not accommodate an additional desk for an additional staff member. I am not saying it would not be wonderful to have those sorts of resources. It would be wonderful if we had more money to accelerate the further provision of electorate offices, which I believe has been delivered much faster over the past few years than at any other time. But we have a long way to go before we are comfortable in the provision of modern facilities for all members of this Parliament.
This is a huge cost to the Government. Yes, I know this is not about the Parliament yet. We will take on these extra staff and then go to Treasury and say, "We need another $50 million or $100 million per annum in recurrent funding to manage the staff, and we need to upgrade offices right across New South Wales." We will need to put a cantilever or some kind of mezzanine on level 11 so we can put little offices there for the extra staff for each member of the Legislative Council. We will need to give them desks, computers and all the requisite materials that go with supporting additional staff. Then there would be all the other workers that would support the additional staff. There would be additional workers needed in Human Services and throughout the Department of Parliamentary Services, certainly including our cleaning and catering staff.
I cannot speak for the President, but I have heard that he is as concerned as I am about the implications of this. Since well before I became Speaker, I have made submissions to the Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal. The member for Newtown is in the Chamber. She knows about that because the Independents went in hard to get an additional staff member some time ago, and I think The Greens also took that up and achieved a similar outcome two years later. It is about making life easier or making the work of members more effective, but we also have to live in the real world. That is why I was so taken aback by this determination. I have not had any consultation with the Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal for nearly a year.
There are on-costs involved in this too. In a bit of an irony, the President and the Speaker are responsible for what is known as the MOPS Act, which is the Members of Parliament Staff Act. We have been working assiduously to try to equalise and increase remuneration and to improve conditions for members' staff, but we have been very much constrained in that. This not only does not help us to deliver that right now, but if it was acceded to it would probably makes the situation worse. We would have a much greater cost associated with it. This is unreasonable. I am surprised that the Government seemed to be as blindsided as the Presiding Officers were. I spoke to Special Minister of State John Graham just yesterday and it certainly seems that was the case. Nobody saw this coming. It would be wonderful to be able to deliver all of those things. [Extension of time]
With all due respect to the commissioner, I do not think anybody is arguing against the substantive matters that have been raised. But I have some issues, and I put on record something that I find bizarre. I argued this with the commissioner at the time. I believe I made my view fairly clear about the electoral allowance that is provided to members, which varies across the State depending on need. It was put to me that there was some concern that members in New South Wales are underpaid. What a terrible thing for a member of Parliament to be underpaid. We should be able to take up some kind of collection for them to help them out! It is true that greater consideration should be given to the most significant State in the Commonwealth, but this is not the way to do it.
The commissioner was concerned that members are not using their electoral allowance for the purpose it is provided and that, rather than spending their allowance on dishwashing detergent, toilet paper, mats or whatever other consumables they need, they are taking it as additional salary. What abject nonsense! Of course they spend their electoral allowance as intended and determined by the Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal in 2016. That change was made at the behest of the PRT, which streamlined the administration of this minor allocation or expenditure. Having staff sitting on level 9 to acquit that expenditure was a nonsense. The PRT knew it was a nonsense. So why does the commissioner think it is unfair that members are perhaps using this as additional income? It seems to have come to that, and I am concerned. It is a nonsense. By the way, if members did have some electoral allowance left over—heaven forbid—they would be taxed heavily on it, so it is certainly not the windfall suggested.
I am shocked. It is extraordinary for the Government to be legislating along these lines. Who could have seen this coming? We did not expect a PRT determination like we saw late last week. Government members were probably shocked by it and prepared legislation within a matter of days to set aside elements of it. As one of the Presiding Officers of the Parliament, I put on record that I was surprised. I dispute that there was meaningful consultation with the Presiding Officers to justify this determination. It has huge implications not just for government but also for the Parliament. I support the Government's action. I believe the system is broken and we need to fix it. I am not saying the commissioner's views have no merit. But we have to live in the real world, and this determination is nowhere near that.