A SHOCKWAVE HIT TASMANIA’S PARLIAMENT THIS WEEK: after a fierce showdown in the upper house, MPs have defied the premier and voted in favor of a 22 percent pay increase recommended by the Tasmanian Industrial Commission. This ruling boosts their base salary from 140,185 dollars to 171,527 dollars—and it’s backdated to July 1.
But here’s where it gets controversial… Even with this hefty jump, Tasmanian legislators will still draw the lowest base pay of any Australian parliamentarians. They edge out only slightly behind New South Wales (172,576 dollars), Western Australia (173,393 dollars) and the Northern Territory (175,000 dollars). Meanwhile, Premier Jeremy Rockliff’s annual package would swell by nearly 68,000 dollars to almost 369,000 dollars, and ministers would see their base salary climb to 291,597 dollars.
Premier Rockliff has publicly rejected the full 22 percent boost. He insists on taking just a three percent rise, mirroring what the government recently offered to public sector workers. Rockliff argued that the commission’s figure was “out of step with community expectations,” and he moved a formal motion in parliament to disallow the pay increase. That bid failed in the upper house by ten votes to four, as Labor and all eight independents sided with the industrial umpire.
And this is the part most people miss: for a pay rise to be blocked, the disallowance motion must pass both legislative chambers. Since it stumbled in the upper house, the salary adjustment automatically kicks in—and MPs will see the higher figures reflected in the next payslip.
Why did this battle flare up? Tasmania has kept politicians’ salaries frozen since 2018. Usually, the Industrial Commission—an independent tribunal—reviews and recommends adjustments based on factors like inflation, cost of living and comparisons with other jurisdictions. Many argue that lawmakers shouldn’t set their own paychecks, which is precisely why the commission exists. Opponents counter that accepting a large, back-dated jump during tight budget times sends the wrong message.
Labor MP Sarah Lovell reminded parliament that handing over pay determinations to an external body helps preserve democratic integrity. “Allowing members of parliament to decide their own wages undermines public trust,” she said. “This commission was given the remit for good reason.”
Independent MP Bec Thomas echoed that sentiment, warning of public outrage if nurses, police, paramedics or teachers had gone seven years without a single wage increase. “Imagine the uproar—strikes, media outcry, community protests,” she said. “In any other industry, you simply wouldn’t accept frozen pay for so long.”
Some MPs who personally oppose the hike have proposed a workaround: donate the extra funds to charity or reimburse the state. Independent Meg Webb urged colleagues to look beyond personal gain. “This debate isn’t about individual need—it’s about a principle: fair pay with objectively assessed annual increases.”
Veteran independent Ruth Forrest described MP salaries as “political dynamite,” insisting that parliamentarians should never be tasked with overruling the commission. “We were asked to reject the umpire’s call, but that’s inappropriate and disappointing,” she said.
On the government side, minister Kerry Vincent defended fiscal prudence, noting the three percent offer made to state employees. He also acknowledged flaws in the current system: “We need a better process that removes this onus from parliamentarians,” Vincent said. The Greens, who actually voted to block the increase, agree a systemic overhaul is overdue. “We can’t keep repeating this showdown,” Greens leader Rosalie Woodruff warned. “Parliament and government must collaborate to forge a sustainable, transparent approach.”
This clash raises plenty of questions: should an independent tribunal alone decide politicians’ pay? Or is there room for parliamentary or public input? After seven years of wage freezes, is a 22 percent adjustment fair, or does it risk alienating everyday Tasmanians struggling with rising costs? And what message does it send when MPs accept a large pay rise while many workers wait for even modest annual increases?
We want to hear your take. Do you agree with the commission’s recommendation, or do you side with the premier’s more cautious approach? Jump into the comments and let the debate begin!
