PARLIAMENTARY SUPERANNUATION (REDUCTION OF PENSION) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 February 2009. Page 1400.)

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:14): I will make a brief contribution. Whilst I support many of the things the member for Mitchell puts forward, I am not supporting this measure. I have come to the conclusion that in the community there is, I think, an unreasonable and unfair hostility to MPs and to any financial remuneration they may get whilst they are an MP, or even when they cease to be an MP. I think that is a very unfortunate view, whether it is held by fellow MPs or the wider community.

In South Australia and throughout Australia, but most notably here, I think the community is well served by members of parliament. There are a lot of sacrifices in becoming and being a member of parliament. In fact, if somebody asked me today if I would recommend that they enter parliament, I would probably hesitate in encouraging them to do so.

It is not simply Prime Minister Rudd's error in freezing MPs pay last year—and I suspect he may be tempted to do the same again this year—which raises the question of whether MPs and their families are working families or whether we are non-working families. What we get is this continual attack on remuneration and other benefits for MPs.

If you listen to talkback radio, which I sometimes do, you will hear people now saying that MPs should get a pay cut, that a pay freeze is not enough. We are the only group in the community, that I am aware of, that currently has a pay freeze. I wrote to the Prime Minister and I said, not these exact words but, 'You are making the mistake of Mr Latham, with a kneejerk type reaction in freezing the pay of MPs.' The answer that came back was that it had to be done because of inflation. Now we almost certainly have deflation, but I do not think that will stop the Prime Minister from engaging in another round of pay freezes for MPs.

It will not secure one single vote, if you look at the mathematics of it and the rationale. No-one is going to receive one extra vote because MPs pays are frozen. By definition it is impossible. I am not aware of any party or MP taking a particular line on it, and if they did I do not think that the community would accept the view that MPs are basically charity workers.

Any member of parliament who does their job and contributes not only time but money and donations and so on, will be able to account for the fact that there is no money to be made in politics. When I look around I see people who are probably putting in a lot less hours but who get additional benefits that we do not get, and I am not complaining, just stating the facts.

You have to wonder why there is this continual criticism and attempt to lower any remuneration for MPs. If you compare an MPs position, there is no long service leave—I am not complaining, I am just stating a fact—there is no guaranteed sick-leave, the government of the day may pick up the tab, if you are lucky. If you have an accident there is no guaranteed WorkCover, the government may pick up the tab. There is no annual leave loading. There are none of those sort of things available for MPs.

I am not arguing, necessarily, that there should be, what I am saying is that in the overall scheme of things, when you look at the sacrifices that people make to be an MP—and people say, 'Well, you don't have to go in for it.' No; people do not have to be surgeons either, or pilots. We could all end up doing nothing. I mean, it is a nonsense argument, it is ridiculous. You are going to have to have some people doing the work of being elected representatives.

In essence, I do not support this measure. I know some members have gone on from here to become lobbyists. I do not have a problem with that, if they abide by the law and do the right thing, and I am sure they do, but if someone can pick up a bit of extra income as a result of being on a board—a government board (or whatever)—after leaving this place, then so be it.

They are going to pay tax on it, the same as any other citizen. They are not going to get it unless they make some contribution. They are not going to get extra money for sitting around. If they are on a government board then they are going to have to perform, and if they do not perform then they should not be on the board, and nor should anyone else.

I know the member for Mitchell has this directed at MPs who may in the future receive a pension, but if you look at people like the member for Stuart and myself—he has been here for much longer than I have—he and I have put a lot of money into a compulsory super scheme, as well as the other compulsory scheme, which has suffered a big hit, but we have had to contribute 11 per cent of our gross income to the protected scheme for many years. You have to live a long time to get a benefit out of it. If your spouse lives on, he or she may get some benefit. When talking to ex-MPs who are in the pension scheme, they say that, when reality strikes and you actually retire, it is not as generous as it might first appear.

Other people, like judges—and I never like to criticise judges, because one day I might have to front one, and they are wonderful people—do not have to contribute to their superannuation scheme. It is non-contributory. Judges also get sabbatical leave, and things like that; another provision that does not apply to MPs, but probably should.

I cannot support this measure. We know that the member for Mitchell has a commitment to everything being squeaky clean and things being frugal, but I see no merit in punishing MPs or ex-MPs simply because they are doing extra work and might be earning an extra dollar. So, I cannot support this measure.

Mr RAU (Enfield) (11:21): As is often the case with me on a Thursday morning, I listen to the debate. I have not really settled on my view about this yet, because it is one of those matters where I think I have to hear what everyone has to say.

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

Mr RAU: Hang on. The member for Mitchell always brings forward interesting matters before the chamber. He is a person who provokes thought for members of the parliament, I am sure. There are a couple of issues that are troubling me with this matter. The first one is that, in a small way, this is, I guess, a retrospective provision in that it seeks to apply a state of affairs to people presently and in the future which was not the state of affairs at the time those people entered into this place or became eligible for whatever entitlement it might be that they have. That worries me a bit.

The second thing that worries me a bit is that the entitlements, to the extent that they would be reduced, are quarantined to those people who are members of particular schemes, and to that extent it is discriminatory in the sense that those people who have had contributions made pursuant to variety three, I think it is called—I cannot even remember what it is called now—the new scheme—

The Hon. I.F. Evans: The lucky scheme.

Mr RAU: The lucky scheme; the member for Davenport calls it the lucky scheme—this would not apply to them. They may be heard to say, 'Well, that is fair enough, too, because we don't receive as much out of our entitlement as other people might.'

The Hon. R.B. Such: I've never been able to retire.

Mr RAU: Partly right. Those people who are in what the member for Davenport calls 'the lucky scheme' need to remember this: whilst they do not have a guaranteed entitlement, there is a complete blue sky to what their upper end might be. That is the good news. Your contributions go into an investment now and, next week, when the stock market rebounds and they go up to $10,000 or $12,000, or something, you people are going to be in an even more beneficial position than those people who are in the older schemes. Yet, the proposal being made by the honourable member would have no impact one way or the other on those people.

There is a tremendous amount of knowledge and experience which is gained by people who have been in the parliament. A lot of people—some in the parliament, some outside the parliament and some in the media—think that parliamentarians are all a waste of space, they do not achieve anything and they do not learn anything. I am one of those people prepared to be bold enough to beg to differ with that, because anyone, for example, who has spent time with the member for Fisher, the member for Schubert or the member for Stuart—

Ms Bedford: At how close quarter?

Mr RAU: Not very close, but had a talk to them. People who have been here for a period of time would realise that, over the period of time that these people have been here, they have developed a tremendous resource of experience and understanding of a whole range of things, not limited to government in the narrow sense. They understand how bureaucracies work, they have met with a range of people from different walks of life and they have developed an understanding of different points of view.

Those people genuinely have something to contribute later on, particularly on some government boards. Those people are not just logs. That is not to say that there are not people who have passed through here who might unkindly be described as logs, but I am not an unkind person. What I would say is—and this is a rhetorical question, I guess—why should it be that the benefit of the great experience of the member for Stuart should not be given to the private sector, for example, if someone wanted to put him on a board?

Mr Bignell: Chair of the EPA?

Mr RAU: Chair of the EPA or the Native Veg Council. No, it can't be the Native Veg because that is the government thing he is talking about. If the member for Stuart was offered a position on the board of a mining company, for example, where he would receive a small contribution for his efforts, he could receive that and it would not in any way affect his entitlements. That company would have the tremendous benefit of the member for Stuart's experience, whereas a government board would not be able to offer him the same deal, because there would be a penalty for him. These are all the things that are exercising my mind.

Another thing is the possible inequity between those who elect to take the pension and those who elect to take the cash. For example, if an individual left here and elected under their scheme to say, 'I don't want a pension; I just want to be paid out'—that person receives a sum of money, whatever it might be, they pay their tax and walk away—that person is immune from the provisions that the honourable member is proposing. Quite frankly, I do not know how you could do otherwise than make them immune, because the back counting and everything would be very complicated, whereas the person who elects (for whatever reason) to receive a pension-type benefit is impacted by this bill.

All these sort of anomalies and areas of inconsistency in the application of the principle are troubling me a little bit, so I will be very interested to hear how the debate progresses. They are just thoughts that come to mind—

Mr Hanna interjecting:

Mr RAU: Yes. Those are just thoughts that come to my mind about—

The Hon. R.B. Such interjecting:

Mr RAU: Yes, that's right. Those are just thoughts that come to my mind about some of the practical application difficulties that might flow from this. As I have said, I will be really interested to hear what other members think of the matter.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Mr Speaker, I do not seek a ruling now, but on a point of order, can you bring back a ruling to clarify this matter? The bill seeks to restrict the earning capacity of a certain class of individuals. I am one of those, and I would be required to vote on this bill.

If it was the reverse and I was moving a bill that said that only certain MPs could be eligible for government boards, I think I would have to declare a pecuniary interest, because it is such a narrow class of people. This bill would probably apply to only 10 or 15 people in this house. I am seeking a ruling as to what is the capacity for those who might be directly affected by this to vote.

The SPEAKER: The member for Davenport raises a good point. The rules about conflict of interest, after a particular ruling in the Commons (I forget the Speaker's name), in practice, with regard to pecuniary interests, are so narrow as to be almost non-existent. A bill would almost have to affect a single MP only for there to be a conflict of interest.

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Yes, indeed. So, it has always been understood that, with regard to the remuneration and benefits of members of parliament, members vote in legislation establishing those things without there being a pecuniary interest disqualifying them from voting, as we would all be disqualified and not be able to pass any such legislation. I will look further into it, but they are my initial thoughts on the matter.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.