PARLIAMENTARY SUPERANNUATION (REDUCTION OF PENSION) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 19 February 2009. Page 1648.)

Mr KENYON (Newland) (10:46): I rise to oppose this bill, mainly because of its potential to discourage former members of parliament to take useful roles once they are no longer members. The bill provides that former members would receive no remuneration for their service on a government board or committee and, in making any fee or allowance paid to a former member as a consequence of being appointed to a government board or committee, reduce their superannuation pension. This amendment would do little more than reduce the number of qualified people with the appropriate experience available to serve the community through government boards and committees.

It is somewhat surprising that it was the member for Mitchell who introduced this bill, given his background. Essentially, he is asking people to work for nothing. I am a strong believer in the concept of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, but this bill discards that notion. The pension is not an ongoing salary for retired members of parliament; it is part of their salary package for their service when they were members of parliament.

Without remuneration, the incentive for former members to serve on government boards and committees would obviously be reduced, with many perhaps instead preferring not to offer their services at all. It is reasonable to suggest that this would result in government boards and committees not benefiting from the knowledge and experience former members have to offer.

The skills and experience former MPs can provide to boards and committees is invaluable, not just in their operation but in the positive impact they can have on all parts of the community. Individuals gain a unique knowledge of any number of issues while they are members of parliament, and we should do everything to ensure that this knowledge is available to help the community once they are no longer members, and that is true for any number of people.

Former members of parliament, former ministers and former premiers are all incredibly useful. We have seen former premier Dean Brown used on consultative committees in the Riverland and also at Strathalbyn and, just recently, we saw Rob Kerin's appointment. Of course, Dean Brown is also Chairman of the board of Hillgrove Resources, so his experience is such that he is able to work in the private sector, and it is not a bad idea to be able to use him from time to time in the public sector. It is unfair to ask people to work without paying them, particularly if that work is valuable—and obviously you do not ask people to do work that is not valuable.

The bill is likely to mean that this knowledge is no longer available to resource boards and committees in the future. When we should be doing everything we can to recruit the best and brightest to serve on these boards—and sometimes that is former members of parliament—this measure does little more than make recruiting suitable and qualified candidates even more difficult.

It also seeks to discourage former members from occupying positions in other jurisdictions, which is a bit rich. I disagree with the whole concept that somehow former members are like reserve officers whom we can just call back whenever we like and, for no consideration, they will just turn up, do what we want and then go away. It will not add anything to anyone to do that.

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (10:50): I thank the member for his contribution. I note that the club continues to thrive.

Second reading negatived.