STATUTES AMENDMENT (MEMBERS' BENEFITS) BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Treasurer, Minister for Federal/State Relations, Minister for Defence Industries) (11:47): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 1990 and the Parliamentary Superannuation Act 1974. Read a first time.

Standing Orders Suspension

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Treasurer, Minister for Federal/State Relations, Minister for Defence Industries) (11:47): I move:

That standing orders be so far suspended as to enable the bill to be taken through all stages without delay.

The SPEAKER: I have counted the house and, as an absolute majority of members is not present, ring the bells.

An absolute majority of the whole number of members being present:

Motion carried.

Second Reading

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Treasurer, Minister for Federal/State Relations, Minister for Defence Industries) (11:49): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This legislation is to align state members of parliament's superannuation with that of the federal parliament. We are all aware that decisions were taken some years ago to disband the existing parliamentary superannuation scheme to defined benefits, etc., in various iterations. That has led to a significant disparity between the wages and conditions of some members of parliament vis-a-vis others.

The government is not proposing that we revert to the former defined benefits scheme. However, whilst not popular, I am sure, in the broader electorate, the reality is that, as a state legislature (on both sides of the house and, indeed, those who may wish to seek elected office as Independents), if there is a widening gap between the benefits provided to a federal member of parliament versus a state member of parliament, that, particularly within respective political parties, talented members may choose to seek election to the federal parliament and not to the state parliament.

I acknowledge this is not a popular move in the broader community, but it is an opportunity for new members (those elected since 2006 onwards, but it will only be backdated until the last state election in March) to be provided with a level of superannuation comparable to that available at the federal level. We should have done this some time ago and I apologise for not doing that. However, as my colleagues on the other side would acknowledge, there is never a good time to do this (particularly in a budget week) but, for various reasons, there was always a time when this could be a difficult choice in terms of timing.

I conclude by saying this: we, as politicians, despite our individual opinions of each other and the nasty things we say amongst ourselves here in the hallowed halls of parliament under parliamentary privilege—indeed, what we say about each other outside of parliament—at the end of the day, this is a very good profession. In the years I have served in this parliament, all members have been good and decent people doing good and decent work.

We are a vibrant democracy in Australia, and here in South Australia, and we should have the ability to attract good, decent people to this parliament. MPs' wages are always a bone of contention, but these wages need to be competitive because, ultimately, the quality of our state (affecting everyone who lives, works and grows up in this state) will be affected by the calibre of the people who are in this place.

We are often, and regularly, derided by other elements of the community about our profession but I, for one (and I am sure I speak for all), am very proud of our profession. We should all be proud of it. It is a profession. It is not something you simply walk off the street and do. It consumes you intellectually and emotionally in many cases and, certainly, in a physical sense—particularly if you are a country member, because of the inordinate number of hours you have to travel, Madam Speaker, as you and other country members will attest to.

I make no apology for acknowledging that our state politicians on either side of politics—or Independents or other party members, such as the Greens—are appropriately remunerated. I find it of some amusement that Mark Parnell, of another place, has been highly critical of this. I am not sure whether Mr Parnell has any issue with his spouse, who I understand is now a federal senator receiving this benefit, but politics is full of hypocrisy, could I say?

An honourable member: Anomalies.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Anomalies. Anyway, that is by the bye. There will be those politicians who will say they do not want it and then accept it, which often happens, but again I say this is a necessary adjustment to ensure that there is parity, which has been a longstanding tradition between this parliament and our federal parliamentary colleagues.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:55): I am the lead speaker for the opposition on this matter, but I do not expect I will be taking an inordinate amount of time.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Probably the only speaker. I say at the outset that the opposition agrees with the legislation and will be supporting it. In doing so, I reflect on the words the Treasurer has just expressed. I am sure the cynics out there will have a field day with the fact that the opposition is agreeing with this. I point out that in reality the opposition agrees with most legislation the government brings to the parliament and it is only on a relatively small number of matters that we disagree, and quite vehemently in some cases.

In this case the Treasurer has pointed out some of the history. We know that the superannuation payments to members of this parliament came under the spotlight some years ago, and certainly when the opposition was last in government there were significant changes to the PSS1 Scheme, and some members in each house are still part of that scheme. Significant changes were made to that scheme back in the mid-1990s.

The Howard federal government chose to change and, unfortunately, I believe (this is my personal feeling), bowed to public pressure, which diminished the role of parliamentarians. As the Treasurer says, it is an important role, a career, and I believe we serve a very important function and role as parliamentarians and we impact on the lives of ordinary folk, although a lot of the time they are quite apathetic to what we actually do. I suggest that means that, by and large, we do a reasonably good job. Notwithstanding that, the federal parliament changed the federal superannuation scheme, which led to virtually all state parliaments subsequently changing their schemes. At the time I thought we had taken those changes too far.

It is somewhat disturbing for those of us in the older PSS1 and PSS2 schemes to work alongside members whose remuneration with regard to superannuation is significantly different from ours, and it is totally inequitable that we have people doing the same work receiving different remuneration. The Howard federal government recognised reasonably quickly that it had possibly moved too far and amended its super scheme way back in 2006 and increased super payments into the scheme on behalf of members from 9 per cent to 15.4 per cent. I welcome the government's legislation to bring the South Australian parliament into line with those changes. I agree with the Deputy Premier's comment that there is never a good time, and I agree that it is probably long overdue for us to make this change. I welcome it.

Some other minor changes are incorporated in this legislation. It is important that we have a redundancy clause to cover those people who are in what is referred to as involuntary retirement—the people who do not serve the required time in this place to qualify for superannuation. A lot of people in the wider community probably do not realise that there are qualifying periods, and members must serve a certain amount of time before they qualify for superannuation. Members who get to do only one term in this place do not qualify. It only seems fair and reasonable that those members are supported by some sort of redundancy payment under those circumstances, and I fully support that.

There are other minor amendments which allow for salary sacrifice into an account on behalf of members towards their superannuation. Again, that is not something which is untoward or out of kilter with general superannuation schemes. There is also provision to allow for members to take out a voluntary additional death and invalidity insurance through the government Triple S super scheme. Again, I think that is a worthwhile amendment. I do not think there is anything untoward about that.

Most of the other amendments included in the legislation are of a technical nature. The additional payments that members of the Triple S Scheme will be able to make have to be in whole percentages of their salary. I am not quite sure why that is, but I do not know that it would cause any great inconvenience to members, but again it allows members to contribute more money into their superannuation, something which is quite normal within the rest of the community.

We welcome this. We would have preferred it to have occurred much earlier, but we welcome it. We welcome the fact that it is at least backdated to the 20 March election. On behalf of the opposition, I make no apology for supporting the government in this matter. I will conclude my remarks there.

Bill read a second time and taken through its remaining stages.