House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Statutes Amendment (Entitlements of Members of Parliament) Bill STATUTES AMENDMENT (ENTITLEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT) BILL Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 22 July 2010.) Mrs GERAGHTY House of Assembly Torrens Mrs GERAGHTY (Torrens) (10:57): This bill is similar to a bill introduced into the house by the Hon. Dr Bob Such on 13 November 2008, and that bill was not passed. This latest bill, the Statutes Amendment (Entitlements of Members of Parliament) Bill 2010, proposes amendments to the Parliamentary Superannuation Act 1974 and the Remuneration Act 1990. The proposals contained in the 2008 bill, which sought to amend the City of Adelaide Act 1998 and the Local Government Act 1999 for the purpose of transferring responsibility for setting the annual allowances payable to local government councillors from the respective council to the Remuneration Tribunal, have not been included in this latest bill. The bill proposes amendments to terminate the existing nexus between the basic salary paid to a member of the state parliament and the basic salary paid to a member of the House of Representatives in the commonwealth parliament. If enacted, this legislation would require the Remuneration Tribunal to determine the basic salary payable to state members of parliament. Furthermore, under this legislation, increases to the salaries payable to state members of parliament would not automatically flow on from salary increases granted to members of federal parliament. If this legislation were to be enacted, the Remuneration Tribunal would set the salaries to be paid to members of state parliament from time to time. This bill also proposes the closing of the existing PSS3 division of the Parliamentary Superannuation Fund and the establishment of a new PSS4 division of the fund. It is noted that the legislation proposes that all persons who become members of the parliament at or after the March 2010 general election would become members of the PSS4 scheme. This would appear to be an error in the drafting of the legislation, as this date appears in the original 2008 bill. The problem is that the existing PSS3 scheme has already admitted 11 new members who came into parliament at the March 2010 election. In addition, the terms and conditions of the PSS4 scheme are still not known at this stage and are not specified in the bill. In fact, the bill proposes that the Remuneration Tribunal hold an inquiry to determine what is an appropriate scheme for future members of state parliament. It is noted that the legislation proposes that the tribunal must provide the Parliamentary Superannuation Board with a report of its inquiry, and also provide the board with a draft copy of a trust deed that would set out the rules and terms and conditions for the proposed new PSS4 scheme. It is noted that the bill requires the report to be prepared by the tribunal by 30 September 2008, which has clearly passed. Once again, this would appear to be a drafting error as the same date appears in the original 2008 bill. There is no need to this legislation and the government will not be supporting it. The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly Fisher The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:00): I heard what the member for Torrens had to say. I think some of these things take so long to get through the parliament that, by the time we get around to considering them, events have changed the course of history. The intention of this bill was simply to get away from the constant and frequent criticism of members of parliament that we automatically get these pay rises without any justification, and likewise with the other benefits. The intention behind this bill was to put it in the hands of the independent tribunal and, obviously, that tribunal would look at what federal and other state MPs were receiving. The other purpose was to ensure that, new members in particular, but other members as well, were treated fairly and appropriately in relation to superannuation. I was one who argued years ago that the changes brought about by Mr Latham's behaviour—and, unfortunately, his proposal was adopted by the then prime minister John Howard—resulted in new members of parliament in here being severely disadvantaged in respect of their future retirement. Now, I do not want to see any of them retire because they are all top people, but that adjustment was unfair. Now, it was partly rectified (rectified more generously at the federal level than the state level) and then, unfortunately, with the timing of the changes some time back, there was another outcry. It is never the right time to give politicians a pay rise or to adjust their allowances or whatever, because no matter what we do, how hard we work or how well we represent the community, you will never satisfy a section of the community who wants us to work for nothing 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and hopefully be crucified or hung at the end of the week. So, I think it is better in the hands of an independent tribunal. I accept the member for Torrens says. There could be some drafting flaws in it, but I still think the principle is sound and maybe, over time, we will get a system which ensures that all members of parliament, new or old, are treated fairly in respect of their allowances. As members know, I fought for a long time to get members access to a car—and that took a long time to achieve. I think all members realise that you cannot do your job without a car (unless you are the member for Croydon and you have a gold-plated pushbike) and members would be significantly out of pocket if that reform, which I pushed for years, had not been adopted. I accept that this bill will go down, but I think the basic principle and thrust of it is still sound. Second reading negatived.