STATUTES AMENDMENT (MEMBERS' BENEFITS) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 September 2010.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (11:34): I rise to support the second reading of the legislation that is before the council and, in so doing, make some general introductory comments. I indicate that on many occasions, on behalf of my party, I have supported bills that relate to the remuneration packages for state members of parliament, whether they relate to salary increases, allowances (such as the recent debate we had on motor vehicles) or superannuation over the years. I have been prepared in the past and again today to speak up on behalf of my party to support the particular propositions before the council.

In doing so, I make no apology for the fact that, as a member of parliament who has had the privilege of having served at least eight years in higher office in government and opposition for many more years, when I see coming before the Budget and Finance Committee senior public servants who are earning between $300,000 and $400,000 a year as chief executives (one of those manages a staff of 15 people with a remuneration package of over $300,000) and other public servants (not chief executives) at the upper levels of the Public Service earning significantly more than $200,000 a year, and significantly more middle to upper level people earning more than $150,000 a year, I have no problem at all in this council or publicly defending and arguing that, if we expect more of our members of parliament, we should be prepared to pay them an appropriate remuneration package.

The current remuneration package for members of parliament is just over $130,000 a year. Those in higher office, of course, receive higher benefits in accordance with the provisions that relate to those higher offices. There are other benefits that relate to the job, obviously, and they were listed publicly in the Sunday Mail in a recent article and various media outlets over the years.

When I first joined parliament—and I am one of a small number of members who is in the original superannuation scheme—superannuation was seen as an offset, in comparative terms, to the lower level of salary paid to, for example, senior public servants in the state, even at that stage, when it was a more generous superannuation package. Although, I hasten to say that the senior public servants in those days—and many of those are still serving—also had a very generous superannuation package which was not closed off until sometime in the mid-80s.

As with the parliamentary superannuation scheme, in the Public Service the more generous superannuation schemes—the defined benefit schemes, etc.—were closed off to new applicants at various stages, like the 1980s and 1990s. The newer public servants who were employed, as now with the newer members of parliament, receive only the new level of benefit that is being offered.

As I said, I have had this argument, as inevitably it is, because this is not a popular issue. I am not just talking about superannuation, but I am talking about what you pay members of parliament. The general view from the community is that frankly they would only be happy, I suspect, if members of parliament were paid next to nothing and paid for everything else that, in many other jobs, whether it be the public sector or others, are seen as a normal condition of employment.

The Hon. Mr Hood on occasions has spoken of his previous employment. Certainly for business executives in middle level and senior jobs the issue of the provision of a car is at no expense to the executive, whereas members of parliament currently pay $7,000 a year towards their motor vehicle. They are normal conditions of employment in the private sector and certainly in some parts of the public sector. However, in relation to the car, the public sector makes a payment for any motor vehicle benefit that is provided in the public sector.

The issue of members' superannuation and this particular change will inevitably attract significant criticism from some in the community, media and parliament. When you look at the details of this particular change as it was explained in the House of Assembly and has been explained now publicly for a good period of time—I think this proposal was first revealed in The Australian some three or four weeks ago—it has certainly been a relatively common secret in the corridors of Parliament House for a period of time. We have known that this government was contemplating changes along this line.

Put simply, it is increasing the superannuation entitlement for those members elected since 2006 from a 9 per cent to just over 15 per cent contribution. It is not returning to the days of defined benefit schemes or pension schemes. It is still an aggregation scheme where, as we have seen—not in the last year but in the two years prior to that—the earnings of the scheme will go up or down depending on the vagaries of the investment criteria of the trustees of the parliamentary superannuation fund.

Certainly, many public servants and members of parliament have indicated during that period (and many others in the community were in the same position) that if they had a nest egg of $100,000 they may well have lost $20,000 or $30,000 off their superannuation investment during that yearly period. As I acknowledge, that was the position of many in the community as well, given the implications of the investment policies of most, if not all, of the superannuation funds during that period. The rationale for the move to the just over 15 per cent superannuation benefit is to put state members in line with their colleagues in the federal parliament.

The Hon. Mr Wortley will be aware of the differential arrangements that federal members of parliament receive compared to state members; and the Hon. Mr Parnell, if he is not already, will soon be aware, I am sure, of the differential benefits and arrangements of federal members of parliament. As the Hon. Mr Parnell and his spouse become the Clintons of the South Australian Parliament, or the Wortleys of the South Australian Parliament—he can take the description he feels more comfortable with—he will be in a situation where both partners in a relationship are serving in public office (until next July, in the Wortleys' case, because Senator Wortley continues in office until July next year).

But there are significant differences in the benefits and entitlements of federal members and state members. I read all 258 comments (as they were at about 12.30 this morning) in the budget issue on the Adelaidenow website, many of which related to superannuation; and I noted one comment that said, 'Of course, federal members should have higher benefits than state members because that is like comparing the CEO of GMH, or something, with the CEO of the local small deli at the corner shop.' With the greatest respect to whoever contributed to that particular blog, let me disagree—and disagree vehemently—with that view.

The work of a state member of parliament in his or her electorate as compared to a federal member of parliament in his or her electorate is every bit as onerous, every bit as difficult and every bit as important as that of the federal member of parliament; and any comparison saying, 'This is really like comparing the CEO of GMH with someone who is running the deli,' or whatever it might happen to be, is in some way seeking to downgrade the significance and importance of the work of state members of parliament. That is something I object to strongly, and I suspect that most members in this chamber and in the House of Assembly would object to it as well.

Yes, federal members have more electors in their electorate, but they certainly have more staff to support them, and I would happily note, on an equivalent basis, that a member in a federal marginal seat, as compared with a member in a state marginal seat, would see no more electors and attend no more functions in a year than would a state member in a marginal seat. Similarly, the comparison applies to safe federal seats and safe state seats as well. There is a limit and, clearly, just because there are more electors in a federal electorate does not mean a federal member will attend or see more of his or her electors in any year.

So, a relationship has been established, at least in relation to salary, that state members are paid at a level of $2,000 less than federal members. For a number of years now federal members have received a superannuation benefit of over 15 per cent and newer state members have received a superannuation benefit of 9 per cent. That is a significant differential, and this legislation seeks to amend that. I hasten to point out to the media and to the community that, while everyone is saying that all members of parliament will benefit from this change, that is not correct. There is not a 6 per cent increase in all members' superannuation, however they do the calculation—some do the calculation differently—that being an increase from 9 per cent to 15 per cent. It will relate to those members of parliament who have been elected since 2006.

Those who have the benefit of being in the older superannuation schemes will not receive the 6 per cent increase, because they already have a more generous superannuation scheme. That is the first point to make: not all members of parliament will receive this and, whilst I am happy to speak on this issue and have generally been the party spokesperson for these sorts of issues over the past 15 or 20 years, the other advantage is that I am obviously unaffected by this potential benefit to members and therefore am in a position to be able to speak more freely, as there is no direct benefit to me. There are other aspects of the legislation in relation to salary sacrificing and other things—insurance—

The PRESIDENT: I remind the cameraman in the gallery that the camera may only be on the member on his feet.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to smile sweetly for the cameras and be so identified. I will even do up my jacket for them. We have a situation in South Australia—and I have spoken on this issue on a number of occasions before, and I know and a number of my colleagues know—that, increasingly, after decisions were taken in relation to superannuation, when you sit down and try to encourage people of capacity and merit from certain areas to run for parliament and to be an elected member and you actually outline to them the package of benefits that relate to members, for many in the community it will be a significant improvement; we acknowledge that. However, for senior public servants, it would not be, as I have highlighted.

There are other professional occupations, in particular, people in business, in the law or the medical profession and a range of other occupations—and I am sure other members could contemplate others themselves—where someone would be earning significantly more in those professions than does a backbench member of parliament. It is important for a parliament to, by and large, have the capacity to attract some people from these areas into our midst. I have said before, I suspect the days where we have the capacity to attract into this chamber someone of the undoubted capacity, recognised by all members in this chamber, of the Hon. Robert Lawson QC have now disappeared. The days of attracting people of that capacity, of that quality, into this chamber, I suspect, have disappeared.

I know from the discussions that I have had with people, when they are interested in politics, interested in being a member of parliament, when you actually say to them, 'Okay, this is what the salary is and this is what the superannuation is,' they laugh at you and say, 'Why would I go into parliament when currently the remuneration package that I receive in the particular occupation I've got is significantly higher?'

I hasten to say, and I have said this before, you do not want everybody from the professions and business dominating the parliament. We do not want to end up like the American Senate where you have to be a squillionaire to be an elected member. Equally, I do not believe this chamber should be such that we in essence exclude the possibility of people like the Hon. Robert Lawson QC and others with that sort of capacity being able eventually to come into this place and to make a contribution to public life.

It is an easy cop, as I said, to attack members' salaries, their superannuation benefits and whatever other benefits there might be. Over the years, I have seen members of all colours and persuasions in both houses of parliament who have taken up the battle against these particular issues. I note—and I am sure he will speak in a moment—that the Hon. Mr Parnell has publicly opposed this particular provision on behalf of his party.

Being the man that he is, I am sure that the Hon. Mr Parnell will take up the option which will be available to him, and that is, if he is opposed, he will be able to set apart the additional superannuation benefit that he receives for the rest of his parliamentary career together with any earnings accruing through the Triple S scheme and make it available to a cause or a charity of his choice. As I said, I am pretty confident, knowing the Hon. Mr Parnell, that he will probably announce that today. That is probably what he is going to do.

The Hon. P. Holloway: It would be the Wilderness Society, wouldn't it?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, good luck to him.

The Hon. M. Parnell: What a fine cause; an absolutely fine cause!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, you find a cause.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: And I make no criticism of that. Clearly you do not make donations to a cause that you do not believe in, so that is a choice for an individual member, but knowing the Hon. Mr Parnell, I know that he will be better than a member of the House of Assembly who used to adopt a similar position, at least in the early stages, and publicly oppose salary increases and say that he would be donating the additional salary to the unemployed or a worthy cause. However, six months later when the media publicity had disappeared, the donations stopped and he took the benefit until, of course, the next time there was a salary increase and he again attracted media attention to himself by making a similar public proclamation, which was warmly received by the media and the community, but there was never any checking, of course, further down the track.

As I said, I think the Hon. Mr Parnell is made of better stuff than that and any arrangements he announces today will be permanent and ongoing for the duration of his parliamentary career. If he does that, I applaud him for it because he is obviously entitled, as we all are, to put a view on this legislation as to whether it should be supported or should not be. That is indeed his right and, as I said, I have confidence that he will, in putting his position, also make some sort of announcement along the lines that I have indicated, which it is certainly open to him to make as a state member of parliament.

With that, I indicate the Liberal Party's support for the legislation. As I said, and let me conclude as I started, I am happy to have the debate with anyone that a state member of parliament is, in my view, entitled to some increase in remuneration benefit, particularly when chief executives in the Public Service are being paid $300,000 to $400,000 a year; and when middle and senior level managers within the Public Service are being paid at more than $200,000, I believe that a state member of parliament is entitled to a package of just over $130,000 a year, together with this just over 15 per cent superannuation benefit. Compared to what we pay senior public servants, I do not believe that is an overly generous remuneration package. I am happy to defend this change, and I am happy to defend others that might be contemplated in the future.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (11:56): I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

The council divided on the motion:

Majority of 12 for the noes.

Motion thus negatived.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (12:00): I just want to state the reason that I supported the adjournment motion of the Hon. Mark Parnell. Number one, I am not opposed to this package at all, and I truly do not think it goes far enough. I agree and concur with everything that the Hon. Rob Lucas said in his speech. It is, though, the process that we are using here that I find objectionable; that this is being rushed through at a quarter to midnight pace. I would just like to very briefly—because I am not going to rave on—recap about when I was just an average citizen out there and heard about the pollies' car deal. There was no yap about it in the media until that was done.

You know, I do not think people actually give a toss about whether we get a pay rise, or whether we get a rise in our super to bring us equal to senior public servants, or even councillors, mayors, people who work in local council for that matter or chief executives. I think it is the process that we use, and the more that we sneak around and the more that we try and rush this stuff through to try not to have media scrutiny about it, then the more suspicious people get of what our benefits are. For example, nobody out there knows that there is no pension scheme any more. That did not get any media. You talk to anybody out there and they say 'You're all right; you'll retire on a pension.' When you say 'No, sorry; there is no pension any more', they just do not know.

I think that we should take the right process with this, as we do with other legislation: have it introduced, debate it, and have it voted on in two weeks or whatever. While people in the media out there are blabbing on the way that they will about pollies' perks and all the rest of it, we should actually take the time to defend the increase in superannuation and talk about the loss of benefits that have already been incurred by members of parliament and the fact that we do not have the security of tenure, that more than likely some of us in 2014 may walk away from here with not even so much as a percentage of long service.

I know when I came into this place I walked away from long service to take up this position and missed out on quite a neat little sum of money that would have come in handy to pay off our home or whatever. That is me personally. There are some people who do give up good wages, good salaries, to come in here—I know the Hon. Dennis Hood is one of those—to do a job, and it is a kick in the teeth every time you hear the media out there talking about how we are looking after ourselves and doing whatever not to have that opportunity for that two-week period when there will be a campaign—we know there will—to defend ourselves. Then, you know what: if we do not actually think we are worth it, then we are not, and the way that we are handling this makes people believe that we do not think we are worth it.

So we have had the federal election, where there was fifty-fifty support for the major parties; we have had the state election swing away from the government. Maybe we should just look at how we do things in here and meet public expectation, be open to the scrutiny of this, have an opportunity to respond to it, and be open and honest about the benefits that we do and do not get any more. Maybe, if we did that, all this angst would be gone and perhaps there would not be an opportunity then for populist politicians to go out there and continually criticise members of parliament for doing what I believe to be an honest day's work for an honest day's pay.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (12:05): This is a very low day in the history of this place. This bill was received by us, informally, at 6 o'clock last night. Every member here knows the protocols of this place: we do not vote on bills unless they have sat on the table for at least a week. The Greens are ready to debate this bill on the next week of sitting; that is how it should be.

You have to ask yourself why today have the government and the opposition agreed that the protocols of this place should be thrown out of the window and that we should be forced to vote on a bill less than 24 hours after it has been presented to this chamber. The answer, of course, lies next door in another place, and it lies down the road.

You all know that pretty well every journalist in this state is in the lock-up examining budget papers. They are trying to get their heads around which public services are going to be slashed in the budget that is brought down and which unmet disability needs we heard about yesterday will continue to be unmet. That is what the state is focusing on. Yet, whilst that is happening, in this place, the club—the club which is stronger than party allegiances—gets together and says, 'Let's vote ourselves an increase in superannuation while no-one is watching.' This is an appalling process.

Last night, at a quarter to 10, once we had wind that this was likely to happen, I wrote to the Leader of the Government, the Leader of the Opposition and crossbench members, and said:

Dear Whips, Leaders and cross-bench MLCs,

It has been suggested that the Statutes Amendment (Members' Benefits) Bill, which was introduced at 6 pm tonight, could be brought on for a vote tomorrow. The Greens oppose bringing the bill to a vote so soon after its introduction and before we have had a chance to properly consider it. We expect that the usual protocol of the bill staying on the Notice Paper for at least a week before any vote is taken will be followed. In the past, this convention has only been waived where all members agree.

I made it very clear yesterday that the Greens do not agree with our breaking with protocol and longstanding convention and rushing this bill through before we have had a chance to properly consider it.

The bill has 10 pages and 18 clauses; it is technically complex. Members will say, 'Yes, but you know the main bit is about increasing public contributions to MPs' superannuation. You know that the main thing is increasing superannuation from 9 per cent to 15.4 per cent.' However, there are other things in this bill. Apparently, there is material in here about salary sacrificing. I don't know how that works; I want to consult—I want to consult accountants, stakeholders and constituents to find out what this bill means. How does this bill relate to what other people in the community and public servants receive. My letter to the leaders, whips and crossbench MLCs continues:

The Greens want the opportunity to consult with constituents and stakeholders and to consider amendments. We also require a briefing from the minister or the department.

That has not yet been offered. My letter concludes:

If we are able to get a briefing early next week and if parliamentary counsel is able to draft any amendments expeditiously, I expect to be in a position to make a second reading contribution in the next week of sitting commencing 28^th September.

Yours faithfully

Mark Parnell.

All members in leadership positions and on the crossbench were aware that the Greens were not happy for the conventions of this chamber to be trashed on the altar of expediency. There is pain, which members and the Hon. Rob Lucas have acknowledged; there is always pain when we discuss issues such as superannuation. You want the pain to be buried whilst the community of South Australia have their mind focused elsewhere. This has nothing to do with the merits of the actual increase: it is about the process of debating this matter in parliament. I ask any member of this chamber whether they can hold up a copy of the bill that says, 'As received from the House of Assembly'. Who has a copy of it? Come on, hands up! Who has a copy of the bill passed by the House of Assembly and endorsed that it has been delivered to the Legislative Council as received from the House of Assembly?

The Hon. P. Holloway: So you have?

The Hon. M. PARNELL: No, no-one has because—

The Hon. P. Holloway: Of course you do.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: —your rush to get this through, under the cover of the budget, has been so obscene that you have not even been able to wait until the House of Assembly has properly delivered a copy of the bill so that we know that it is the exact copy that was passed by the House of Assembly. What I have, and what I think you all have, is the advance that was introduced.

You might say, 'Well, it's my job to follow the debate in the lower house. I should have followed the Hansard. I should have worked out whether any amendments were made.' That is not how the system works and you all know it. We do not even have a proper copy of the bill as received by us from the House of Assembly—and it is an abomination that you are prepared to debate this bill so soon.

In terms of the Hon. Ann Bressington's comments, I agree with her. We may well have a difference of opinion on the actual content of the bill and whether or not the increase in superannuation, for example, is warranted but I congratulate her for standing up for the protocols of this place, for standing up for the rights of members to be given adequate time to consider all the detail of the legislation—not just of the superannuation increase but also the changes to salary sacrificing and the other things that are in this technically complex bill.

The process is appalling, and I imagine that next time anyone else who tries to introduce a bill and then have it voted on less than 24 hours afterwards is going to be told to get lost. In fact, if a private member introduced a bill on a Wednesday and tried to have it voted on on the following Wednesday, we would probably be told, 'No, not enough time. We need more time to consider it.' However, that is not the approach that has been taken here.

I can see no explanation for what this chamber is now doing other than cynicism in the extreme: a desire to hide from the community that here we have members of parliament voting themselves benefits, whether we agree with them or not, under cover of the state budget. I think that is appalling. It looks as if I am not going to have an opportunity to consult stakeholders to get a briefing from the government before this bill goes to a debate so I will do what I can now by way of second reading contribution in relation to the merits of this bill.

What I will primarily speak to are the merits of increasing MPs' superannuation. As members would be aware, the intake from the 2006 election and the 2010 election are covered by the Parliamentary Superannuation Scheme No. 3. That scheme provides that members of that scheme receive a 9 per cent government contribution or taxpayer-funded contribution to our super.

When I was elected (and the Hon. Rob Lucas referred to this before) one of the most common things that was said was, 'Well, you're okay now. You've got that lifetime pension.' In fact, members of the public incorrectly assume that there are all manner of benefits that MPs receive that are not, in fact, true. They say things like, 'You've got lifetime pensions. You can fly around the world as often as you want.' People have that perception of the benefits.

I was very pleased to be able to say to constituents, 'No. I get a 9 per cent public contribution to my superannuation just like you do. I get the same contribution as other workers'—and I think, most importantly for us, other public sector workers, other people in the Public Service who work, in many cases, as hard as we do advancing the public good. So, I am pleased that the amount is 9 per cent. Am I happy for it to go up to 15.4 per cent? I will be happy when that is the standard. When the industry standard is 15.4 per cent, when public servants and other workers in the community are getting 15.4 per cent, then it makes sense, I think, for politicians to reflect that standard.

However, for us to be voting ourselves an increase in the way that it is being proposed today is absolutely outrageous. I just hope that there are some members of the community who are awake to what this government is doing, with the collusion of the opposition. I think it is appalling behaviour, and the government and opposition need to be condemned for their role in it. In terms of other aspects of the bill, I expect we will have a lengthy debate in the committee stage. I will have a lot of questions.

I have not had the advantage of a briefing, and I have not had the opportunity to consult with constituents about how all these provisions work. I imagine that it is going to take a long time to get through the committee stage. I am going to want to know about the salary sacrificing arrangements. I am going to want some comparative data, and I am going to want to know the bottom line effect on the state budget—how much it is going to cost. I have a range of questions and, if we had gone through the proper processes of this place and had proper briefings and if the bill had lain on the table for a while, we could have actually addressed those concerns, but we are not going to get that opportunity.

The increase from 9 per cent to 15.4 per cent, from a quick glance at clause 14, is possible to ascertain fairly quickly. There is a formula in there, and you can see that the number 15.4 is replacing the number 9. I give members advance warning that I am going to be moving in committee that we replace the number 15.4 with the number 9.

You are not going to have that in front of you in writing, as you want. You are not going to have a written amendment from the Greens setting out all the amendments we have for this bill. The reason that we will not have it is because you have been so eager in your haste to hide this from the community that you are bringing it on during the one day that every journalist is locked up elsewhere considering other business of state. I think this is an appalling way to proceed.

The Hon. Rob Lucas made a number of comments. In his usual manner—fairly tongue in cheek—he made reference to the fact that I as a member who was elected in 2006 and the Hon. Tammy Franks, who was elected in 2010, are in this No. 3 scheme. So we are people who are going to benefit from it, as are the Hons. Dennis Hood, Ann Bressington, John Darley and Kelly Vincent. We are all going to benefit from the 15 per cent.

In the Hon. Rob Lucas's—I would like to think tongue-in-cheek—challenge he is saying, 'Oh, well, of course, when Mr Parnell turns 65 or older'—in fact, I am hoping I might be here till I reach the venerable age of some other members here. It is rude to comment on people's age, but I think it is no secret that the Hon. John Darley is in his eighth decade. I am hoping that I will still have an opportunity to serve this community to a reasonable age; I do not know how long it will be. Then perhaps the Hon. Rob Lucas and I can sit down and talk about how he is going to spend his retirement investment—his savings and superannuation—and we can talk about mine. We can have tax returns and charitable deductions at 30 paces or something.

The point here is that this is not personal. This is not about whether one member should hand back to Treasurer Foley a monthly cheque for the difference in superannuation between 15 and 9 per cent. What we are doing in this place is setting in place the rules that apply to all members of parliament. It makes no sense to have a system of individual bargaining. I know the Liberal Party likes that idea. The Labor Party tells us it does not; it likes collective bargaining. Perhaps the Liberals would like us to negotiate our salary and superannuation personally and directly with the Treasurer so that we can all make a case for what we are worth.

The Hon. Dennis Hood had a career in industry and reached senior levels; he might negotiate a salary. They might say, 'Well, Parnell only worked in the community sector; he only worked for non-profit groups. We won't give him as much; he doesn't deserve it.' Maybe that's what the Liberals want: individual negotiations with the Treasurer on our salaries and superannuation.

This is not personal. This is about putting in place measures that reflect as a parliament how we relate to each other, how we relate to the public purse, and that is the thing that is most important today: it is our relationship with the public purse. If I was one of the people who the Hon. Kelly Vincent referred to yesterday, the hundreds of people on the unmet needs list, whether it is for equipment or supported accommodation, and I read in the paper or heard on the radio that, whilst their cuts were being announced in the House of Assembly, in that red carpeted upper chamber, parliamentarians were voting themselves an increase in superannuation, I would be absolutely appalled.

I think members can make a case. If they think that we deserve more, make the case and we will vote at some stage—next week or next fortnight, I hope—on the merits of this bill and whether the number should be 15.4 or whether it should be 9; but I think it is appalling that we are doing that today.

As I said, I will have some amendments. We are going to have to do them on the hoof, and parliamentary counsel will have to be alert and have a biro ready when these amendments are moved, and it will be a difficult exercise for this chamber and will take us some time. However, I do not propose to say any more about the merits. I am as disadvantaged as everyone else. I got this bill at 6 o'clock last night. I am now going to have to go through it on the run in committee and work out what should be on the statute book of this state.

I think that our constituents expect more of us. They expect us to properly consider legislation. They will see this for the cynical exercise that it is, and I think this is a very sad day for the chamber. I will have more to say in the committee stage but, for now, the Greens indicate that we oppose the second reading of this bill.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (12:21): I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

The council divided on the motion:

Majority of 12 for the noes.

Motion thus negatived.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (12:26): I rise to speak to this bill and declare that I have a pecuniary interest in this measure: as an MP elected post 2006, I would benefit financially if this bill were to pass. I rise, first, to speak about process. My honourable colleague Mark Parnell has already touched on that, as has my honourable colleague Ann Bressington. We received the advance copy of this bill in the chamber at approximately five minutes to six last night. We still do not have the official copy, of course. In an unprecedented move in my short time here we are here debating this bill the very next sitting day, having been called back early and having had this item moved up the agenda at a time when the Hon. Mark Parnell was out of the chamber. I will not necessarily impugn any members opposite, but I do think that that is an interesting—

The Hon. P. Holloway: No, you had better not, because you might get reminded every time you are out, so it's a wise practice.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I would not want to be out of the chamber when a government item I was wanting to oppose was on the Notice Paper. I will take that as some good advice on the way this government operates. I think the process here has been one which does not bode well for the way the public will view us as members of this place. It has been rushed through in a hurry to escape criticism, but I think it will draw more criticism than it otherwise would have had it been put through in a proper and orderly manner. You would simply have had to wait another week and had the bill debated in a proper and orderly way, and people would have been aware the issue was coming up.

The Hon. Robert Lucas mentioned that this matter has been common knowledge in the corridors for some four weeks and was a feature of an article in The Australian. I am afraid to say that the Greens do not necessarily pay too much attention to the contents of The Australian newspaper at present, but we will keep an eye on that should we be looking for leaked government and other matters in future.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: So you didn't read any radio transcripts or anything like that either?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: We have been aware that it was coming, but we have not had this bill. Asking for a week between the tabling of a bill in this place and debate on it is simply good governance and what most people who elect us would expect. We have also heard that the amount we are talking about here is quite reasonable (given that we are on good salaries) and, in comparison with public servants, we are actually hard done by financially.

I point out that there are many people in our community who do not get the salaries of a senior management public servant's salary and do not necessarily think that MPs should be able to have their own benefits increased in such a hurried way. I point particularly to teachers, who recently undertook the longest arbitration case in South Australia's history in order to get a pay rise that was just and fairly deserved. In the findings and the rulings on that pay rise, when they finally got it, I would note that those teachers, particularly the principals of schools, have been identified as very much under enormous pressures and expected to do far too much with far too little in their jobs.

Nurses, as well, have had to fight tooth and nail to get a pay rise and to get just conditions. Neither of those professions, I believe, is typically earning a lot more than a member of parliament and yet I would say that in many cases they are just as hardworking and just as deserving. What we should be talking about is not the rate of pay here that deters people from wanting to run for office: it is the fact that politicians, like journalists, suffer from being held in low regard in the community. A stunt like this, putting this debate on in the way that you have, will simply lower us and our esteem in the eyes of the majority of the community.

I think that is what is quite sad about this today. Simply waiting and giving due process to this matter would probably have been a better course of action. Yes, we know that there are going to be stories run any time a member of parliament is given a pay rise or a superannuation increase. That is something that we should just take on the chin but not try to hide from and not try to rush this through on the day that the budget is being announced when the journalists and many of our staff members are off to lockup so that—

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Yes; it went through the house yesterday. That is the point. Why are we debating it today? The honourable member has an interesting point there: why are we debating it today if it went through the house yesterday? Surely the proper length of scrutiny is that we should have at least a sitting week but, no, we do not even have a full day before we are back here and rushing through benefits for ourselves. I think people will see that as offensive, particularly given the budget context.

In the last few days we have had the leaked documents on the budget as well, where we have seen a potential $1 billion worth of cuts across the sector for some really worthy things, but I want to know why the Sustainable Budget Commission had not actually looked at this option of maybe cutting superannuation for politicians who have been elected after 2006. Oh; that is because it was not on the table to discuss, but that might have been something that the Sustainable Budget Commission might have actually made some recommendations on and the Greens probably would have looked very favourably on that recommendation, had it been made.

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Interjections are out of order. The Hon. Ms Franks has the call.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: So, I will be interested to see if any further incarnations of the Sustainable Budget Commission actually do make recommendations for lowering our superannuation. This common secret in the corridors of the parliament clearly was not a common secret known to that committee.

Again, I think many people in this community are hardworking and they do their jobs because they know that there is dignity in doing a good job. What is going to attract a good parliamentarian to this place is not necessarily that they are going to get some extra superannuation in their pocket. I think the things that will attract people to this place are our being held in high esteem, doing a good job and fighting for people in our community who are doing it hard.

I would just like to point out that many people are not going to have any superannuation at all. I do read The Australian sometimes, and in fact there was one good article recently in The Australian which told us about the increasing numbers of women over 45 who are becoming homeless and turning up at homeless shelters as they are unable to meet the cost of rising rents.

One of the reasons that they are doing so is that they are so poorly paid, and we are increasingly going to see women rising in the homelessness stakes because women do not have enormous amounts of superannuation stocked up and typically have been paid at a lesser rate than men; on average, 82 per cent of the average male earnings is what is, I would say enjoyed, but not so much enjoyed by female workers in this country. If we can start to look at fixing those sorts of problems, perhaps we could come back and debate this issue in a timely and appropriate manner.

I will have some questions in the second reading and in the committee stage because, as the Hon. Mark Parnell said, we have not had appropriate time to really look into this bill and, on that note, I cannot commend this bill to this chamber.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister Assisting the Premier in Public Sector Management) (12:35): I thank the Hon. Mr Lucas for his contribution to the debate on behalf of the opposition, and he very correctly predicted what would happen a few moments later when we had the Greens' members speaking. What a sickening, nauseating display of hypocrisy it was on behalf of the Greens. Of course, there is one reason they are doing this and one reason only, and that is to get publicity. In fact, during their speech all they could talk about was the media; all they could talk about was that apparently the allegation is that we are dealing with this today because the media are busy. All the Greens are interested in is going out to the media for two weeks so they can try to milk this.

The Hon. M. Parnell interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Spare us the hypocrisy, Mr Parnell. Your whole career in politics has been a struggle for the truth. Unfortunately, it is a struggle which you have all too often lost.

The ACTING PRESIDENT: Order! Interjections are out of order. The minister has the call.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Let us put some facts on the table in relation to this matter. Ever since changes were made to the superannuation scheme of the commonwealth government, when it was originally reduced and then it reverted back some two or three years ago now, I think, there have been discussions in this place. If the Hon. Mr Parnell and the Greens are not aware of it then they must be the only ones in this parliament who are not. They must be the only two people in this parliament who were not aware of all the discussions several weeks ago when this measure was announced.

There are complexities in legislation, of course. Superannuation is always complex in the wording of the legislation, but anyone who would suggest that the concepts behind it are complex is just kidding themselves. There is a lot that could be said about this, but it is quite clear that the Greens want to go out to the media. They will try to portray themselves as being a bit purer than the rest of us. They are not like the rest of us grubby politicians. They have motives way above and beyond the rest of us, even though, as I said, the Hon. Mr Parnell was out there almost every day in the media maligning the government, accusing it of misrepresentation, when, of course, he is the biggest misrepresenter of information.

The Hon. M. Parnell interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: You are up there in Mount Barker peddling untruths, peddling deception. Today is typical of the sort of performance of the Greens. Here they are again, trying to be holier than thou, they are purer than the rest of us, and, of course, totally misrepresenting the position, as always, in relation to what has been known about this measure. As I said, everyone in this parliament has been well aware that there have been discussions, probably going back for two or three years and, finally, we are in a position where the bill has come forward. It was announced several weeks ago before the house, and to try to pretend, as the Greens are doing, that somehow or other it is a complete mystery to them until it is actually announced here last night, really, I do not think, does their credibility any good. No doubt they will be out there in the media over the next few weeks trying to tell everyone how purer they are than the rest of us politicians.

I am happy to support this measure, even though I am one of those fortunate people who is on the older parliamentary superannuation scheme. I believe it is important for the future that we do attract people of calibre. As the Hon. Mr Lucas said, we need a range of people in here, not just professionals. It is important, given the sacrifices that many politicians make, and it is not just about salary. Those members who stand for marginal seats, some of them may have a very short career, and there are many other sacrifices members make that are not really recognised in the community in terms of the disruption to private life, and the impact that that has on personal lives is significant.

For people like myself in government it is inappropriate for us to be dealing in shares and those sorts of things, and the public would not expect us to do that. As the Hon. Mr Lucas said, it has always been tradition, certainly from the time that I came into this place, that superannuation was one of the measures that members of parliament had so that they could focus entirely on their work without having to worry about retirement incomes and those sorts of things, so that they could devote themselves to the job. I think that is a very sound principle, and at least through the measure before us I believe it will enable those MPs, instead of having an eye over their shoulder about what might be happening in their future, they can devote themselves, while they are here, fully to the job. So I am pleased to support this measure but I totally reject the argument of the Greens that somehow or other this is some mystery that has just cropped up in the last 24 hours, because we all know it has not.

The council divided on the second reading:

Majority of 14 for the ayes.

Second reading thus carried.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I have some questions on clause 1. My first question of the minister is: what is the net financial impact of the superannuation increase component of this bill on the state budget for 2009-10 and 2010-11? I ask about the 2009-10 year because I note that the increase in superannuation is to be backdated to 1 March 2010; so this will have a budgetary implication on the previous financial year as well as the current year. So, can the minister outline the net impact on the state budget in both of those financial years?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: This, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with clause 1. However, since the Greens have already indicated that they are going to play by the rules on this, perhaps I should indicate to the Hon. Mr Parnell that I am happy to do likewise. I will endeavour to answer the first question but, if the Hon. Mr Parnell intends to play games and try to stretch the rules of debate, we might hold him to it. In relation to the annual costs, since there are 32 members of the PSS3, it would be about $300,000 per annum. However, that additional cost should be considered in the context of the reduction of about $520,000 in the government superannuation costs following the 2010 general election, which resulted in 11 former members of the PSS1 and the PSS2 schemes being replaced by new members in the PSS3 scheme.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Just to be clear, I am asking the questions at clause 1 that relate to the financial impact of the bill because I believe it is a more convenient way for this committee to deal with it. If the minister prefers, I can ask at each section what the financial impact would be. However, I am doing it this way for the efficient operation of the committee. I am also interested to know whether the minister can advice the committee of the financial impact of the salary sacrificing provisions of the bill. I understand that those provisions will not operate for 2009-10, but he could provide at least an indication of the impact on the state budget for 2010-11.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: There is no cost for the salary sacrificing scheme. A person sacrifices their own salary and puts it into the PSS3 scheme; it is their choice. It is just money that would otherwise have been paid that goes into the scheme.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I thank the minister for his answer and also the Hon. Rob Lucas for his clarification that a different part of the taxpayer base will be wearing that cost. In relation to on-costing, are there are provisions of this bill, other than the superannuation increase, that have an impact on state finances?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: There is an additional cost for the new involuntary retirement payment to be paid under the Parliamentary Remuneration Act. The estimate is that that will average about $31,000 per year.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: There is no need for the haste; I was not going to divide on clause 1, it might surprise you to know. l want to ask about the commencement.

The CHAIRMAN: Did I crack a joke or something?

The Hon. M. PARNELL: No joke, Mr Chairman, at your expense, that is for sure. Your desire to expedite matters is similar to mine.

The CHAIRMAN: You can easily put the clause when the debate is finished, the Hon. Mr Parnell.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Sorry?

The CHAIRMAN: A clause is usually put as the debate finishes, and nobody got to their feet.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: No, I think your reflexes are to be admired. I note that in the commencement clause (clause 2) there are two different commencement dates. I understand that the increase in public contribution to the superannuation fund is to be backdated to 20 March. I note that clause 18, which relates to additional invalidity or death insurance, is not to come into operation until a day fixed by proclamation. Will the minister explain why clause 18 needs to be treated separately in relation to commencement?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The reason for that is to enable some appropriate regulation to be introduced before that is brought into effect.

Clause passed.

Clauses 3 and 4 passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I have a brief question for the minister. This clause refers to a payment to a member who is subject to involuntary retirement. I wonder if the minister could outline the circumstances under which that would be anticipated. Obviously, if somebody loses their seat I understand that would qualify but are there any other circumstances? For instance, if somebody lost their preselection, would they qualify?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Yes, that could be the case. I think there have been precedents for that.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: To clarify the minister's answer to that question, involuntary retirement has usually been regarded as a person who stands and then fails to be elected. In terms of a sitting member who fails to get preselection, what basis does the minister have for saying that they fall into the same category as people who are not elected?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I think the answer to that is because they have an expectation to be elected.

Clause passed.

Clauses 6 to 13 passed.

Clause 14.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: This is the clause that has received the most attention to date. The clause, as I understand it, replaces the formula currently in section 14C(1) of the act with a new formula. In fact, from memory, I think that the formula is now calculated in a different way. This is the provision that provides that the public contribution will be 15.4 per cent rather than 9 per cent. Normally, at this point, I would be seeking the assistance of parliamentary counsel to help me draft an amendment because I do want to move an amendment to this clause. In the absence of that assistance, I move:

That the figure 15.4 be replaced with the figure 9 at the only occasion where it occurs.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Given that it is almost lunch time, it might be appropriate to adjourn and then the honourable member can have his amendment prepared.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

[Sitting suspended from 12:56 to 14:15]