HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-06-19 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT (POLICE SUPERANNUATION) BILL

Final Stages

Consideration in committee of the House of Assembly's message (resumed on motion).

(Continued from page 3425.)

The Hon. M. PARNELL: It will be no surprise to members that I am very disappointed that the government has not seen fit to support these sensible amendments to offer an ethical superannuation choice to police officers and other public servants. I am also very disappointed that the Liberal Party has capitulated and backed away from the principled stance it took just a few weeks ago. To comment on the opposition's position, it says that our insisting on these amendments is holding up other important reforms in the police superannuation bill and that there is the potential for some police to be disadvantaged if this bill is unduly delayed. I understand that position. However, the other way we can ensure the legislation goes through is to keep up the pressure on the government to pass these sensible amendments.

The point still remains that we would not need these amendments or this legislation if Funds SA and Super SA simply acceded to the wishes of what is quite clearly a majority of fund members who want this opportunity for ethical investment. The government keeps referring to the low demand for ethical superannuation schemes. I am starting to get tired of the government hiding behind the excuse that there is low demand. I remind members of the evidence that has already been presented in summary form.

First, we have had petitions tabled in this place. On 3 April I presented a petition signed by 354 residents of South Australia concerning ethical superannuation choices, and the petitioners prayed that this council call on the government to instruct Super SA to offer an ethical superannuation option for all its fund members and instruct Super SA to commission a review of its major investment portfolios to explore opportunities of investing in ways that exhibit greater social responsibility and that result in more positive outcomes for our environment, society and economy. I note that the actual number of signatories to the petition was 470 public servants. However, 116 of those were not accepted because they put their work addresses rather than their home addresses on the petition.

I am also aware of an online petition started by a worker at TAFE, and that had hundreds of signatures from public servants. I know through freedom of information requests I have lodged that at least 50 people made contact with the Treasurer's office or with Super SA asking for an ethical superannuation option up to November last year, so that was before there was any further publicity in relation to the principled stance the upper house had taken. I also remind members that there was a survey of Super SA members, and I will outline what the survey found. Under the Freedom of Information Act, again I tried to find out where the real blockage was in the provision of an ethical superannuation option, so I obtained the survey results that had been collected on behalf of Super SA.

The survey, which was conducted in March and April 2007, was called 'Satisfaction Research' and was conducted by MRD Research Pty Ltd, and it produced the following results. First of all, they sampled members of the Triple S super scheme, and the sample size was 2,678 members. Anyone who is familiar with market research would know that that is a reasonable sample size. The question people were asked was: would you choose to invest your super in socially responsible investments if that option were available to you? The result of the survey was that 828 people, or 31 per cent of the sample size, said yes, they would choose to invest if that option were available to them; 10 per cent said no, they would not; and 58 per cent said maybe. So, 89 per cent of people answered 'yes' and 'maybe' and said they were interested in a super ethical option.

To show that that option was not just a fluke, another survey was undertaken involving members from a different public fund, and it was done around the same time. Members of the Super SA Lump Sum Scheme were surveyed, and the sample size was 423 (so it was a smaller sample). The question posed was: would you choose to invest your super in socially responsible investments if that investment were available to you? The result was that 34 per cent said yes, they would; 10 per cent said no, they would not; and 54 per cent said maybe. So, they were very similar results. In that case 88 per cent of people were in the 'yes' or the 'maybe' category. So, clearly, there is a massive demand among public servants for an ethical superannuation choice.

I also have to remind members that the police, as well as members of parliament and public servants and all other Super SA members, do not have any choice about which fund their superannuation money goes into. They do not have the same superannuation choice that other workers in society have. They cannot vote with their feet; they cannot choose to use a different fund. So, what do they do when the fund they are forced to invest in refuses to provide them with an option that is increasingly a standard option in many other funds?

So, I do not think it is good enough for the minister to just say 'We haven't done it because no-one representing members has asked for it.' The minister did say (and I agree with this) that we have debated it at length on other occasions, but it seems to me that this clear evidence, which has been put on the table before, is being ignored. The minister said this morning:

It [the government] would obviously like to see some broader indication of support through relevant employee groups; for example, if the PSA and other groups were to approach the government in relation to this.

Really, this is code for the government saying, 'We may do it at some stage in the future—maybe.' I have to say that we have heard that before but, at the end of the day, nothing has happened. I have been writing to the Treasurer for some time, and I am fobbed off when I write. Other members have written as well and have been fobbed off. So, it seems to me that the government is refusing to take this issue seriously. The rhetorical question is: what do we as a parliament say to these people who want this ethical superannuation option now and we are going to deny it to them?

As I have said, the only reason I have been forced to bring amendments like this forward is that the Treasurer and Super SA have refused point blank to do anything about this. I am prepared for these amendments not to be insisted upon, but what I need is an ironclad guarantee from the government that it will ensure that an ethical superannuation option is offered. I need that guarantee, and I need the time frame, and I need the government to say that it has listened to the members of this fund. Super SA could do this tomorrow, and we do not need to go down this legislative path but, clearly, without those guarantees, I think the Legislative Council should insist on these amendments.

I want to ask the minister some questions about that, and my first question to the minister is: does he accept that there is a significant demand from Super SA members for the provision of an ethical option?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The honourable member mentioned a statistic, and I think he said that something like 30 per cent of members had expressed an interest in these sorts of funds if they were available. However, the experience (and I recounted this advice during the committee stage of the bill) is that only about 1 per cent of people tend to take this up. That is the known experience from other funds.

While I am on my feet, because the honourable member did ask for some commitment, I will read out the comments that the Treasurer made when he debated the bill in the other place. He said:

We would possibly give consideration to having a product available for members should they want a particular ethical fund but, given the problems in creating an ethical fund (by definition, what is ethical and what is not) and given that the success of Funds SA and the whole scope of merging various funds into Funds SA is to give us some scale for purchase—remember, Funds SA is a manager of managers and we have conservative, growth, balanced and cash funds—to try to configure an ethical fund from the available products is not something that I am particularly keen on doing.

Having said that, I am looking at whether or not we can make a product available through Super SA, whether there are options available to us, so short of creating such a product ourselves, we are looking at whether or not we can contract with a current provider of an ethical fund that can be utilised or purchased through Funds SA or Super SA.

That is as far as I can go in relation to undertakings. I am certainly not going to give time frames but, clearly, the Treasurer has indicated that the government is looking at the option of providing members of Super SA with an ethical alternative.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I thank the minister for that response, but I have to say that I am still not happy. He read from the Treasurer's statements which can be summarised as, 'We are looking at it.' Earlier he said 'possibly give consideration to.' The sorts of undertakings that I thought would assist me in not pushing for these amendments would be certainly stronger than that. If we cannot get assurances now that this option will definitely be made available to public servants, is the government willing to allow Super SA members to leave Super SA and place their money elsewhere, perhaps in a fund that does offer an ethical option?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The honourable member's question is part of a much broader choice of fund issue. My advice is that the current fund, Super SA, has an exemption from those choice of funds provisions, so that does not apply at this stage. As I said, those issues are part of a broader debate that will be had.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I thank the minister for his answer, but it does not satisfy me. I know that this issue has been on the agenda for years. I have put it on the agenda at every opportunity when superannuation has been debated in the two years that I have been here and, really, I think that our public servants deserve to be treated with more respect and to have their wishes acceded to. It is not that hard. It would be easy for Funds SA or Super SA tomorrow to go out into the market and to purchase off the shelf one of the recognised ethical superannuation options and offer it to members.

Later, we will be debating a bill on local government superannuation where there is an ethical option, and it outperformed the standard option. We are not talking about charity here: we are talking about giving people an option to make money for their retirement through their superannuation funds in an ethical way. I conclude by asking the committee to insist on our amendments.

The committee divided on the motion:

AYES (18)

Bressington, A. Darley, J.A. Dawkins, J.S.L.
Evans, A.L. Finnigan, B.V. Gago, G.E.
Gazzola, J.M. Holloway, P. (teller) Hood, D.G.E.
Hunter, I.K. Lawson, R.D. Lensink, J.M.A.
Ridgway, D.W. Schaefer, C.V. Stephens, T.J.
Wade, S.G. Wortley, R.P. Zollo, C.


(NOES (2)

Kanck, S.M. Parnell, M. (teller)

Majority of 16 for the noes.

Motion thus carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT