HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-09-16 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT (MEMBERS' BENEFITS) BILL

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 14.

The CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Mr Parnell had moved an amendment on clause 14. I understand he has another amendment now on file to take the place of that amendment. Perhaps you could first of all seek leave to withdraw that.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I seek leave to withdraw the verbal amendment that I announced before the luncheon break. The amendment has been distributed to all members in writing, and I move:

Page 7, lines 2 to 4 [Clause 14(1)C and (2)]—Delete subclauses (1) and (2) and substitute:

(1) Section 14C—after subsection (1) insert:

(1a) A member may, for the purposes of section 14B(1), elect to make contributions to the Treasurer at 4.5 per cent of the combined value of the basic salary and additional salary (if any) payable to the member.

First of all, I would like to thank parliamentary counsel for the work that has been done to prepare this amendment at short notice. The verbal amendment that I moved before the house broke for lunch was the best that I could do given the short amount of time that we had had the bill. It was a simple amendment—and I have now withdrawn it, so I am not going to speak to it—but I need to explain to members why this amendment is different.

It seemed to me that replacing the figure of 15.4 with the figure of 9 would achieve the objects that the Greens seek, and that is a reversion to the status quo in relation to members' superannuation. I have now been advised that it was not that simple and, as the Leader of the Government said, the technical side of these superannuation bills is always complex.

This amendment removes the section of the government's bill that increases the superannuation contribution to 15.4 per cent. It thereby reverts to the status quo, which is 9 per cent. However, it has never been my intention for superannuation arrangements or entitlements to be cut so I have reinstated the ability of members to be able to make their own contributions to the superannuation fund, and hence the reference to the 4.5 per cent being put back in. I thank parliamentary counsel for clarifying that. Members need to know that the effect of this amendment is to revert to the status quo and that is that the taxpayers' contribution to PSS3 Superannuation Fund members will remain at 9 per cent.

I have had the opportunity, albeit brief, over lunch and earlier today, to consult with the Public Sector Association, which has confirmed what I understood was the case, and that is that the vast bulk of public servants are on 9 per cent superannuation from their employer—being the state. We can always find examples of groups here and there who have negotiated a higher amount with their employer, but the bulk of state public servants get 9 per cent.

Much has been said in this debate about parity. People have talked about the need to have parity between what state members of parliament get by way of superannuation entitlement and what our federal counterparts get. I understand that it is a great convenience for members in this place to tie the pay and other entitlements of members to what someone else gets elsewhere, because that avoids the need for having to debate it.

In terms of wage increases, we know that there is a formula in place where members here get $2,000 less than backbench members in the federal parliament. In relation to superannuation, however, this is a state scheme and we are responsible for the content of the legislation; it is state legislation. My amendment provides that the current amount of 9 per cent should be the amount that continues into the future. I said before in my second reading contribution that I would be more than happy for members of parliament to be getting 15.4 per cent, but when the people that we work alongside with in the governance of the state—that is, our public servants—when they get 15.4 per cent. That is the parity that we should be aiming at.

What people forget is that here is a state where we have three arms of government: we have the judiciary, the executive and the legislature. Here in parliament, we have some responsibilities for supervision of the executive, and the executive consists not only of ministers, of whom we ask questions in question time, but also public servants, who work on behalf of the community to deliver the programs that the government of the day brings forward and to administer the legislation that we pass in this place. If we are looking for parity, let us look for parity with our public servants.

People are distracted at present because the Treasurer, as I understand it, has just finished delivering the budget, and the fact that each member here has been provided with several kilograms of paper indicates that the speech has probably finished. I did not hear it, because I was here in question time. We were doing our work. According to the first news reports to come online, I am advised that 3,743 full-time equivalent public sector jobs are axed in this budget. Until we read the papers, we cannot check the veracity of that, but that is what the news reports now are announcing: 3,743.

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Hon. Bernard Finnigan is ready to debate the budget; he knows the figures. All I am saying is that we are seeing public servants losing their job today as a result of this budget, and here we are, voting ourselves an increase in superannuation. As to the two amendments I have on file, I will make the first amendment a test for the second, which is an amendment to delete the schedule. I would urge all honourable members to have regard to what has already been said today about the need for us to lead by example and not put ourselves ahead of our co-public sector workers who, on our behalf, do such a diligent job in advancing services in South Australia.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The government obviously does not support the amendment. In effect, it is just a direct contradiction of the bill itself and the purpose of the bill itself. If we were to carry this, then there would have no point in having the bill. In fact, in the rules of debate in many organisations, you would not be able to move such an amendment because it does directly negate the purpose of the bill and, given we have already debated at length the purpose of the bill, it probably does not warrant too much attention.

The honourable member used the argument about parity with the public sector, and so on. There was already one interjection that referred to salaries, and I know the Hon. Mr Lucas talked about that earlier in his second reading contribution, but one might also talk about such things as severance pay, long service leave, overtime, etc. The fact is that the working conditions of members of parliament are different from everyone else. You are subject to election in the House of Assembly every four years. Here it is less often.

When I was a member of the House of Assembly I had been in four years under the old superannuation scheme, which was regarded as very generous—and it was, if you had been in for six years but not if you were there for four years. Some of my colleagues who lost only got back their contribution. They did not even get parity rates of interest on the money that they had paid at 11 per cent contribution. They did not get paid back.

So, while it is often said that that old scheme is generous—and certainly it is for someone like myself who has been around for a number of years—at the time, if you happened to lose your seat after one election, it was one of the least generous schemes possible. One needs a bit of perspective in this. The fact is that the conditions that face members of parliament are significantly different. The working conditions are not really comparable to those in the Public Service, and that is why the parliamentary superannuation scheme has always been different, to reflect those conditions.

As I said earlier in the second reading response, it was also meant to enable members of parliament to focus on their job. Members of parliament, given the work they do, are not able to necessarily concentrate on work after politics or investments, and so on, which may well be quite incompatible with the job we are doing. As I said earlier, certainly in relation to ministers, it is not appropriate that ministers should be perhaps investing money in shares and other forms of investments that might be incompatible with the work they do. There are also, obviously, workload issues. There are agreements that ministers undertake, and there are the same constraints the media effectively put on senior members of the opposition, and others, about the jobs you can do when you finish here, and all that sort of thing.

So there are a number of constraints on members of parliament that do not exist for other members of the community, and it has always been accepted, for many decades, that superannuation for politicians should be different—as, indeed, it is for judges. Judges have a very generous superannuation scheme as well, for much the same reason—so that they do not have to worry, if you like, about financial inducements or considerations in relation to their work. I think it is important to put that on record. It is not just a matter of simple parity with public servants. There are good reasons why parliamentary superannuation is different. Here we are just simply bringing it into line for those newer members with what exists in the federal parliament.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I will respond briefly to some of the things that the minister said, because I do not believe they are correct. He said that, as a matter of process, I should not be allowed to move an amendment such as this because it negates the purpose of the whole bill.

The Hon. P. Holloway: No, I said in many organisations that would be the case. I am not saying here.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I am glad the minister has clarified the situation because I think this is a very appropriate amendment and it does not negate the purpose of the whole bill because, of course, it has no bearing on some of the other provisions in this bill that we have not debated in any great detail. Because of the extraordinary circumstances surrounding this debate, we have not talked about the salary sacrifice provisions or the other measures that are in this bill. I am focusing on this issue of superannuation.

In terms of what the minister is saying about the parity of salaries, for example, there is no suggestion of some socialist utopia where every person gets paid the same amount. No-one is talking about that. Of course there will be different levels of pay for different levels of work that will reflect responsibility, skill, hours and things like that. The point to remember—and this is why parity is important with public sector employees—is that MPs are paid well for the work we do, and we work hard; and our superannuation is higher as a result, because it is 9 per cent on a higher base salary. So, yes, there are provisions that have more super for MPs than many other public servants have, because we are starting from a higher base.

The minister has referred to a range of other areas where it is perhaps desirable for members of parliament to have special arrangements, but they are not in this bill. There is no mention here of redundancy or anything like that. If members were seriously concerned about what happens to someone on election day when they are unsuccessful, it would be addressed here. We know what happens here; it happened to a colleague here in the upper house: his pay stopped on election day when he was not elected. There is no redundancy. Why has not the government brought forward measures like that if it thinks that is a reasonable way to handle it? Tell the former member here, the Hon. David Winderlich, that when he retires he will eventually get superannuation. It does not help him when his pay stops the day of the election.

I do not accept for one minute that this bill represents a measured response to the special circumstances that apply to our role as members of parliament. This amendment—and I urge members to support it—puts us fair and square on the same footing as the people we work with in the public sector: 9 per cent is good enough for public servants, and it should be good enough for MPs as well.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (3)
Franks, T.A. Parnell, M. (teller) Vincent, K.L.
NOES (18)
Bressington, A. Brokenshire, R.L. Darley, J.A.
Dawkins, J.S.L. Finnigan, B.V. Gago, G.E.
Gazzola, J.M. Holloway, P. (teller) Hood, D.G.E.
Hunter, I.K. Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A.
Lucas, R.I. Ridgway, D.W. Stephens, T.J.
Wade, S.G. Wortley, R.P. Zollo, C.

Majority of 15 for the noes.

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 15 to 18 passed.

Schedule.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I move:

Page 9 lines 5 to 41 and page 10 lines 1 to 21—Delete the Schedule

I regard my previous amendment as a test for this, so although I move it, I will not be dividing on it.

Amendment negatived; schedule passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

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) (15:48): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (15:48): I will make a brief third reading contribution. I am obviously disappointed with not just the content of the bill that the chamber has now passed but also the appalling process that we have gone through to get to this stage: voting on a bill less than 24 hours after its introduction against all the protocols and all the established practices of this council. The opposition is not covered in glory through its support of this process. It is appalling and it is cynical in the extreme.

Now we find that shadow ministers are off trying to hold the government to account by reading their budget papers, working out where the cuts have been in their portfolios. They are upset that the Greens have been calling for divisions because I am keeping them from their task of holding the government to account. It is remarkable that the opposition, having colluded with the government to bring this bill on within 24 hours, is now angry because I am keeping them here talking about politicians voting themselves superannuation while they want to be writing their press releases about how lousy the government's budget has been.

No doubt the government members here are thinking, 'Parnell, call another division! Greens, call another division! We've got our budget speech done. The opposition are going to be distracted. Let's bring them back in here so they can't write their press releases.' What irony! What an absolute joke of a process that we are following here in the Legislative Council!

I think this is a remarkable day. It is not unique. This is, I think, my fourth budget and every single budget day the government has chosen to bring something on that it would rather not see the light of day. One year I think it was the climate change bill, I think we were bringing back amendments from the lower house, and WorkCover was one as well, where this is an ideal time to bring it on. Readers of the Government Gazette should read the New Year's Eve or Christmas Eve version of the Government Gazette because that is where you will find things that the government wants to hide away, that it does not want you to notice.

In the future, I think that Politics 101 will be that, if you want to find out when politicians are feathering their own nest and self-serving, look at what they do in the upper house of state parliament while the budget is being delivered in the lower house. I think it is an outrageous process and I hope that we do not have to go through this again.

I accept the will of the council in relation to this bill and I will not divide again. The Liberals will be happy. Liberal shadow ministers can sit in their offices and draft their press releases to point out the deficiencies in the government's budget. We have had some divisions today. Members are in no doubt where the Greens stand. The community is in no doubt where you all stand on this. I think this is a sad day for democracy in this place.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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