Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Parliamentary Superannuation Amendment Bill 2006. As indicated by the shadow minister, the honourable member for Wills, the Labor Party will be supporting the bill. This bill changes the quantum of the contribution of parliamentary salaries from nine per cent to 15.4 per cent to a complying superannuation fund other than a self-managed fund or a retirement savings account chosen by a member. This change is consistent with the Public Sector Superannuation Accumulation Plan, with a similar non-contributory amount of 15.4 per cent.

I am inordinately proud of the Labor class of 2004: the quality of the members—and senators for that matter—and the contribution they are making to this place. They have relished being members of parliament and have got on with their responsibilities of representing the hopes and aspirations of their constituents. That said, there is a gross disparity between the entitlements of those elected prior to 2004 and the class of 2004. As a whip, I have a responsibility for the welfare of members on my side of the House.

It is for this reason the Chief Government Whip and I wrote a letter in general terms to the Remuneration Tribunal in March of this year. I wish to thank the tribunal for the advice they have provided and the assistance in progressing this matter to this second reading stage of the bill. But let me state that while this bill narrows the disparity it is only incremental. I would like to repeat some of the words my electorate’s namesake Ben Chifley used when he first introduced parliamentary superannuation on 1 December 1948:

In its general purpose the scheme aims to meet the situation, long recognised by members of all parties, that men or women who serve in parliament often sacrifice opportunities to provide against the day when their parliamentary careers come to an end. It has frequently happened that members who have made great contributions to the work of the Parliament have, upon retirement, faced a condition of hardship. Very many others have had to contemplate the results of interrupted careers, earning power lost and private means reduced, through and in the course of their service in the Parliament. The longer and better the service that has been given, the more often has this been the case.

There are various reasons why this has been so. Service in the Parliament has become more exacting as the years have gone by. Unlike the more leisurely conditions of perhaps 50 years ago, parliamentary life now makes heavy and increasing demands on the time and capacities of all who take part in it.

If that was the case in 1948, nearly 60 years ago, it is even more the case today. I think we need to understand that we have changed parliamentary service fundamentally by the changes we made to superannuation. No longer will members of parliament have the financial security to retire after some 10 or 12 years of parliamentary service without their families suffering financial hardship. In fact with these changes, and still with this bill, we have encouraged a mirror of the UK system where we see members of the House of Commons serving up to 30 or 40 years, unable to retire because of the financial impact of retiring. I am not convinced that this is a positive development in our Australian democracy.

The other thing that I would say—it is not a present danger but a future danger—is that, whilst members on both sides have from time to time done some very silly things, you cannot buy a member of parliament. His vote is not for sale. But I fear that in the future a member faced with the possibility of retirement and not the means to retire may very well be tempted, where no member has been tempted in the past. I strongly support this bill. As I say, it goes some way to ameliorating the significant difference between the conditions of service that members prior to 2004 and the conditions of service that the class of 2004 enjoy. I think it is still unfair, but this bill goes some small way to close the gap. More needs to be done.

See this speech in context