Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the motion moved by the member for Lyne. Thank you very much for bringing this important issue to the attention of the House. Having had the benefit of being in the parliament for 14 years, unlike the two previous speakers, I know that this is a new issue; it is not something that has just sprung from a well that someone has decided to do something about. Indeed, one of the big problems with this is that for 11 years under the Howard government nothing was done. Promise after promise was made and review after review was held. The Podger review came out. It was not even released. No-one talked about it. This festering sore of an issue has been allowed to gather steam.

The difficulty is that nobody has said no. One thing in life that you do not want to hear is 'No'. Nobody has mounted the case as to why this should not happen. They have promised reviews. Indeed, Labor was at fault in this as well—we promised and had a review, the Matthews review. The Matthews review said that there should be no change. We have built up a level of expectation among our service men and women, and that is unfair. Our service men and women deserve better than that. They deserve an answer one way or another and not this continual playing of politics with their lives. It has been an ongoing debate, with several reviews. For the last speaker to make statements about what the next coalition government will do is cant hypocrisy, because they never did it in the past.

Indeed, changing indexation methodology may be inappropriate, inequitable for other Commonwealth superannuants and indeed very costly. Where will the money be found? The men and women of our Defence Forces do an amazing job. We should not be playing around with their service. We should recognise it and not use it as a political football. They need to understand that the benefits that they receive are above and beyond those of other people—as they should be, because what they do for their country is above and beyond that of other people. They receive currently higher employer contribution rates of 18 per cent to 20 per cent depending on service time, compared with the nationally legislated rate of nine per cent, which is going to become 12 per cent. There are sovereign guarantees within the fund so that their rates do not go up and down with fluctuations in the market. They can receive lump sum payments. They can access, as they should, their superannuation immediately upon service retirement. They do not have to wait until reaching preservation age as others do.

Understandably, this is a matter that many people feel passionately about. I have had many discussions with my service veteran communities. We need to see the best outcome for those in retirement. It needs to be clarified that superannuation retirement pay is not the same as the age pension. Superannuation is an employment based benefit whereas the age pension is a means tested income support payment that is part of our social security system. I say to many in my electorate: 'You never want to be on a pension. Work hard and never end up on a pension.' We should not be comparing these two benefits. They are not the same. These payments serve different purposes and are provided for different reasons. It is not relevant to compare indexation, as indeed Nick Minchin has stated quite eloquently, with the member for Bruce reading that into the Hansard. It is not relevant to compare them. For many people, the age pension is their only source of income. For many Defence personnel, their Defence Force super is not their only source of income.

However, there are individuals who are receiving less than or the equivalent of the age pension on their Defence Force super. Indeed, many in my electorate who have Commonwealth superannuation are receiving less than or the equivalent of the age pension. We need to deal with that issue. But that is a separate issue. Let us deal with that lingering sore but not by taking up a sledgehammer—which many want to do—to change indexation. Let us deal with those people who are caught in a bind and not put a huge impost upon the budget by going a different route—a route the coalition never chose when they were in government. We need to be seeking the right and just income for our service men and women because they have done so much for us.

In his 2008 Review of Pension Indexation Arrangements in Australian Government Civilian and Military Superannuation Schemesa review the ALP said it would do upon coming to government—Mr Matthews said:

… it would need to be generally accepted that an employer retains a responsibility to compensate former employees for improvements in productivity, as reflected in salary rises, which occur after an employee leaves them. This is not a generally accepted responsibility in Australia.

The view from Matthews was that you cannot keep compensating people. The difficulty with the compensation issue is that it will reward those on the highest income and will actually not fix those who are left behind at the bottom. (Time expired)

See this speech in context