Peter Andren (Calare, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (lines 5-6)

        Omit the item, substitute the following item:

1  Subsection 8(2)

Omit “9% of”, substitute “the percentage charge specified in subsection 19(2) of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 applied to”.

(2)    After schedule 1, page 3 (after line 11), add:

Schedule 2—Amendment of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948

member means a member of either House who makes contributions to the Commonwealth under the provisions of this Act.

non PCSS contributor means a member of either House who has never made or has ceased to make contributions to the Commonwealth under the provisions of this Act as a result of a choice made under section 4G.

complying superannuation fund has the meaning given by section 45 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993.

RSA has the same meaning as in the Retirement Savings Accounts Act 1997.

Minister of State means a Minister of State who is entitled to a parliamentary allowance and who makes contributions to the Commonwealth under the provisions of this Act.

month means one of the 12 months of the year.

office holder means a person who:

person means a person who makes contributions to the Commonwealth under the provisions of this Act.

Amendment (1) is applicable to this piece of legislation. If the super guarantee act specifies the percentage level of the superannuation guarantee for all working Australians, currently nine per cent, this amendment ensures that any increase in the employer contribution for MPs and senators is tied to that applying to the rest of the community. It is not a case of equivalence between MPs and public servants or their staff—that is another issue—but between members and the minimum standard we apply to the overwhelming majority of our constituents. That should be the judging factor in assessing whatever we apply to ourselves, particularly with superannuation at a time when many of our constituents will be left so far behind in providing for their own retirement.

It has been said over many years that we should be moving far more hastily towards a more realistic super guarantee. Obviously employers have to be brought into this equation and governments must be there to support it and the co-contribution scheme. That, along with contributions from workers to build up their retirement savings, is one way to ensure that a meaningful amount is set aside for their retirement. The best way we can set that standard is to apply to ourselves the same monetary figure we expect others to adhere to.

Amendment (2) inserts schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948 but moves that this amendment be included in the act before the parliament: the Parliamentary Superannuation Amendment Bill 2006. The basic piece of legislation, the 1948 act, is one I have attempted to reform on several occasions prior to the forced changes brought about by the former opposition leader and subsequently the Prime Minister when the government realised the extent of public discontent and disagreement over the outrageous 65 per cent equivalent publicly funded guarantee attached to the former unfunded scheme.

This schedule provides all the legislative requirements for those pre-2004 members and senators who conscientiously object to being part of the over-generous lifetime pension to exit that scheme and enter a scheme of their choice with a super guarantee in line with community standards. I cannot see the logic of the minister’s statement that this in some way may deliver a more generous outcome when an actuarially determined amount over that member’s parliamentary term matched to the prevailing super guarantee in those years would be transferred to a fund of his or her choice plus whatever the individual may contribute himself from this point on—a reasonable amount, for which a formula, I understand, is already in the legislation.

This schedule comes from my two private member’s bills and covers all the potential problems that such an opt-out clause might throw up, including all the issues raised at an inquiry into my private member’s bills in 2001. There is absolutely no reason why this schedule cannot be adopted by this chamber and allow any member who benefits from the previous scheme to opt out. I commend the amendments to the chamber.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.