Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Chair of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Senator Polley, I present the report of the committee on the Parliamentary Superannuation Amendment (Removal of Excessive Super) Bill 2009, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and additional information.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for five minutes.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not even take the five minutes, but I understand that there may be another comment coming from someone else. This is a very serious issue because it plays out in the public mind the benefits attached to being a politician and the pecuniary benefits, particularly in regard to superannuation. For the record, and for the people in the gallery who are here today, politicians’ superannuation was changed in 2004 at the insistence of then Labor leader Mark Latham, who decried superannuation entitlements for politicians. I note he continues to take pot shots at the Labor Party whilst luxuriating on the benefits that he so railed against.

The Prime Minister at the time, Mr Howard, changed politicians’ superannuation entitlements to bring them into line with the Public Service. Accordingly, the Parliamentary Superannuation Amendment (Removal of Excessive Super) Bill 2009, presented by Senator Fielding, is seeking to wind back the clock, if you like, and to change the rules midstream for those who had served in this parliament for years before 2004. This is a matter of fairness and equity. Whether you agree with what politicians receive in remuneration or not, whether you think it is excessive or not enough, is not the point.

When people enter into service in public life, they do so under a number of conditions and expectations. It is wrong to change those expectations retrospectively. I believe that this is a matter of equity not only in regard to this particular issue but also in regard to matters of taxation and matters of other benefits. It just beggars belief that people will continue to invest in our country and put themselves forward for public service or any other endeavour, quite frankly, under a set of terms and conditions if then a government of any persuasion can simply wind back the clock and say, ‘I am sorry; we’re going to change those terms and conditions, and you’re going to have to make up the other issues.’ I see Senator Fielding has come in. I am glad I have been able to provide you with an opportunity to comment on your own bill, Senator Fielding, and I am sure you will want to do so.

As I said, this comes back to an issue of principle. I am opposed in principle to retrospective legislation that disadvantages people who have done nothing to deserve disadvantage in their own sense. I am pleased too that we have reached agreement on this with the major parties. The Labor Party and the coalition have agreed to this report and that this bill should not be passed because it does deny what I would term ‘natural justice’. It is possibly not the correct legal term, but it is, I think, an appropriate term about how we are going to deal with people who enter into particular circumstances and agreements under the stated conditions. We should not roll them back. I will leave my comments there because I understand there is another speaker who would like to talk on this.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to make a statement of no more than five minutes.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for five minutes.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the chamber’s courtesy. The Parliamentary Superannuation Amendment (Removal of Excessive Super) Bill 2009 looks at the parliamentary super for politicians that were elected prior to 2004. The community was quite concerned in the lead-up to the 2004 election about how the superannuation entitlements of politicians were way out of kilter with the general community. In actual fact, it was acknowledged by Mr Latham, who was the leader of the Labor Party at the time. He said that ‘these schemes are well outside the community standard in Australia’ and that it is a ‘major source of public dissatisfaction’. Mr John Howard, the Prime Minister at the time, also made some statements. He said, ‘There is a community perception that this super is too generous.’

They are statements that are in the report that has been tabled today. What happened was that they stood there and said, ‘We’ll fix this for all the new people who come in.’ That was good; I have no complaints there. I am certainly not asking for any more benefits. I think politicians are well paid. But the cheek was that both the coalition government of the day and Labor knew they could have closed this scheme down for themselves, but they did not have the guts to actually do it. They decided to do it for everybody that was new. Knowing the community was outraged about the super entitlements of politicians, knowing that the entitlements were way over the top, they decided to come up with an agreement that it was for new people but not for the existing people in the scheme. They knew quite clearly that they could close that existing scheme down. There are over a hundred politicians still on that scheme. The scheme is out of line with community expectations. It is out of line with community standards and it is a pity that this report says that they are going to do nothing about it.

I make it quite clear that Family First believes that the super entitlements should be changed for all. I recommend that the community have a bit of a look at this report and see how statements made back in 2004 only apply going forward when quite clearly they could have applied to all those politicians who were on the scheme prior to 2004. It is a scheme which is out of line with community standards and expectations and it allows the rort to continue for quite some time for those parliamentarians elected prior to 2004.