Save Search
    Prev   Next   Return to results listPrint ListEmail Document Link

Title

PARLIAMENTARY CONTRIBUTORY SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT BILL 2001

In Committee

Database

Senate Hansard

Date

28-06-2001

Source

Senate

Parl No.

39

Electorate

Tasmania

Interjector

 

Page

25482

Party

AG

Presenter

 

Status

Final

Question No.

 

Questioner

 

Responder

 

Speaker

Brown, Sen Bob

Stage

In Committee

Type

 

Context

Bills

System Id

chamber/hansards/2001-06-28/0363


Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 28 June 2001
Page: 25482


Senator BROWN (10:28 PM) —I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 2294:

(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 5), before item 1, insert:

1A Subsection 4(1) (definition of member)

Repeal the definition, substitute:

member means a member of either House who makes contributions to the Trust.

1B Subsection 4(1)

After the definition of non-parliamentary employment insert:

non-Trust contributor means a member of either House who has never made or has ceased to make contributions to the Trust as a result of a choice made under section 4F.

1C Paragraph 4(4A)(aa)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(aa) a member or a non-Trust contributor is taken to be employed by the Commonwealth;

1D Before Part II

Insert:

4F Choosing to be a non-Trust contributor

(1) This section applies to a member of either House who is or becomes a member of another complying superannuation fund or the holder of an RSA.

(2) On or after 1 July 2001, a member of either House may, by written notice given to the Trust choose:

(a) to cease to make contributions to the Trust at the end of a day (not earlier than the day on which the notice is given) stated in the notice; or

(b) never to make contributions to the Trust, where the person choosing is a new member of either House.

(3) The person may make this choice on first becoming entitled to parliamentary allowance or at any time he or she is a member.

(4) The person must have effective membership of a complying superannuation fund or be the holder of an RSA for the whole of the period or periods he or she is a member of either House.

(5) A non Trust contributor may not revoke his or her choice after the day stated in the written notice given to the Trust.

(6) In this section:

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.

4G Superannuation contributions for non-Trust contributors

The Commonwealth must make contributions to a non-Trust contributor's chosen fund or RSA for that person's benefit. The contributions must be made with effect from the day stated in the written notice to the Trust, and in accordance with the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992.

1E Subsection 13(9)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(9) In this section:

Minister of State means a Minister of State who is entitled to a parliamentary allowance and who makes contributions to the Trust.

month means one of the 12 months of the year.

office holder means a person who:

(a) is entitled to a parliamentary allowance;

(b) holds an office in, or in relation to, the Parliament or either House, being an office in respect of which he or she is entitled to an allowance by way of salary; and

(c) makes contributions to the Trust;

but does not include a Minister of State.

person means a person who makes contributions to the Trust.

1F After section 18

Insert:

18A Benefits for members who choose to become non-Trust contributors

(1) A member who ceases to make contributions to the Trust as a result of a choice made under section 4F, shall be entitled to a benefit equal to the superannuation guarantee safety-net amount.

(2) Except as provided by this section, this benefit is in substitution for any benefits that would otherwise apply under this Act in respect of the person.

This is the Andren amendment which gives freedom of choice to members of parliament to stay with the parliamentary superannuation scheme or to opt out and go into another scheme of their choice, with the accrued superannuation benefits rolling over into that scheme. I cannot see how any member of this chamber could vote against these amendments. I note that the government says it is single-minded and it will not listen to what anybody else has to say. But that is not the nature of parliament. So I appeal to the opposition to support this amendment—and so they should.

Let me give a commitment at the outset: if these amendments get up—and I will be opting out of the superannuation scheme—I will never raise a finger at another member of parliament who does not opt out. But it is very important that this option be there for those of us who want to take it. Why should we be captive to the majority in having a superannuation scheme which is unpopular, unwanted by the majority of Australians, unfair and which makes us feel bad about it as well? I know the arguments that will be used by the other side. But the fact is that this is a freedom of choice matter, and the only reason I can see for not adopting this freedom of choice is that other members are concerned that it will erode even further their position. Obviously that is a risk. I think what would happen under this freedom of choice is that a handful of members would take it now, quite a number of members would take it in the new parliament—that is, new members—and we would rapidly find this current superdooper superannuation scheme for politicans falling away. But how dare any other member of parliament dictate to those of us who want to get out of this current scheme that we must stay in it.

I note that there was almost no debate on this bill in the House of Representatives, but we have an opportunity now at least to have the government or the opposition say why the opt-out should not be available. The Senate knows that we wanted to refer this to a committee. That has been denied. But let us hear from speakers on both sides why there should not be freedom of choice in this matter.