Page 5835 - Week 18 - Tuesday, 10 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEVENSON: Once again, I think it is a wonderful idea. That particular amount that we had would have amounted to over $100 billion if it had remained in a separate fund and not been placed in Consolidated Revenue.
Mr Wood: It was never in a fund.
Mr Connolly: It never existed.
MR STEVENSON: I obviously will have to bring the documents along one day and explain it to members. I will certainly make a point of it.
As I said, most members will be forced at the end of this particular three-year term to roll the funds over. One would ask: Will they be able to roll the funds over into a similar scheme with a fixed pay-out on the same level of contribution? If that is to be the case, I would ask any member in the Assembly to stand up and tell me which company will allow that to happen. Mr Duby starts to move to his feet. I will be taking notes. Indeed, I will contact the company tomorrow and will ask them whether or not they will accept the same level of pay-out on the same principle of pay-in, over the same period of time - in our case, three years.
I think that the difficulty is that members in the Assembly talk about financial responsibility and yet, because we have an opportunity to introduce the laws ourselves, we are not prepared to show that level of financial responsibility.
MR DUBY (9.16): Mr Deputy Speaker, once again we have just heard from Mr Stevenson a prime example of how he can invariably get it wrong. What he has been talking about tonight in relation to a superannuation scheme for members is an employees superannuation scheme where there are contributions by an employer into that fund. He has been comparing it with the type of superannuation that you can buy, by going to the AMP insurance company or the Westpac Bank, deferred annuities or whatever it might be, by putting money over the counter. What Mr Stevenson has deliberately, I believe, chosen to believe is that this is somehow a generous scheme. I think it should be pointed out to Mr Stevenson that - - -
Mr Stevenson: If you think I think that, you are right.
MR DUBY: Perhaps Mr Stevenson would be kind enough to explain to me how this scheme, a 5 per cent members contributory scheme which will accrue a 24 per cent employer contribution over the period, is marginally different or markedly different from, for example, the normal Commonwealth superannuation scheme which applies to all the public servants in the ACT Government Service. Under that scheme most public servants contribute 5 per cent of their salary into a fund and the employer's contribution is 19 per cent of an employee's salary levels.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .