Page 5838 - Week 18 - Tuesday, 10 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
of cost to the taxpayer that I think Mr Stevenson has perhaps done us a bit of a disservice. In fact, what we have come up with is a very cost-effective scheme, and a scheme that I think compares well with other similar schemes, particularly other parliamentary schemes. It is most like the Tasmanian parliamentary superannuation scheme, which is the only other one that provides a lump sum benefit rather than a pension.
In the Tasmanian scheme the lump sum benefit is 31.5 per cent for each year in office and the contributions to that scheme are made up by a government contribution of 22.5 per cent and a member's contribution of 9 per cent. So, for an overall larger benefit they pay rather more. All other parliamentary schemes are for indexed pensions, so it is difficult to make a direct comparison; but I think there is no doubt in most members' minds that an indexed pension scheme is probably a more generous one than this kind of lump sum benefit that we are seeing.
Mr Stevenson, of course, has made the point, as he said, that members walk away with some benefit on 16 February if they are not elected, and he knows that that is not the case. Members will not be walking away with anything other than a rollover amount that they can invest in another fund.
Mr Stevenson: What if they are 55 and retiring?
MS FOLLETT: Provided that they are not over 55 and retiring.
Mr Duby: Exactly the same entitlement as they would have got if they were public servants and they retired at 55, you twit.
MS FOLLETT: I should like to say that that is, as Mr Duby says, a very similar arrangement to that which applies to public servants. In fact, I have such an arrangement as a previous public servant and I do not see that this scheme is in any way excessive.
I accept that Mr Stevenson is determined to paint it in that way. I accept that he has every right to do that; but I would like him to be accurate and I would like him to be responsible in his comments, because I think it is quite clear that all members here, and the community generally, consider that workers are entitled to superannuation, whether those workers are parliamentarians or any other class of worker. It is a reasonable thing to make provision for their retirement and their old age.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to mention that Mr Stevenson made an assertion that under the death and/or invalidity benefits provisions of this Bill a person would gain a benefit of $412,000. I would like to point out that under the provisions there Mr Stevenson appears to have assumed that death or total invalidity, total incapacity,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .