Page 5847 - Week 18 - Tuesday, 10 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
ask, nor is it any of my business; but I can easily concede that, when it comes to it, some people may need to borrow a sum approaching $10,000. You can write it down; I will write it up a bit.
If one individual member of this Assembly has to borrow that money and the institution says, "In a week's time you could well be unemployed and I will not lend you that money", we are denying that member the right to a superannuation entitlement which we are writing into the Bill for everybody else in the Assembly - even Mr Whalan, who left nearly two years ago. I think that is an unfair prescription. It makes a judgment about whether people here are able to wave a wand and produce the money or not.
We are either putting in place a superannuation scheme that all present and future members of the Assembly are able to join or we are not. If we do not want to do that, we should write in a prescription that says that there is no backdating, there is no provision for anybody to buy back service beyond the day on which the Bill is put into effect and becomes an Act. Then you completely write out the likelihood of anybody incurring any difficulty.
I do not believe that it is unreasonable that we allow the board to make a determination in a particular case of hardship. I am not saying that it is going to be applied to every member of the Assembly or every applicant; but where there is a particular case of hardship the board should have the right to say, "We will give you another three weeks or another month", until people know whether they are employed or not and whether they can raise the money or not.
I find nothing that is offensive in that. I do not believe that it is in any way discriminatory in favour of anybody. In fact, if we do not do it, it may well be that we are being discriminatory against one or more members of this Assembly, and I do not think that is acceptable. For my part, personally it matters not a jot; but I have to have regard for the fact that other members may not be as fortunate as I am.
MR HUMPHRIES (9.59): I rise to support fully the remarks made by Mr Kaine. I want to make a few points. The Chief Minister says that there is no compulsion in these arrangements, and of course that is true. On the other hand, the offer made is a very compelling one. Members contribute 5 per cent of their salary for each year of service; they get that back plus 24 per cent. It is really very hard to imagine any member in his or her right mind not making an effort to make that contribution, if it is physically possible. I suspect that the only members who will not do so will be one member for ideological reasons and any others because they cannot raise that amount of money in the time available.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .