Page 5849 - Week 18 - Tuesday, 10 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
and whenever it is in April that the result of this election is declared. I will not have the means to do it and I certainly will not be able to borrow, and I doubt that other members in my position would be able to.
I also emphasise the final point made by Mr Kaine. There is no automatic entitlement under these provisions to any extension of time. The person who might be in that position would have to come before the board and make a good case for being able to obtain some assistance in paying over a longer period of time. That, I think, is reasonable. It is not an automatic entitlement for any member who might wish to extend the period for payment.
I think it is entirely unreasonable of the Government to try to portray this as members grabbing for funds. No-one is grabbing for anything he or she is not entitled to on the basis of the superannuation entitlements conferred by this legislation. If we are to make a 5 per cent contribution, for goodness sake, give us a reasonable chance to make it in an appropriate time, not in circumstances where most members of the Assembly, other than government members, who are in a better position than others, simply cannot meet those arrangements.
MR DUBY (10.04): I would like to endorse the comments made by my colleague Mr Humphries and, of course, those of the Opposition Leader, Mr Kaine. I should put on the record in this debate that the original proposal by the Follett Government in 1989, taken up by the Alliance Government in 1991, was that this legislation would introduce a non-contributory superannuation scheme. Therefore, I, for one, have not put 5 per cent away for a rainy day or so that I could cover the superannuation when the scheme eventually did become law.
I think it was in September that we were advised that the superannuation scheme that was to be introduced by the Follett Government - and I am pleased to see it introduced - would be a contributory scheme and that it would be retrospective to May 1989. The comments that have been made, that members should have somehow foreseen the present proposal and put money aside to meet their requirements, are really a little unfair.
My reading of the legislation, particularly clause 13, is that it is an all or nothing contribution. You may contribute a percentage of all of the money you have earned since May 1989 or you may commence contributions as from the day the Act commences or from a future date from which you elect to start contributing.
Suppose that the amount of money required is $6,000 to $7,000 and a member saving prodigiously, as the Chief Minister says members should be able to do over the next 60 days, has been able to save only $5,000. That member is not entitled to pay that money in and receive a part benefit. That member has to pay the full amount. There is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .