Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 2000 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

The answer to that question may lie in the presentation of the Treasury officials at the Estimates Committee hearing. The presentation of the Treasury officials at the Estimates Committee hearing talked about the employer cost associated with the CSS and the employer cost associated with the PSS, and then the impact on these costs of a so-called new superannuation scheme which would be based on the superannuation guarantee levy. So, instead of paying the provisions required under the current PSS scheme, we will have this new scheme based on the minimum that they could get away with under the superannuation guarantee levy.

Mr Osborne: Let us not do anything with superannuation. Let us keep on doing what you are doing.

MR WHITECROSS: Just listen.

Mr Osborne: Let us keep doing what the Labor Party has done, and when my children are old enough they are going to have a disgraceful problem because of you.

MR WHITECROSS: Just listen, Mr Osborne; you are going to learn something. Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, are you going to - - -

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: I cannot hear a thing.

Mr Osborne: Scaremongering!

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am listening to your wise words, Mr Whitecross.

Mr Osborne: Excuse me, Andrew.

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Whitecross has the call.

MR WHITECROSS: Thank you, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker. The Treasury officials presumably speak on behalf of the Government. After all, that is their job. They were talking about a so-called new superannuation scheme which is going to reduce superannuation benefits to the level of the superannuation guarantee levy - a dramatic cut in benefits to ACT government employees.

What do their own graphs show about the impact of this on the cost as a percentage of salaries costs for the employer? They show that it makes no difference to the peak in the cost as a percentage of salaries. In other words, this solution does not address the problem at all. It does not address the problem of the cost of superannuation as a percentage of salaries. Therefore, the benefits from doing this do not lie in reducing the cost to future governments in meeting superannuation provisions. Here we have the Treasury officials apparently advocating a reduction in superannuation entitlements for ACT government employees which will make no difference to the cost as a percentage of salaries in the 2020s. Of course, it will make a difference if you go far enough into the future.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .