Page 1954 - Week 06 - Thursday, 8 June 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The government congratulates itself for having made tough decisions on superannuation, but it is not tough to slug future workers with inequitable imposts and we in the ACT are always in competition with the commonwealth for the best public servants. I suggest that a sliding scale be used to share the impact of lower government superannuation contributions. Existing members could have their government contributions reduced by a set percentage per year and new entrants could start on nine per cent and have their government contribution increase by a set percentage each year until the overall superannuation debt stabilises at an affordable level.
Everyone would end up on a higher rate than nine per cent because existing members would be paid less and there would always be new entrants who received less as they worked their way up from the base figure of nine per cent. That would provide an incentive for workers to remain with the ACT public service. Also, older members would tend to be on higher salaries, so the savings from paying them a few percentage points less would result in significant savings. Of course, you always have to remember that this is not a practical measure while the commonwealth continues to pay higher rates of superannuation contribution.
The Chief Minister said that future generations will thank him for these measures, but it is existing superannuation fund members who should thank him. New members will surely curse him as they do the same work as their older colleagues for less. A similar scheme should apply to MLAs. Existing members have benefited the most from past financial irresponsibility. It is inequitable in the extreme that they not be called on to bear at least their share of the burden.
Superannuation funds should be spent in the local economy wherever possible. The multiplier effect this would have is obvious. We also should use a portion of our superannuation money to fund increased public housing stock. It is a good low-risk investment in anyone’s books. Bricks and mortar. The banks cannot get enough of it. Do not lose your nerve. The existing policy is sound. You just have to find some commitment to it.
Selling off high-value housing stock without replacing it to meet the demand would pander to the greed of property developers, shrink affordable housing, stratify communities into income brackets and lower the viability of the public housing program. Do not get rid of full rent paying public housing tenants. They help cross-subsidise other housing tenants. Why do you think private developers want to get their hands on these properties?
As I have said before, if the Greens were in power we would use the government’s market power in more directed and intelligent ways. Ratepayers are compelled to pay rates. This assured demand can be matched with the supply of a range of choices which offer savings to both the government and the ratepayer over the longer term. The government should use the economic levers at its disposal to influence behaviour.
Instead of just raising all rates by six per cent above inflation, though the projected revenue shows the figure as being even higher than that, why not offer a rebate for double glazing, efficient insulation, grey water use and solar passive construction? We would save on infrastructure costs, household expenses would decrease over time, and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .