Mr STIRLING - 1998-10-15
The Treasurer wants all public servants to pay $50 per year for superannuation services. He also wants to spend $60 000 to insulate highly paid public servants from the new superannuation charge imposed by the Howard government.
Will public servants be compensated with a pay increase to offset this new charge? Can the Treasurer confirm categorically that members of this Assembly, like everyone else, will pay the new $50 charge and will the Treasurer’s spending initiative benefit people like himself who take home $140 000 a year?
ANSWER
Can you say the first bit again. Your friend here has consumption or something, I couldn’t hear half your question.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy would you repeat the first part of your question.
Mr STIRLING: The Treasurer wants all public servants to pay $50 a year for superannuation services. He also wants to spend $60 000 to insulate highly paid public servants from the new superannuation surcharge imposed by Howard, clumsily, in your own words, yesterday.
Will public servants be compensated with a pay increase to offset the charge? Can the Treasurer confirm categorically that members of this Assembly, like everyone else, will have to pay the new $50 charge and will the Treasurer’s spending initiative benefit people like himself who take home $140 000 a year?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, it is amazing we have to focus on the negatives and even ...
Mr Stirling: We have to make sure you are not making the little people pay for us.
Mr REED: Well, the little people out there in the private sector who contribute to superannuation schemes, and indeed employees in accumulation schemes who work for governments in the states, or in most of the states, pay a management fee for their superannuation scheme. In relation to a new scheme to be introduced on 1 July, members will be required to pay a management fee. As a means of equity, in principal approval has been given by government to apply that fund management fee to existing schemes, and we’ll see how that progresses.
But the suggestion of highly-paid public servants being affected makes certain assumptions in relation to people’s income. The government took pro-active action to protect public servants from the 15% taxation surcharge, the superannuation levy, applied by the Commonwealth government. That is to say that if public employees find themselves in a position where the impost exceeds 15%, then government will protect them from that impost. I believe that the superannuation levy applied by the federal government is very clumsy. We are aware that the impact could inconvenience and disadvantage public servants. As a government, we have taken a responsible action, and I believe we are the first government in the country to do so. Others are still looking for ways to overcome the problem and the impost on their public sector employees.
This government has taken action to protect the contributors to the NTGPASS scheme, and we are proud of that. If the honourable member opposite thinks that public sector employees in the Northern Territory shouldn’t be afforded that protection, well, I leave it for him to go out and tell them that. If he thinks that public sector employees who contribute to the NTGPASS scheme shouldn’t be able to make voluntary additional contributions to their superannuation, then he can likewise go and tell them that he does not think that they should get the advantage from taxation benefits that would accrue if they made voluntary additional payments. Nor in fact, would they be able to benefit from the income, from the good returns, that the board of the NTGPASS scheme are achieving on contributors’ contributions.
We are very proud of having been able to enhance the superannuation arrangements for existing public service employees, more than 11 000 of them, and we are also very proud that we are able to put in place, from 1 July next year, an accumulation scheme which will match the best in the public sector across the country, which will provide good superannuation arrangements for future government employees as of that date. In addition, it will be fully funded and not incur a liability on future taxpayers and future governments. This is something you should be proud of, rather than trying to denigrate.
Will public servants be compensated with a pay increase to offset this new charge? Can the Treasurer confirm categorically that members of this Assembly, like everyone else, will pay the new $50 charge and will the Treasurer’s spending initiative benefit people like himself who take home $140 000 a year?
ANSWER
Can you say the first bit again. Your friend here has consumption or something, I couldn’t hear half your question.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy would you repeat the first part of your question.
Mr STIRLING: The Treasurer wants all public servants to pay $50 a year for superannuation services. He also wants to spend $60 000 to insulate highly paid public servants from the new superannuation surcharge imposed by Howard, clumsily, in your own words, yesterday.
Will public servants be compensated with a pay increase to offset the charge? Can the Treasurer confirm categorically that members of this Assembly, like everyone else, will have to pay the new $50 charge and will the Treasurer’s spending initiative benefit people like himself who take home $140 000 a year?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, it is amazing we have to focus on the negatives and even ...
Mr Stirling: We have to make sure you are not making the little people pay for us.
Mr REED: Well, the little people out there in the private sector who contribute to superannuation schemes, and indeed employees in accumulation schemes who work for governments in the states, or in most of the states, pay a management fee for their superannuation scheme. In relation to a new scheme to be introduced on 1 July, members will be required to pay a management fee. As a means of equity, in principal approval has been given by government to apply that fund management fee to existing schemes, and we’ll see how that progresses.
But the suggestion of highly-paid public servants being affected makes certain assumptions in relation to people’s income. The government took pro-active action to protect public servants from the 15% taxation surcharge, the superannuation levy, applied by the Commonwealth government. That is to say that if public employees find themselves in a position where the impost exceeds 15%, then government will protect them from that impost. I believe that the superannuation levy applied by the federal government is very clumsy. We are aware that the impact could inconvenience and disadvantage public servants. As a government, we have taken a responsible action, and I believe we are the first government in the country to do so. Others are still looking for ways to overcome the problem and the impost on their public sector employees.
This government has taken action to protect the contributors to the NTGPASS scheme, and we are proud of that. If the honourable member opposite thinks that public sector employees in the Northern Territory shouldn’t be afforded that protection, well, I leave it for him to go out and tell them that. If he thinks that public sector employees who contribute to the NTGPASS scheme shouldn’t be able to make voluntary additional contributions to their superannuation, then he can likewise go and tell them that he does not think that they should get the advantage from taxation benefits that would accrue if they made voluntary additional payments. Nor in fact, would they be able to benefit from the income, from the good returns, that the board of the NTGPASS scheme are achieving on contributors’ contributions.
We are very proud of having been able to enhance the superannuation arrangements for existing public service employees, more than 11 000 of them, and we are also very proud that we are able to put in place, from 1 July next year, an accumulation scheme which will match the best in the public sector across the country, which will provide good superannuation arrangements for future government employees as of that date. In addition, it will be fully funded and not incur a liability on future taxpayers and future governments. This is something you should be proud of, rather than trying to denigrate.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016