Page 2671 - Week 08 - Thursday, 24 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
government’s decision on superannuation. It certainly was a hard decision for this government to take. Of all the decisions reflected in this particular budget, this was perhaps one of the hardest and a decision, in an ideal world, that I would much prefer not to have made or not to be associated with.
It was and is, in my estimation, a decision that needed to be made, a decision that could not not be made and a decision that should have been made a decade or more ago, at a time when every other jurisdiction in Australia realised that it was simply not possible for states to maintain, consistent with their commitment to other priorities and other government services, a commitment to a superannuation rate of contribution of 15.4 per cent. It was a decision that was made by each of the states and the other territory government during the 1990s, except for Tasmania which was the last of the states to revert to a 9 per cent contribution. On that basis, that really should have been a decision that should have been made by the previous government.
Mr Mulcahy: It’s Trevor’s fault!
MR STANHOPE: A previous government. Every other government in Australia made this decision in the 1990s. Yet we felt, on the basis of the way in which we have always done business, that we somehow were that different that we could continue to contribute at a level which, in 20 years time, would have required the government of that day to find an additional $300 million to fund our liability, an increase of 700 per cent over and above the annual contribution which we currently fund. Every government from 1989 to today has known that that was going to be the level of contribution that needed to be made within 20 years.
We are now down to five more Assemblies. In five Assemblies time, the then Treasurer and the then government would be required to find, at that time, in just five Assemblies time, an amount equivalent to the sum total, for instance, of the amount we currently spend on public education. That amount would have to be found.
We can argue a whole range of issues, Mr Mulcahy, but I need to respond to your attempt, quite understandably, of course, in the cut and thrust, to suggest that this issue is an issue that this government is making. It is not. This is an issue which every government, I know, in their cabinet deliberations has discussed. The Liberal Party was in government for seven years and delivered, I think, six budgets. The Liberal Party, I know, would have discussed this issue at every single one of its budget cabinets and said, “No, we will not go there. That is another decision that we will leave to another government for another day.” You know that Mr Mulcahy, and I know it.
This government took the decision. It was a hard decision and a decision which a Labor government finds particularly hard, but it was unavoidable. In the context of the numbers we are talking about, it was a decision that simply could not continue to be put off. We could have put it off. I could have waited for another Assembly and another day, just as every other Assembly has done. I could have. I did not need to include it in this package of major reforms. I did not need to add to the injury and to the difficulty which government potentially faces. But then again communities want strong, rigorous leadership and integrity, and they are getting it. I know what the consequences of that will be at the next election.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .