Just super: SA’s pollies licking their lips
Almost a year after his shock victory in the state election, Jay Weatherill seems almost politically unassailable.
With the confidence of gaining an outright majority in the House of Assembly, and the State Liberals encumbered by a desperately unpopular and politically tin-eared Federal Liberal Government, Weatherill is now rolling out the “big ideas”.
A nuclear industry, a new time zone, root and branch tax reform, even driverless cars – these are all issues that are up for discussion, although the reality is it will be a long time before we see any meaningful action on most of these topics.
On the weekend, Weatherill rolled out another “bold” plan – and it’s almost shocking how little heat it has generated.
He wants to restore the over-the-top superannuation scheme that former Labor leader Mark Latham killed off in 2004, when his announcement of opposition to the gravy train shamed the federal Liberals into following suit. South Australia also fell into line, putting new politicians on the same super footing as everyone else.
While the State Liberals have greeted Weatherill’s other, more serious, policy ideas with a mix of derision and cynicism, on this occasion they were suspiciously muted.
Liberal frontbencher Rob Lucas greeted news of Weatherill’s plan with a meek statement about the party room needing to consider the idea.
You might like
And it’s going to be a hard deal for MPs to refuse. The pre-2004 version of the super scheme gave backbenchers who served a minimum of six years a lifetime pension at more than 40 per cent of their working wage (scaling up with each subsequent month of service to a maximum of 75 per cent).
To see the full glory of the old scheme, go here.
So while the time zone idea was a “distraction”, and some of the ideas in the tax reform paper were met with implacable opposition from the state Liberals, the concept of giving politicians access to a retirement income of dazzling generosity is something that requires careful consideration.
Spare me.
The idea of reforming politicians’ pay was first flagged in last Tuesday’s Governor’s speech, but giving politicians a ridiculously bloated super scheme hardly sits comfortably with Weatherill’s bold policy agenda.
The Governor said Weatherill’s Government wanted to do more to attract the “best and brightest hearts and minds committed to public service”. So committed to public service, they need a guaranteed retirement bonanza? Hmmm.
Given the lucrative government and private sector jobs that so many of Weatherill’s vanquished colleagues have picked up after leaving Parliament, his decision to go hard on superannuation seems very strange.
His argument in comments to the Sunday Mail (he wasn’t talking about the idea today), was also that better super would limit the temptation of corruption.
Stay informed, daily
As Greens MLC Mark Parnell told InDaily this morning, if you’re the kind of person who’s tempted to make money by corrupt means, then a chunky super scheme probably isn’t going to deter you.
If Weatherill wants to improve the quality of candidates, he could perhaps first look to the Labor Party’s preselection processes, which have, over many years, thrown up some spectacularly untalented Parliamentarians.
Then, he could look at a flatter, more equitable salary scheme for MPs, giving them more in their pay packets, perhaps, but getting rid of bloated committee wages and perks (there’s no way, for example, that a parliamentary committee chairperson deserves a chauffeured car).
The fact that Weatherill sees this as an issue worth throwing into the mix – despite its likely unpopularity – says something about his self-perception of his political standing and indicates he knows how the Liberals will respond. [For the record, Weatherill and Lucas are both already on pre-2004, very lucrative versions of the super scheme.]
For South Australians who are opposed to our politicians receiving a massive superannuation boost, your options appear to be limited.
If the Liberals climb on board with Weatherill’s plan, there’s nothing that can be done. The Greens and a few other crossbenchers may oppose the measure, but their numbers won’t be sufficient to block the required legislative change.
Public pressure now is likely to be the only way to put a check on this plan.
Want to see more stories from InDailySA in your Google search results?
- Click here to set InDailySA as a preferred source.
- Tick the box next to "InDailySA". That's it.
