|
Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [2.48 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the Police Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill. This bill essentially has three main parts. The first part is aimed at making changes to the way members of the Police Superannuation Scheme can make contributions to that superannuation fund. The changes will enable the police officers who are members of the scheme, which closed to new members in 1988, and employees covered by the Police Association Employees Superannuation Act 1969, to salary sacrifice their compulsory contributions to the scheme; that is, contributions from pre-tax salary.
Salary sacrificing provides tax benefits for compulsory superannuation contributions because it means contributions are taken from pre-tax salary and are therefore taxed at a lesser rate than if they were taken from after-tax salary. Potentially, about 3,700 police officers might benefit from this salary sacrifice. The Government expects the salary sacrifice system to be established by early 2008. The Opposition seeks a commitment that that will be the case. The Opposition also inquires why the changes to police superannuation, enabling police officers to salary sacrifice, were introduced now rather than earlier. We have waited a long time. The Government said that legislation was passed last year enabling members of the State Authorities Superannuation Scheme, which closed to new members in late 1992, to salary sacrifice.
The Government made the point that this piece of legislation, along with the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2007, will enable all members of defined benefit superannuation schemes to salary sacrifice their compulsory superannuation. The Opposition welcomes this legislation but again asks why this was not done sooner. The Opposition, along with the Government, also urges all members of defined benefit schemes to seek advice as to their salary sacrifice options. I note that recent commentators have pointed out that nationally superannuation contributions across the board would remain strong, with the main driver being Australia's near full employment and the rising participation of women in the work force. For this the Federal Government is to be applauded. I have said in this House before that the Premier and the Treasurer need some role models. I believe that John Howard and Peter Costello are perfect role models.
The shadow police Minister informed me that the New South Wales Police Association has been in negotiations with Government and Parliamentary Counsel to draft and approve these salary sacrifice provisions. Given this and the obvious benefits that can be attached to employees who salary sacrifice, the Opposition will not oppose these provisions. The Opposition was given little time to consider this legislation. Given the delay in the introduction of this bill, it is disappointing that the Government is now pushing it through the House. Opposition members need more information about the hurt-on-duty injuries medical expense provisions in the bill. As I do not want to delay the passage of this bill I will defer that matter and seek further clarification. I support the bill in principle but I reserve the right to seek further information prior to this matter being considering in the upper House.
Three points need to be understood about the second part of this bill. First, why has the Commissioner of Police been approving medical expenses in apparent contravention of legislation? Second, what are the additional costs of the proposed outsourcing arrangements? I believe that it is in the best interests of residents in New South Wales to understand the costs of anything that is legislated in this House. We need transparency in relation to that issue. Third, what is the current role of the Commissioner of Police in determining a legitimate medical retirement, and how will that role change? I do not question the integrity of the Commissioner of Police but I need to understand the origins and details of this process. Those issues will be dealt with in the upper House.
The third main element of the bill relates to clarifications to duties of office provisions of police officers when assessing when they are eligible for certain invalidity benefits. Legislation that was passed last year attempted to clarify that position. If officers cannot perform all the duties that they may be called upon to undertake, for example, running, tackling offenders, et cetera, they could choose to access their superannuation and seek discharge. The amendments in this bill seek to clear up a problem created last year. A recent ruling of the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission clearly shows that these amendments are necessary. I will read part of the court's ruling onto the record:
The court in this case accepted that different ranks within the police force can undertake the functions of a constable in different ways, relevantly by direct action or by planning or directing the action of others. The court further found that how the duties of a constable would be performed should be taken into consideration with the particular rank or office of the officer under consideration.
As such in this case it was found that any physical limitations of the officer in question, as a Superintendent at Deniliquin, were not an impediment to the completion of his tasks as they could have been delegated to a subordinate. This is a distinction in that the functions of a constable are not held to differ from applicant to applicant, but that the manner in which those functions may be performed will differ. Thus the functions of a constable are considered within the context of the performance of those functions being undertaken by a police officer in the position of superintendent.
As such the duties of office amendment in this act are introduced to overcome this obstacle, that being that those in senior roles and not acting as constables, will no longer be taken to be able to delegate such duties and thus be restricted from claiming superannuation payments on discharge from office arising from an inability to personally perform the functions imposed on all police officers by section 14 (1) of the Police Act 1990.
The Opposition supports that part of the bill. The Opposition also supports the other more technical aspects of the bill, which relate to clarifying the rights of executive officers who are members of the Police Superannuation Scheme. Executive officers continue to have the right to transfer benefits out of their scheme at all times. The Opposition supports these changes. Because of the recent budget, superannuation is a matter of great interest to me. I will reserve my comments and wait for the next piece of legislation to express concern about this Government's treatment of its public sector employees.
|
