The increase applies to politicians elected from 2004.
Wage and salary earners in Australia receive the minimum 9% in superannuation contributions. MPs willl aslo revceive 3-months redundancy pay if they lose preselection for their seat, or lose their seat at an election. Redundancy means that the employer is aboloshing the position - not giving it to someone else!
The statements from politicians arguing that the increase is justified have been invalid, and neglectful of every other working Australian.
- it brings the super contributions "into line with (federal) public servants.
If this is the standard, then why is it not applied universally? - One said "I don't consider that it is unreasonable to ensure that parliamentarians are properly remunerated"
Did she say that about ordinary Australians when she voted FOR Workchoices, knowing it was designed to give employees LESS! -
Government MP Steven Ciobo said inequalities would continue to exist even once Thursday's announcement was passed through parliament.
The inequality would exist because MPs elected prior to 2004 would continue to receive a more generous superannuation entitlement than Mr Howard's proposal of 15 per cent.
The argument here is invalid: "They got more than us; why shouldn't we get more, but not anybody else" - Mr Howard defense was that the changes had bipartisan support!
Again - an invalid argument - "we assert it's all right, so it is!" - Mr Beazley said it was "in line with community standards"
He's lying - the community standard is that people get 9% superannuation contributions. If politicians want to make it the community standard, they should do so, and increase the compulsory superannuation contributions to 15.4% for EVERYONE.
Posts
