MEDIA RELEASE

Nile Supports Improvements to Superannuation Legislation

The Rev Fred Nile has supported the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2006 before the NSW Parliament.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill, which amends various public sector and parliamentary superannuation Acts with respect to police hurt on duty benefits, police superannuation benefits, the making of salary sacrifice contributions, the determination of salary for superannuation purposes, and the nomination of the commencement of the payment of pensions. One of the main reasons for the legislation concerns the 1999 judicial decision in the case of Derrick Boland v SAS Trustee Corporation that determined, for the purposes of the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906, whether members of the police force hurt on duty were incapable of discharging their duties.

Those duties include the general duties imposed on all police officers and validate previous certificates given on that basis. This legislation will clarify the test of a former officer's eligibility for a hurt-on-duty pension, that is, whether he or she was infirm at the time of ceasing employment as a police officer. Without these amendments the Superannuation Trustee would apply a much less rigorous interpretation that could have significant cost implications for the Government. Two questions arise from this.

The Police Association is concerned that the bill may have an adverse impact on its members who seek a pension as a result of being injured on duty. While the association hopes that those members would have no trouble securing a pension, the Government is obviously concentrating on limiting the cost implications for its budget. Thus there is tension in this area. I ask the Minister for Justice to clarify the meaning of the term "actually infirm" when he replies to the debate. Is that term or the word "infirm" defined in the regulations or in the legislation?

I will illustrate my point to the House. A police officer injures his spine or knee on the job and is unable to perform his duties. However, because he can still stand there could be an argument as to whether he is "actually infirm". That officer is certainly unable to perform general policing duties, such as chasing criminals and other physical activities that are a necessary part of a police officer's role. Is that officer considered to be infirm because he cannot run? "Infirm" implies that a person is bedridden but a police officer does not have to be bedridden to be unable to perform his duties. An officer who is injured on duty should be eligible for a full pension. An injured officer who is pressured to resign will receive only 50 per cent of the full pension. Therefore, it is most important that officers who are physically impaired while serving the community and who can no longer perform general duties as a consequence receive a full pension even though they may not appear to be "infirm". I ask the Minister to clarify that definition. The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill.

The Hon. Tony Kelly (Minister for Justice, Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Lands, and Minister for Rural Affairs): I thank honourable members for their support of the bill and commend it to the House.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Will the Minister seek advice from the departmental officers as to the meaning of the word "infirm"? Can he supply a definition at a later time?

The Hon. Tony Kelly: Unfortunately, we cannot provide that definition immediately. I undertake to ensure that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile receives that information as soon as possible.