Adjourned debate on second reading.

 
  The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: The Democrats support the second reading, and I have only a few brief comments about the Bill. My office has made contact with the Public Service Association and I am informed that the PSA has no problems with the Bill. There had been some initial concerns, which have been overcome by the insertion of the notion of temporary disability. This has countered concerns about the number of employees who are forced off work on a tempo-rary basis and who can suffer financial hardship. A couple of months ago I was contacted by a member of the second of the three superannuation schemes that we have had in this State, the lump sum scheme, who was distressed to have discovered that, should she die (and she was a single parent) her child would receive a very small pension. In fact, I have checked and been informed that, while there would be a lump sum in the estate of $89 000 or thereabouts, the actual pension that would go to her child would be a mere 4.5 per cent of final salary.
 This woman was particularly incensed because she recognised that if she had left a spouse rather than a child the benefit would have been far greater. Because a child is only eligible to receive it for a relatively short time, the cost to the State is much less. I know that she was distressed about whether or not on her death there would be adequate pension for her child and, clearly, there would not be. This is an issue that I raised informally with the Treasurer a while ago, but I might just put the question on the record now and hope to receive an answer not necessarily during the debate over the next 24 hours but, I hope, within a short period of time. I would be interested to know what the impact on the cost of the scheme would have been if we had not been so miserly with that level of benefit.
 I must admit that this legislation went through at a time when I was in this place, although I do not believe that I was handling the Bill, but when I looked back at the Bill I realised that pensions were calculated by means of formulae, which are very complex. Not only are the formulae themselves complex but the terms, phrases and clauses that relate to them are also complex. Reading it with a lay person's eye, I do not think that I would have realised just how lousy was the benefit that would have been left to a child when a parent died. There is also the fact that, when there is no spouse, a child needs a great deal of support. This legislation did not pick that up at all. I note that the previous scheme would have left 10.5 per cent of final salary to an only surviving child, which was more generous, but I also note that, if a person becomes a member of the new SSS scheme that was intro-duced a few short years ago, there is no pension left at all on death; there is simply a lump sum.
 To a person joining the SSS scheme I suppose it is plain that there is no pension, only a lump sum. It is easy to understand, but I wonder how many members of the two older schemes realise just how little will be left to children (particularly if there is not a surviving spouse), and the implications of that, and whether or not in their ignorance they are perhaps not adequately covered, assuming that the scheme they were in gave them proper cover.
 I was putting to the Treasurer informally questions about how much it would have cost the scheme to be a little more generous to surviving children. My feeling is that, since it would have been for a limited number of years, the cost would not have been that great, particularly if it related to children where there was no surviving spouse. The Treasurer may care to respond to that, not necessarily at the end of the second reading stage or during the Committee stage, but in due course.
 
 The Hon. CAROLINE SCHAEFER secured the adjournment of the debate.
 

 
Site assisted by Intramedia Design