The Sunday Star-Times has a beat-up article on MPs superannuaton scheme but it fails to mention the most crucial fact.
The Remuneration Authority when setting MPs salaries, does so on the basis of taking into account the total cost of an MP – including superannuation subsidies.
So the superannuation scheme is not an additional cost. If there was not such a scheme, then MPs base salaries would be up around $150,000 intead of the $122,500 they are. The cost of the super scheme is now effectively deducted from their base salary (both employer and employee contribution).
Now one can debate whether or not a backbench MP is worth $150,000, and that is a legitimate debate (I would point out this is a pay drop for most National MPs), but the issue of how much goes into superannuation vs salary is a red herring as both are set as part of a total remuneration calculation (which is the only sensible way to do it).No tag for this post.