Judicial pensions
Matt Nippert reported:
Retiring Supreme Court chief justice Dame Sian Elias is leaving the role with a platinum-plated superannuation entitlement seeded with at least $3.3 million of public money.
That nest egg, likely worth millions more, comes from a uniquely generous super scheme that sees judges, including Elias, able to contribute up to five per cent of their salaries to a superannuation fund that is then topped up by $7.50 for each dollar they contribute.
ACT Party leader David Seymour said a similar, albeit less generous, scheme for MPs – seeing contributions from Parliamentarians matched with a $2.50 subsidy – was widely-considered to be gold-plated.
“I’ve long thought MPs superannuation was pretty generous, but, actually, it’s tidbits compared with a 7.5 times contribution matching,” he said.
It is an extremely generous scheme. It basically means that the total remuneration package for being a judge is 37.5% higher than their base salary. So what does this make the package for the senior judges:
- Chief Justice $718,438
- Supreme Court Judge $674,438
- President of Court of Appeal $674,438
- Court of Appeal Judge $633,188
- Chief High Court Judge $631,125
- High Court Judge $602,938
So definitely well paid jobs. However QCs and partners on top law firms would often be earning as much as that, if not more. So I’m not sure the total package is unreasonable.
What would be more transparent is to just increase the salaries by the amount of the super subsidy and abolish the super subsidy. Would cost the same, but people would see what the total cost is.