Pension Indexation Campaign
What is this campaign about?
Commonwealth superannuation pensioners, (former Commonwealth public servants and former Defence Force personnel) have their superannuation pensions indexed by the CPI, an indexation tool abandoned more than a decade ago for other Government funded pensions.
This issue affects almost 350,000 senior Australians whose average pension is now less than the married rate of Age Pension of just under $25,000. These are senior Australians living in every State and Territory.
SCOA, (Superannuated Commonwealth Officers’ Association), DFWA (Defence Force Welfare Association) and ACPSRO, (Australian Council of Public Sector Retiree Organisations), the peak Commonwealth and State public sector retiree organisation representing more than one million Australians, have long campaigned for a fairer method of indexation of Public Sector and Defence Force Pensions.
My involvement in this campaign
Since at least early 2004, I have had many meetings and made many representations on this issue as have some other parliamentary colleagues.
On 26 June 2008 the Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law, Senator the Hon Nick Sherry, announced the implementation of the 2007 ALP election commitment to review the indexation arrangements for Australian Government superannuation schemes. The Matthews Report and its recommendations are under government consideration, and an announcement is expected soon.
However, to support and further this campaign, and with the support of SCOA particularly, I am setting up this interactive campaign website.
I thank SCOA for the following information.
Justification for our campaign to change the method of indexation :
This campaign began soon after two Senate committees recommended, in 2001 and in 2002, that these pensions be indexed in line with the method used for Age pensions and other government pensions — that is indexation based on both MTAWE (Male Total Average Weekly Earnings) and to the CPI, whichever is the greater.[2] The Howard Government, with Senator Minchin as its spokesman, firmly resisted all calls for parity, alleging against all evidence that those affected were not disadvantaged by the use of the CPI only. The Senate Committee on Community Affairs also recommended in its March 2008 report on “cost of living pressures on older Australians” that these Commonwealth superannuant pensioners have their pensions indexed in line with the indexation of the Age Pension[3].
In the decade since the method of indexation changed for the Age Pension and other Government funded pensions, these have rightly increased by 51% - Commonwealth superannuation pensions have increased by 29%.
What Do They Want?
Those affected are asking for the community standard for indexing most other Government funded pensions, i.e. they want their pensions indexed by the same percentage increase as applies to the Age Pension. They are not asking for special or favoured treatment nor are they asking for catch-up to compensate for the significant erosion in their standard of living already suffered due to the long running use of CPI indexation.
The campaign will not go away. There will be no rise in these pensions this July, (2009) just as there was no rise in July 2007 due to negative movements in the CPI.
What will Fair Indexation Cost?
The view of the organisations representing those affected is that to commit to this change would not involve future Governments in unaffordable expense. We are talking about income justice for those who receive defined benefit 1922 Act, CSS, PSS and Defence superannuation pensions. Government changes to the superannuation structure have made these defined benefit schemes obsolete, and because of this it is a decreasing liability in the long term.
For more information, see our post on What will Fair Indexation Cost.
A Fair Go:
Those affected say that they have served Australia by protecting Australia and what it stands for, or by developing and delivering successive Governments’ programs in Australia and abroad. In return they justifiably want the Government to protect their standard of living in retirement – a standard of living that has already been significantly eroded.
[1] Senate Community Affairs References Committee, A hand up not a hand out: Renewing the fight against poverty, Report on poverty and financial hardship, March 2004. Recommendation 11of this report is: That the Commonwealth Government:
- consider increasing the base rates of allowances to the level of pension payments and that these payments be indexed to 25 per cent of MTAWE; and
- consider the feasibility of introducing this reform by 2005.
[2] Senate Select Committee on Superannuation and Financial Services, A ‘Reasonable and Secure’ Retirement? The benefit design of Commonwealth public sector and defence force unfunded superannuation funds and schemes, April 2001,
The Senate, Select Committee on Superannuation, Superannuation and standards of living in retirement, Report on the adequacy of the tax arrangements for superannuation and related policy, December 2002.
[3] Senate Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee on Community Affairs – “A decent quality of life” – Inquiry into the cost of living pressures on older Australians – March 2008.
27 Comments
Reply | Subscribe
Hi Kate
Thank you very much for setting up this website and lending your voice. It is very much appreciated.
For those of us who took our pensions as a percentage of our salary at the time of retirement we have well and truly regressed. Our pensions are now a smaller percentage of the salary of the job level that we retired at.
If the Commonwealth Government is genuine about its desire to be a good and fair employer, as I believe it is, then I am sure the situation will be properly addressed. If not, Mr Rudd, Mr Swan, Mr Sherry and now Mr Bowen will only be continuing to add to the bucket load of cynicism already out there with the great unwashed.
Thank you for this. We have already contacted the office of the new Minister for Superannuation, Hon Chris Bowen, to alert them to our particular interest in ComSuper and Defence Force pensions and the issue of indexation. We will be urging them to address the issues of the Matthews report as soon as possible.
Dear Senator Lundy,
A mighty fine initiative and a nice five minute introductory video.
As always though, the proof will be in walking the good walk as distinct from talking such a good talk. There may well be a lot of mulling going on amongst your colleagues, but it is probably matched by as much teeth-gnashing and hair-pulling over the prosepct of open government as well.
It beggars belief that such a large group of the population have been so badly mistreated for so long, by one and all, and the only reason governments get away with it is that the public servant mentality never really dies, especially amongst the ex-military, where we continue to serve the best interests of the country by being screwed by it. After more than 22 years service in the Army my so-called pension is treated as the nonsense it is and only marginally ’supplements’ my mortgage payments. Thankfully I have found better paying employment in my second life, along with a pension scheme that will provide adequately for my eventual full retirement, but that doesn’t obviate the need for social justice for those who followed me.
And why wouldn’t we agitate for the full 10-year catch up percentages to be applied? It would be a fraction of the cost of the stimulous packages, and provide that very social justice I mentioned earlier to the most deserving of recipients in the Australian community? However the massive cynicsim that pervades the 350,000 affected retirees will remain strong as ever until that good walk is seen to be taken.
Good luck with your efforts – good luck to us all!
regards
If as reported, Mr Rudd believes in evidence based policy, one wonders why, after three separate Senate inquiries, all noting that C’wlth. and Defence superannuant pensioners “are having their living standards eroded through the use of the CPI alone…..”, this Government saw the need for yet a further inquiry.
Be that as it may the many thousands affected are understandably even more annoyed that the Government is yet to announce its decision regarding the fourth review which was undertaken by Mr Trevor Matthews; a review that commenced eight months later than promised during the election campaign. The Matthew’s report has been with the Government since the end of 2008. Fair shake of the sauce bottle Mr Rudd!
Now of course the ball has been passed to Lindsay Tanner. Wonder who it will be passed to next. Sir Humphrey would be proud! When they get voted out at the next election they have ready made jobs with the Wallabies or Socceroos.
Give me a break!
When you ring the Minister’s office, as I did, all you get is “the issue is being considered at the senior government levels”, whatever that means – gobbledegook frankly.
Just put us out of our misery Lindsay. Just tell us to go do a bungee jump, and eat cake on the way down!!
The problem with initial indexation to final slaary is that it takes no accou8t fo hwo community standards and salaries change in subsequent years. There is no question that simple CPI adjustments at best lock in the purchasing power of that original pension and take no account of changes in eral wages or community stnadards subsequently. It is encouraging that the Harmer Report specificxaly flags the inadequacy of simple indexation (other than as a safety net) and instead stresses the importance of benchmarking to actual current community standards.
Visitors to Senator Lundy’s web site may be interested in the following two letters I recently had published. The letter headed “Pensioners’ Plight” apperaed in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian Financial Review several weeks ago and the other, “Selective criticism of super unjust” appeared in the AFR yesterday, 17 August.
John Coleman
Indexation Campaign Manager
Superannuated Commonwealth Officers’ Association
Canberra
##################################################################
Pensioners’ Plight
The more than 300,000 senior Australians relying on a Commonwealth superannuation pension will no doubt be hoping that Julia Gillard displays the same sentiment for them as she rightly has for lower paid members of the Australia workforce who were recently granted no wage increase by the Fair Pay Commission. Ms Gillard has stated her disappointment with the Commission’s decision for those Australians who are doing it tough because they live on minimum wages. She said that the Government had asked in its submission to the Commission that it award a considered pay rise to low income workers.
Commonwealth superannuation pensions, which average less than the married rate of Age Pension, are indexed by the CPI. They were not increased in July due to so called negative movements in the CPI for the six months ended 31 March 2009. They were not increased in July 2007 for the same reason.
There have already been three separate Senate Committee Inquiries into this matter dating back to 2001. All three recommended that a fairer, wage-based pension index be used as it is for the Age Pension and most other Government funded pensions. Despite this, the Government somehow saw the need to hold yet a further review and appointed an actuary to review what had has already been reviewed to death. The findings of that review have been with the Government since last December; surely sufficient time in which to decide on its findings.
These people will be relying on Julia Gillard to influence the Government to demonstrate the “fairness” and “decency” Mr Rudd repeatedly promised during the last election campaign. They are not seeking special or favoured treatment only a fair go or dare I say, a “fair shake of the sauce bottle.”
John Coleman
Indexation Campaign Manager
Superannuated Commonwealth Officers’ Association
Canberra
###################################################################
Selective criticisms of super unjust
Vincent Mahon’s “No examination of inequitable two-tier super”, (August 5) is a failed attempt to claim that those who have served successive Governments and proudly served this country as a member of the Defence Force are not deserving of a reasonable pension in retirement.
If Mahon thinks that commonwealth superannuation schemes are so great, he needs to look at all the features of the schemes he is criticising and not simply select the one or two that suit his position. He fails to mention that commonwealth superannuant pensioners pay tax on their super whereas members of taxed funds pay no tax on reaching age 60.
Further, any non super income commonwealth superannuation pensioners receive is taxed at full marginal rates, but not so for members of taxed schemes because it is not added to their superannuation income to determine the tax rate payable.
This inequitable treatment exists because Governments have failed to make super contributions to a super fund from which to pay commonwealth super pensions – a decision that severely discriminates against those who have contributed significantly to this country and one that no other employer is allowed to make.
As to how commonwealth superannuation pensions are indexed, Mahon was again very silent. Had he bothered to write a balanced letter he would have acknowledged that commonwealth superannuants’ pensions are indexed by the consumer price index, a method justifiably discarded for indexing the age pension more than a decade ago.
In that time the age pension has rightly increased by more than 50% whereas the pensions he claims are so great have risen by a little more than half that amount.
Perhaps he is also ignorant of the fact that for about 30 years superannuation returns for private, non defined benefit schemes have averaged 5% more than the CPI. Commonwealth super pensioners received no increase in July 2007 nor in July this year – Now, that is inequitable. By the way, three separate Senate inquiries have recommended that these pensions be more fairly indexed.
Mahon should also remember that the average pension paid from the superannuation schemes is less than the married rate of age pension and mostly supports both members of a couple.
John Coleman
Vice President
Superannuated Commonwealth Officers’ Association
I have just been told that the Matthews report and the Governments response will be released withing the next few days.
Following is the Superannuated Commonwealth Officers’ Association’s media release regarding the Government’s announcement today that it will not be providing fair indexation for its former employees and former members of the Defence Force. We have alreday been contacted by the Fairfax Media Group and the Canberra Times.
The decison is bitterly disappointing and is totally at odds with the expectations Mr Rudd and many other Labor MPs created in the lead up to the last election.
SCOA wish to advise the Government and those affected by its decision that we will not go away on this issue and that Mr Rudd’s broken promises of fairness will be remembered. Rest assured that this fight is far from over.
John Coleman
Indexation Campaign Manager
Superannuated Commonwealth Officers’ Association
*******************************************************************
Superannuated
Commonwealth
Officers’
Association Inc.
PO Box 107
MAWSON ACT 2607
Phone: (02) 6286 7977
Fax: (02) 6286 7999
E-mail: fedoffice@scoa.asn.au
ABN: 66 313 469 900
MEDIA RELEASE
RUDD’S FAIRNESS FARCE
Dr Annette Barbetti, Federal President of the Superannuated Commonwealth Officers’ Association, (SCOA) said that today’s announcement by the Government to deny its former employees and former members of the Defence Force fair pension indexation was unjust and did not match the expectations created by Mr Rudd during the 2007 election campaign.
The Government’s decision comes from the findings of its sponsored review of Commonwealth superannuation pension indexation last year by Mr Trevor Matthews, a private actuary. Those affected will be outraged, Dr Barbetti said, when they learn that Government MPs making the decision will have their pensions adjusted by increases in Parliamentary Salaries and Allowances while denying their former employees fair, wage-based pension indexation. The CPI as an indexation tool was rightly discarded more than a decade ago for the Age Pension and most other Government pensions by the former Government with Labor’s full support.
Pensions of Commonwealth superannuants average less than the married rate of Age Pension. Due to the continued use of CPI indexation, recipients of those pensions have had their standard of living significantly eroded. They received no increases in July 2007 and July this year due to so called negative movements in the CPI. Other Government pensioners rightly received increases, she said.
Dr Barbetti said that during the 2007 election campaign Mr Rudd and many other Labor MPs criticised the Coalition for its failure to implement the findings of three Senate Inquires, all recommending fairer indexation. This had created a great expectation that, if it won office, Labor would put an end to the discriminatory treatment of its former employees. Mr Rudd’s promises of a fair go for all Australians prior to the last election have not been honoured and those affected will no doubt remember those broken promises, Dr Barbetti said.
The more than 300,000 senior Australians affected by this most unjust decision have faithfully served successive Governments or as Defence Force members, proudly served Australia and what it stands for, she said. They are not seeking special or favoured treatment, only the fair go Mr Rudd promised prior to the election.
Dr Annette Barbetti
Federal Secretary
Superannuated Commonwealth Officers’ Association
Canberra Ph 02 6241 4579 0407 262 404 (m)
Couldn’t agree with your sentiments more John. Politicians – hypocritical as ever!
It’s bitterly disappointing to know the outcomes of the Matthews Review on the Superannuation Pension Indexation issue which have just been released by the Government. The Report denied justice to the Commonwealth Superannuants totally on an issue in which they were not seeking any special or favoured treatment, only the fair go which the then Leader of the Opposition (currently the Prime Minister) promised prior to the last federal election.
In view of the previous assurances of fairness on the indexation issue, it’s unthinkable that the Rudd Government can commit such an injustice to the Superannuants now by accepting the Matthews Report so happily. The outcome of the Report and the “tone” in which the Rudd Government (Mr Tanner) has accepted the Report through a Press Release(refer to the Press Release 52/2009 dated 21 August 2009 from Mr Tanner’s Office),it appeared that this very “Matthews Review”, as if, was just meant for the purpose of “killing off” the favourable recommendations of the prior three separate Senate Committee Inquiries into the pension-indexation issue (dating back to 2001). As may be mentioned here, all three Inquiries recommended earlier that a fairer, wage-based pension index be used as it is for the Age Pension and most other Government funded pensions. How come the outcomes of the Matthews Report ( a single Review) are just the opposite to all three prior reviews?
It’s also distressing to note that some of the languages used in the above-mentioned Press Release as well as in the Report itself are even somewhat insulting for the Commonwealth Superannuants who were just fighting for their legitimate claims in order to establish fairness for their cause.
In view of the above,all right-thinking MPs and Senators, the media and Prime Minister himself be approached immediately so that the injustice being committed by the current Government to the Superannuants can be reversed soon.
At the end, may I now ask one interesting question? Since the Matthews Report has determined that pension indexation based on CPI is the best method available to protect pensions against inflationary price increases and the Government very happily accepted that determination, is the Rudd Government going to revert back all other pension schemes (such as, the pension of MPs, where wage-based indexation is followed)to the CPI-based indexation? Otherwise, THIS WILL AMOUNT TO A TOTAL MOCKERY OF JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT.
Given the imminent release of the PBLCI why didn’t Mr Tanner indicate the use of this Index under Recommendation 4?
Exactly. See the letter written to Minister Tanner from Senator Lundy. Mike Kelly, Bob McMullan and Annette Ellis on
http://www.katelundy.com.au/2009/09/15/letter-to-minister-tanner-about-comsuper/
And note the new place for comments: developing-a new-direction-for-the-campaign (see below).
Hi Kate
I would like to see a ‘catch up’ payment for DFRDBF and Commonwealth Superannuation, then indexation for future adjustment by MATAWE or CPI whichever is the greater.
The current Government has primed the economy with big payments and successfully avoided an economic downturn in Australia. I suggest that now is the time to attend to those who have been losing value by inadequate indexation methods.
Regards Jim Wain
Please read the below from The Minister of Veterans Affairs. He states:
“the new Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index (PBLCI) more realistically reflects the rise in cost of goods and services for pensioners”
If it is more realistic for pensioners and veterans, WHY, do they continue to discriminate against superannuates?
“The Government is also simplifying the complex system of allowances and paying new supplements fortnightly,” Mr Griffin said.
Indexation of income support has improved as the new Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index (PBLCI) more realistically reflects the rise in cost of goods and services for pensioners.
In the six months to June 2009, the PBLCI rose by 1.0 per cent. The Consumer Price Index rose by 0.6 per cent over the same period.
Life was not meant to be easy and probably life was not meant to be fair. A few days ago the acting PM Julia Gillard announced a 3% salary increase for Federal Politicians and they obviously deserve it due to the “Unique Nature of Political Service” This increase will flow on to members of the Parliamentary Contribution Superannuation Scheme as their indexation is linked to parliamentary salaries. Next it will be the Federal judges pension scheme and their indexation is linked to judicial salaries. Does anyone calculate the cost of these “flow-ons” or are they just accepted as being fair and just. Mr Matthews certainly covered the cost of indexation changes for former government employees.
When will Mr Tanner answer Kate’s letter, when will Mr Rudd do something to demonstrate the fairness that was touted so much prior to the last election.
Bilson never got around to releasing the “Podger” review and Mr Tanner sat on the “Matthews” review for months. Are the same delaying tactics being applied to Kate’s letter.
As a large group who have found over the years that life is neither easy or fair we must continue to make sure all politicians are aware of our dis-satisfaction. Continue to write letters and encourage others to do the same. This site is a good option and I thank Kate for her support but we probably won’t solve our grievances by this method alone.
Good point Neil. We will use it.
And Jim, to be fair, the Matthews Report was held without response for many months by the former Minister Nick Sherry, and released relatively soon after Minister Tanner became the responsible Minister.
But Senator Lundy and this office share the frustrations firstly with the delay, and now with the outcome. So with the backing of the organisations most affected, we are closing these websites, and concentrating in our new one on mounting a challenge to the Matthews report and, through this, continuing the campaign for fairer indexation. This issue will definitely not be dropped!
Go to: http://www.katelundy.com.au/2009/09/07/developing-a-new-direction-for-the-campaign
HI Consie
Here is the link to the Ministers Media Release
http://minister.dva.gov.au/media_releases/2009/sep/VA084.pdf
The Defence Force Welfare Association’s formal response to Matthews has been release – please see http://www.dfwa.org.au (whats new).
IN SUMMARY:
We welcome Mr Matthews’ acceptance, and the Government’s unqualified endorsement, of the longstanding fundamental premise that the purpose of indexation should be to maintain the purchasing power of military superannuation pensions.
But we are extremely disappointed by the Review’s superficial analysis of the available evidence and by the report’s lack of depth, which led to deeply flawed conclusions. The conclusions do not support the Review’s fundamental premise.
Today’s CPI or even the new post-Matthews PBLCI do not of themselves protect pension purchasing power. We are also disappointed by the Government’s endorsement of a demonstrably
flawed report.
As the response demonstrates, an indexation method including the CPI together with an outlays based living cost index such as the Pensioner Beneficiary Living Cost Index (PBLCI) and reference to a wages based index such as the MTAWE (effectively tied to movements in the CPI or PBLCI or MTAWE, whichever is the greatest) is fair, equitable and reasonable. This method would
help protect the purchasing power of military superannuation pensions as it does for today’s welfare pensions. We seek no more and no less than this for military superannuants.
Importantly, we do not seek a generous indexation method tied to today’s military salaries even though certain other Commonwealth superannuation pensions are very generously tied to today’s
parliamentary and judicial salaries.
We recognise that pension purchasing power protection comes at a cost. But the Government pays this cost for welfare pensioners and exceeds it significantly for certain other Commonwealth
superannuation pensioners. The Government cannot continue to discriminate against Australian Defence Force members, its former members, and their families, on grounds of cost.
We believe unequivocally that the Government has the strongest of grounds to:
• Review its endorsement of the Matthews Report,
• Request the Australian Government Actuary to generate long term liability and related figures upon which all parties can rely, and
• Concurrently and without further delay introduce a fair indexation method that maintains the purchasing power of all military superannuation pensions.
Noting that the Government is still considering the Review of Military Superannuation Arrangements, we look forward to early discussions with you or with the Government’s representative on the Government’s plans to protect the purchasing power of Australia’s military superannuation pensioners.
Kate,
It is not only superanution issues, it is also the non increase of disability pensions paid under DVA. The legislation provides for increases linked to male average weekly earnings, but this was ignored in contrivence of the minister and the former President of the RSL. Something shoud be done about this also.
You are right. In choosing the method of indexation as the major target for initial campaigning for fairer ComSuper and Defence pensions, Senator Lundy does appreciate the complexity of the many related issues which need to be addressed. SCOA and DFWA have done a lot of good work in identifying these issues. [Check their websites too for updates].
For Matthews to claim that we should not receive productivity increases because we are no longer in the workforce is a gross insult. Old Age pensioners are not treated with such contempt and more to the point, those receiving lucrative parliamentary pensions with outrageous perks for life are not either. In fact, many are double dipping by accepting highly paid employment, particularly those who are in the “jobs for the boys/girls” club. There seem to be unlimited funds for this to occur, but we are expected to believe that the country cannot afford to grant us fair indexation. This is a classic case of double standards which we thought would end with the demise of the arrogant Howard government, particularly when the PM seemed so sincere about a “fair go” for ALL Australians.
Well said Peter!
Mr Rudd is guilty of Treason
For the past 27 years successive governments and six senate reviews have failed to do anything about the indexation of military superannuation schemes. Schemes that were taxed during compulsory contribution, and taxed when retrieved as a benefit. The schemes have always been indexed against the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which according to all analysts (including our own Bureau of Statistics), is “not an appropriate purchasing power or cost of living measure.” This was recognised by the government, and the politicians and aged pensions were adjusted to the CPI or the Male Total Average Weekly Earnings (MTAWE), whichever was the greater. Politicians went one step further and factored in the salary of a back-bencher, so anytime they wanted an increase in their pension, they simply had to give the poor struggling back-benchers a pay rise.
To put this in context here is a graph of the indexation of old-aged pensions, politicians and military pensions over the last 20 years. The figure are even worse if you take the full life of the superannuation schemes into account.
Over that period of time the military pensions are only worth just under 50% of level of MP pensions, and around 40% below aged pensions. That places extreme hardship on the people that have dedicated their freedom, and even their lives for the security of our nation. The Australian lifestyle that we all enjoy, and now take for granted. The irony here is the people that worked the hardest for our freedom are being discriminated against, and receiving the least benefit.
During the last election Mr Howard and Mr Rudd both threw around the term “fair go” in the election campaign. What makes Mr Rudd different is the Labour Party wrote to the Defence Force Welfare Association in 2007 and expressed concern…
“Labor believes that defence superannuation is a vital factor in the nation’s ability to recruit and retain talented and capable people for the Australian Defence Force. It is also a key entitlement for ex-service personnel. … … … there is clearly much more to be done to address a range of longstanding issues in defence’s superannuation. Issues of great concern to the defence and ex-service community include indexation …”
That got him a lot of votes. Also Mr Rudd on 8th September, 2008 made this speech…
“…. the first responsibility of government is the security of the nation. And it follows therefore that government has a particular responsibility towards those who have worn the nation’s uniform. Because there is in my view no higher calling than to wear the uniform of Australia.”
What makes me feel really sick is when I see news footage of Mr Rudd giving our soldiers serving on the front-line in Afghanistan or Iraq a pat on the back for the great job they are doing, all the while knowing full well that he will not support them later in life. By any definition that is a betrayal of a trust, and hence treachery.
Every day that goes by ex-military pensions fall further behind the rest of the nation. If it is good enough for the Judges, Politicians and even the 3.3 million aged pensioners to use a salary based indexation method, then it should be good enough for 63,000 ex-military personnel.
Australia has built a fighting force that is the envy of many countries around the world, but soon the energies of the ex-military will again come together for another fight, not with guns or bullets, but using our own system of democracy. Should Mr Rudd fail to honour the trust we have shown him , then besides a High Court challenge over the taxing of our pensions, there will be another party that will contest the next federal election. I have to note that Senator Steve Fielding has joined other politicians in our fight, and his very accurate comments in the Senate on the 18 November 2009 are welcomed.
How about giving us a fair go Mr Rudd?
Labour Ministers keep saying that they cannot afford changes to military and commonwealth superannuation indexation. Amazing that they have now found $25(mill) to help resettle Taliban who have been killing and keep trying to kill Australian soldiers fighting in Afghanistan. This is a direct insult to any veteran who has served in a war zone. IMAGINE WHAT IT DOES FOR THE MORALE OF TROOPS CURRENTLY SERVING IN THAT COUNTRY.
Time to stop the spin Mr Rudd.Remember the old saying, “Charity begins at home”. It also shows how you really feel about Australian veterans.
Kate
Tis time for me to inject myself into the milsuper debate once more…
You’ll find me at http://www.qmig.net/milsuper
Copy of mass distributed email through the usual veteran’s forums encl
I’m hopeful that the Government will bite the bullet and extend an olive branch of an equivalent of age pension indexation to milsuper beneficiaries rather than allow this to become a burning political issue in the marginal seats (amongst others) campaign
It’s much the same issue that CPSU fought the Government with PSSAP and a pragmatic solution can only help the Government in the upcoming elections
Ciao
All
At the risk of identifying myself, it is timely to inject myself into the superannuation debate once more
I returned to Australia from deployment last week and what I thought were the usual tummy problems one has on deployment or the side effects of the usual medication one takes when one is deployed… turns out to be a terminal malignancy
I’m comfortable in a Defence hospital and will see out what little time I have left there…
The powers that be can swiftly identify me from this and no doubt will be aghast that I entered the debate – but I’d argue that a (previous) Minister of Defence endorses DFWA and the Chief of the Defence Force supports the work of the DFWA
In broad terms, my input has reflected much of the DFWA concerns and whilst perhaps could be deemed to be overtly political, I have clearly stated that I am apolitical and have merely striven to push viewers to enter the marginal seats campaign through DFWA
I’m also happy to admit that I have been in contact with DFWA for the life of my website and that the genesis of my website http://www.qmig.net/milsuper was what I consider to be a poor reply from the echelons of Defence…
You’ll know my focus has been on the proposed new military superannuation accumulation plan and I urge you not to drop the ball on this. Myself and others have grave fears that Dept of Finance will try and sneak this in with little or no consultation with the military or DFWA while many’s thoughts are focussed on the indexation issue
It’s subtle how the world works… but my thoughts are turning somewhat to the indexation issue particularly how this will affect my wife and children
Please remember there are a host of other problems with milsuper – from taxation issues to problems with DFRDB and many others and that you should be contacting DFWA to understand the breadth of the issues involved
The priority at the moment is the indexation issue – unless of course Dept of Finance seeks to ram through the proposed new military superannuation accumulation plan without adequate consultation with the military and DFWA – but perhaps not in the sense that this is a federal election year and there is much lost ground for the government to clawback without offending more large segments of the voting population
The federal election year and the marginal seats campaign makes the indexation issue winnable
It’s your last opportunity to make this happen and I take the view that there is only a final push needed
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again that DFWA provides the vanguard with this issue. Historically they (DFWA) are best placed to further the issue. You may not be aware that at the last federal election, DFWA targeted 16 marginal seats of which 15 changed hands and one hung on by the slimmest of margins
I urge you to join DFWA and volunteer your time and effort to help with the final push. I urge you to write to your federals MPs to tell them the depth of feeling that exists in the service and ex-service community
You will be aware that many of the veteran forums are asking you to vote last for the sitting member and his “opposition” counterpart second-last, but this does not help the debate and can only return the current government to power
I need you to be a part of the broad DFWA campaign by joining and volunteering your time and effort
I honestly take the view that this year is a watershed year where the debate can be resolved once and for all through either political lobbying and the marginal seats campaign – I would point out that many other federal seats can be deemed marginal by virtue of their demographics ie DVA pensioners, retirees, serving members etc
Those of you that read the veteran forums will know the political parties fear our lobby potential, you’ll know that there is a mini revolt within the political parties and that many politicians are wavering towards us
I’d remind you that whilst there is a party allegiance – many politicians are moving to the view that their first allegiance is to safeguard their seat which means a shift to us coming first !
Politicians are well aware of the DFWA input into the marginal seats campaign at the last federal election and are well aware of the potential of DFWA to cause a political upset at the upcoming federal election – indeed there is some pressure to resolve issues now
Again – this year is a watershed year – milsuper is a bellwether issue that can herald the downfall of the government or push them to resolve the issues prior to an election
There’s little else for me to say – it’s really up to youse – but I urge that you board the bus at DFWA and drive all the way to the end of the line
In fighting this campaign we old(er) service people should not forget the present generation of Defence personel, who are doing so well at a high level of intensity in current operations, particularly in Afghanistan. Like us, they are putting their lives on the line for Australia, at the behest of the Government – the same Government that refuses to agree to fair indexation for military superannuation pensions. This current generation of warriors, as much as those of us already out of the Defence Force, deserve to have the comfort of the knowledge that their superannuation pensions will maintain their purchasing power in retirement. It remains a continuing blight on our way of the fair go and Labor’s platform of fairness for all Australians that this is not yet the case.