Please add your ideas, suggestions and any relevant web links to the comments below. We will respond to your comments on this page, as will other interested parties.
Please note, that unless comments you read here are clearly marked as being staff from the office of Senator Lundy, then the comments are being made by other people in the general public.
Due to a change in the campaign direction, we would like you to please put new comments on the “New Directions for the Campaign” blog post. Thank you!
329 Comments
Reply | Subscribe
Keith, we may well replace Rudd, Lundy, Kelly etc. Who do we replace them with? I certainly wouldn’t fancy our chances with a Turnbull led government. Your first paragraph really says it all. They really don’t give a toss.
Looking at it from another angle. I am pondering what chance I would have by taking my case to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Court. After this last big noting by the government, RE: every other bastard’s pension and handout. I feel as if I am being discriminated against by my country and my government for wearing a Blue Suit for more than 20 years. This is my perception and I would be willing to state this in the appropriate forum.
Although I do not live in a marginal electorate seat, I have emailed my sitting member (Mike Kelly) and advised him that he has lost at least 25 votes at the next election. This comprises my wife and self, two adult children, two adult grandchildren, plus numerous friends and neighbours, all of whom are absolutely disgusted at our treatment at the hands of the present Labor government.
I pointed out in my email that marginal seat holders should be afraid, very afraid at the next election.
The following a letter as submitted to the Editor of the Canberra Times by Neil James.
He has given me permission to circulate his letter.
Ted McEvoy
—————————————————————-
Various correspondents have rightly criticised the inequity and hypocrisy of the Government retaining the CPI as the only index for Public Service and ADF superannuants, despite MPs and even welfare recipients long having much better indexation arrangements.
Both sides of politics continue to discriminate against Commonwealth superannuants because they do not fear an electoral backlash nationally (and can always whip up populist anti-APS feelings if they feel threatened).
Reforming the indexation inequity now means redirecting efforts employing the principle of war concerning concentration of force.
Retired and serving public servants and ADF personnel, and their families, are much stronger proportionally in the ACT than elsewhere.
Moreover, the ACT’s two Senate seats always split 50/50 between the two machine parties and both seats are contested at every half-Senate election.
The Superannuated Commonwealth Officers Association (SCOA) and the Defence Force Welfare Association (DFWA) should endorse two candidates in the ACT at the next Senate election – with the sole platform of getting the discrimination removed and with every voter advised to award their second preference to who they normally support.
Candidates should also be run in the two lower house seats to increase the Senate vote.
Even if the SCOA/DFWA candidates do not win even second place in the Senate primary vote, the overall protest vote would be a good basis to repeat the process every three years until reform occurs.
With sufficient effort and a disciplined and suitably non-partisan stance otherwise, such candidates would stand a reasonable chance of rolling the incumbent Liberal senator on preferences by winning a higher primary vote (for the Libs would be likely to preference such a candidate ahead of Labor and the Greens) . Same for Labor the other way and perhaps also the Greens. The aim would be to at least beat the Green vote and hopefully the Liberals.
However, an even better move strategically would be to challenge the complacency of Labor just assuming the public servant vote will always go to them (no matter how they behave) and directly seeking to take the Labor Senate seat as well.
Just the threat of SCOA/DFWA senators occupying a swing position in evenly balanced Senates would be a good incentive for Labor to end the discrimination before the following Senate election.
After the contempt shown for former and serving ADF and APS personnel by both major parties, surely the time has come to place our foot on the pollies’ jugular and begin to squeeze.
Neil James
I join those in a concerted effort to remove sitting members. My family and I will not support Labor or places that pollies attend especially Anzac Day with their words of platitude and praise and then go back to their ideological ways and ambitions and ignore those who survived. Just shows how far Kate is out of the inner sanctum how embarrassing not knowing what Tanner and also Macklin had up their sleeve. Kate may as well be in the Opposition. Who will stand up and rally at all Houses or offices throughout from the top to the bottom East and West. Shame!! Geoff
Thursday, August 27, 2009
‘Tis better to light one candle than to curse the darkness’ – Chinese proverb.
I believe we should acknowledge the efforts of Senator Lundy in providing this forum and reacting to the discussion by placing a ‘question on notice’, which ultimately lead to the Government lifting the lid on the Mathews Report decision (Pandora’s Box). Obviously unsavory decisions take longer to announce – a full eight months to agree with the ‘no change’ recommendations of the report!
For those who wish to do more than curse, I have extracted a list of the 57 (official) marginal seats from the 2007 election – 25 ALP, 29 LIB, 3 NP. There are also 41 ‘Fairly Safe’ seats.
There is an average population in each electorate of around 90,000. Because a marginal seat is only carried by less than 56% of the vote, around 5400 votes could change the seat – or at least get the attention of nominees. There are some 663,124 superannuates out there, and that could make a point. If you feel strongly enough about superannuation issues (not only indexation) you might like to whip up some support for the cause if you live there! Notice that Lindsay Tanner is in a marginal seat but maybe he is on his way out and is the ‘sacrificial lamb’. There are some other front-runners there as well, on both sides of politics.
Listed below are:
State, Electoral Division, prominent town (my comment of known military presence etc), Member’s name (Last, First), Party.
Source: Australian Electoral Commission records – my compilation.
NSW, Bennelong, Ryde, McKEW, Maxine, ALP
NSW, Cowper, Coffs Harbour, Retirement area, HARTSUYKER, Luke, NP
NSW, Dobell, The Entrance, Retirement area, THOMSON, Craig, ALP
NSW, Eden-Monaro, Batemans Bay, Retirement area, KELLY, Mike, ALP
NSW, Gilmore, Nowra, RAN, GASH, Joanna, LP
NSW, Greenway, Blacktown, RAAF, MARKUS, Louise, LP
NSW, Hughes, Holsworthy, Army, VALE, Danna, LP
NSW, Hume, Goulburn, SCHULTZ, Alby, LP
NSW, Macarthur, Camden, FARMER, Pat, LP
NSW, North Sydney, Lane Cove, HOCKEY, Joe, LP
NSW, Page, Ballina, Retirement area, SAFFIN, Janelle, ALP
NSW, Paterson, Nelsons Bay, RAAF, BALDWIN, Bob, LP
NSW, Robertson, Gosford, NEAL, Belinda, ALP
NSW, Wentworth, Bondi, Army, TURNBULL, Malcolm, LP
NT, Solomon, Darwin Airport, RAAF, HALE, Damian, ALP
QLD, Blair, Rosewood, Amberley RAAF, NEUMANN, Shayne Kenneth, ALP
QLD, Bonner, Mt Gravatt, REA, Kerry, ALP
QLD, Bowman, North Stradbroke, LAMING, Andrew, LP
QLD, Dawson, Mackay, BIDGOOD, James, ALP
QLD, Dickson, West Brisbane, Army/RAAF, DUTTON, Peter, LP
QLD, Fairfax, Sunshine Coast, Retirement area, SOMLYAY, Alex, LP
QLD, Fisher, Mooloolaba, Retirement area, SLIPPER, Peter, LP
QLD, Flynn, Longreach, TREVOR, Chris, ALP
QLD, Forde, Canungra, Army/RAAF, RAGUSE, Brett Blair, ALP
QLD, Herbert, Townsville, Army/RAAF, LINDSAY, Peter, LP
QLD, Hinkler, Bundaberg, Army/RAAF, NEVILLE, Paul, NP
QLD, Leichhardt, Cairns, TURNOUR, Jim, ALP
QLD, Longman, Caboolture, SULLIVAN, Jon, ALP
QLD, Moreton, Archerfield, Army, PERRETT, Graham, ALP
QLD, Petrie, Redcliffe, D’ATH, Yvette, ALP
QLD, Ryan, Indooroopilly, JOHNSON, Michael, LP
SA, Boothby, Pasadena, SOUTHCOTT, Andrew, LP
SA, Grey, Woomera, RAMSEY, Rowan, LP
SA, Hindmarsh, Adelaide Airport, GEORGANAS, Steve, ALP
SA, Kingston, McLaren Vale, RISHWORTH, Amanda, ALP
SA, Sturt, Athelstone, PYNE, Christopher, LP
TAS, Bass, Launceston, CAMPBELL, Jodie, ALP
TAS, Braddon, Devonport, SIDEBOTTOM, Sid, ALP
TAS, Franklin, Cygnet, COLLINS, Julie, ALP
VIC, Aston, Knox, Wantirna DSHomes, PEARCE, Chris, LP
VIC, Casey, Wandin, SMITH, Tony, LP
VIC, Corangamite, Geelong, CHEESEMAN, Darren, ALP
VIC, Deakin, Ringwood, SYMON, Mike, ALP
VIC, Dunkley, Mornington, BILLSON, Bruce, LP
VIC, Gippsland, Sale, RAAF, McGAURAN, Peter, NP
VIC, La Trobe, Boronia, WOOD, Jason, LP
VIC, McEwen, Seymour, Army, BAILEY, Fran, LP
VIC, McMillan, Warragul, RAN, BROADBENT, Russell, LP
VIC, Melbourne, Melbourne, Army/RAN/RAAF, TANNER, Lindsay, ALP
WA, Brand, Rockingham, GRAY, Gary, ALP
WA, Canning, Armadale, Fremantle RAN, RANDALL, Don, LP
WA, Cowan, Waneroo, SIMPKINS, Luke, LP
WA, Forrest, Bunbury, MARINO, Nola, LP
WA, Hasluck, Swan, JACKSON, Sharryn, ALP
WA, Kalgoorlie, Esperance-Broome, Army/RAAF, HAASE, Barry, LP
WA, Stirling, Scarborough, KEENAN, Michael, LP
WA, Swan, South Perth, IRONS, Steve, LP
Hi Bill,
In my previous post I said that my electorate (Eden-Monaro) was not a marginal seat. I was wrong, according to your listing of marginal seats. I am happy about being wrong – we have a fair number of RSL sub-branches in this electorate and I am sure we can drum up enough support to at least make Mike Kelly sweat, or at best topple him from the seat at the next elections.
Thanks for the marginal seat listing and good luck to all those concerned with our plight.
From: Bernie McGurgan
Date: 26/08/2009 3:51:37 PM
To:
Subject: Eden Monaro Electorate (First cab off the rank for ANZAC Alliance)
Eden Monaro (Voting Results 2007)
ALP 37,918 = 44.6 % (On the Primary Count)
LP 40,579 = 43.5 % ( On the Primary Count)
Informal 3,628 = 4.1%
From the MACKERRAS PENDULUM (22 AUG 09) Eden Monaro needs a swing of 2.3% to unseat the “sitting” member, and I use that term rather loosely!
Kelly in an undated media release before the 2007 election said and I quote “Mike Kelly, Labor candidate for Eden-Monaro, today declared that changes to the indexation regime covering Commonwealth superannuation pensions would be his top priority”! Wonder what happened there Mike, perhaps jumped on from a great height?
From below there are 3,137 DVA recipients in the electorate!
Retired PS number in electorate = Still searching!
Nominal Roll has 91,610 voters!
Persons aged 65 and over: 13.6% (67th highest) = Good
DVA PENSIONERS AND TREATMENT CARD HOLDERS IN THE FEDERAL ELECTORATE OF EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES,
AS AT 3 APRIL 2009
Number Average Age Disability Pensioners 1,127 66.96 Special Rate (incl. above) 249 63.80 War Widow Pensioners 822 81.83 Service Pensioners
Veterans 751 77.20 Partners 630 74.30 Income Support Supplement 647 82.45 Social Security Age Pensioners 44 82.25 Net Pensioner Population 2,822 74.20 Gold Card Holders
Veterans 937 76.65 Dependants 811 81.51
White Card Holders 544 57.65
Treatment Population 2,292 73.86 (Percentage of DVA beneficiaries holding a treatment card) 73.06%
Orange Card Holders 67 86.39 Net Total Beneficiaries 3,137 74.03
Note: “Net Total Beneficiaries” consists of any person who receives a pension/allowance from DVA or who holds a treatment or pharmaceutical card issued by DVA. However it does NOT include persons receiving VCES payments or payments under the MRCA or SRCA.
It looks like we may have to seek Senator Nick Xenophon’s assistance on this matter as well. He is very good at bringing things to the governments attention, especially the truth.
Alan (26 Aug 09) I agree the concept I toyed around with needs more consideration to make it effective but I am firm in my belief that many (maybe most) pollies place their own interests frist. If I am correct, any risk to them keeping their snouts in the trough will attract their attention far more than the many submissions that have been raised to look at the question of fairness for Public Service and ADF superannuants. Subsequent posts have highlighted that a concerted effort may have greater impact that I had considered, particularly if one was to consider the flow on that might come from family members. Posts from Bill Arden, D. Wilkinson and Bernie McGurgan appear to add some stats that might make the idea practical. The numerous spelling errors in my previous post are an indication of my anger and the haste to post.
AUTHOR
TREVOR RACKLEY(15445)
FROM READING ALL THESE POSTS IT’S A WONDER SOME OF THE EXCELLENT INFO IS NOT FILTERING THROUGH THE THICK HEADS OF ALL POLLIES WHO MUST BE READING THIS BLOG,MY FAMILY ALL VOTED ALP FOR THE FIRST TIME LAST ELECTION HOPING WE WOULD GET A BETTER DEAL, WHAT DID WE GET ?MORE BULLSHIT AND A CONTINUING SNOW JOB SO GUESS WHAT? COME NEXT ELECTION NO GUESSES WHO WON;T GET OUR VOTES (SOME 32 FAMILY MEMBERS INMY AREA ,LONGMAN) MY THANKS TO YOU GUYS WHO HAVE THE STATS ON THE BOARD, ONE FINAL WORD “UP THE OLD RED ROOSTER” THE POLLIES BETTER WATCH THEY DON’T GET SWINE FLU WITH THEIR SNOUTS IN THE TROUGH.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Heat the tinplate by lighting a candle.
My intention in highlighting the number of marginal seats in the Federal Electoral Divisions (27 AUG) was not to incite a campaign to throw out government members but to point out that ANY incumbent or aspirant, of any political persuasion (not only those in government), should do their duty by representing their constituents in a just case for Military and other Commonwealth superannuates. To my knowledge not one member has stood up in the House and challenged or asked a question, or spoken about the issue. If they don’t think the issue has sufficient political capital they could be sadly mistaken, especially as many of these electorates only require a few thousand votes to change their status, and that of the government!
The government response to the Mathews Report was a ‘one-liner’ that took nine months to compose! Where is the government’s explanatory consideration of the report – the margin notes and minutes etc?
For example Mathews says:
6.1 Equity with other Australian Government pensions
“…Also, I do not think that we can ignore the fundamental differences between the methods used to adjust Age and Service Pensions and superannuation pensions during payment. All are indexed by CPI increases to address price inflation. The maximum single base rate of Age and Service Pensions is also benchmarked to 25 per cent of MTAWE. This has been described as an adequacy benchmark…”
Apart from the fact that a ‘single’ military pension must support a couple and therefore equates to a combined age couple pension, surely he is not assuming Military superannuates are benchmarked to MTAWE, or is he? The ‘pension’ versus ‘superannuation’ thing emerges again – could this be confusing the half-interested bureaucrats as well.
Excellent analysis Bernie!!!
Stick it up Kelly!!!!
Bill Arden – fantastic info on marginal seats. Thank you!!
Let’s give the hypocrites something to think about!!!!~ Lindsay Tanner might be on his way out – that shouldn’t stop us from giving him a big shove anyway, and from giving whoever is nominated for his seat a run for his/her money.
Maxine McKew would be a very good high profile target too!!!
Kevin the Rooster
Trevor the farmer was in the fertilised egg business. He had several hundred young layers (hens), called ‘pullets’ and eight or ten roosters, to fertilise the pullets’ eggs.
Trevor kept records and any rooster that didn’t perform went into the soup pot and was replaced. That took an awful lot of his time so he bought a set of tiny bells and attached them to his roosters. Each bell had a different tone so Trevor could tell from a distance, which rooster was performing. Now he could sit on the porch and fill out an efficiency report simply by listening to the bells.
The farmer’s favourite rooster was Kevin, and a very fine specimen he was too, but on this particular morning Trevor noticed Kevin’s bell hadn’t rung at all!
Trevor went to investigate.
The other roosters were chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing. The pullets, hearing the roosters coming, would run for cover but to farmer Trevor’s amazement, Kevin had his bell in his beak, so it couldn’t ring. He’d sneak up on a pullet, do his job and walk on to the next one.
Trevor was so proud of Kevin, he entered him into the Brisbane Exhibition and Kevin became an overnight sensation among the judges.
The Result?
The judges not only awarded Kevin the NoBellPiece Prize but they also awarded him the Pulletsurprise as well.
Clearly Kevin was a politician in the making: Who else but a politician could figure out how to win two of the most highly coveted awards on our planet by being the best at sneaking up on the populace and screwing them when they weren’t paying attention.
Do you know a Pulletician called Kevin?………….
The TD Securities inflation gauge for August shows no change from July. The gauge mirrors the ABS’s CPI except that it is put out monthly, the day before the RBA meets. The falls and rises in prices always stick in the gullet, but unfortunately not in rooster Kevin’s gullet. According to TD Securities:
“Contributing most to the monthly inflation gauge in August were price falls for holiday, travel, and accommodation; audio, visual and computing, and financial services.
These were offset by rises in prices for private motoring, alcoholic drinks, and fruit and vegetables. The price of automotive fuel rose by around 3.5 per cent in August, but is approximately 15 per cent below its level a year ago.”
It is even more galling when one takes account of the fact that the ABS discounts the “price” of a product, especially audio, visual and computing equipment and white goods, by improvements in quality, however the ABS works out the quantum of quality improvement.
So, if the shelf price of a washing machine has gone up from $500 to $550, a 10% increase, but the quality is deemed by the ABS to have improved by 20%, the price of the washing machine as far as the CPI is concerned, has actually, according to the ABS, fallen to $450.
You cannot go out and buy a washing machine any longer for even $500 as the model is gone. You have to pay $550, yet the indexation of your pension will somewhere in the equation used by Kevin the Rooster be discounted by the fall in the price of washing machines.
The ABS started fiddling with the way the CPI is worked out some 15 to 20 years ago, AFTER some of us have started on our pensions.
That is a fair suck of the sauce bottle for you and a “fair go” or whatever glib cliche the Rooster and his cohort come up with!!!!
I live in the Federal Seat of Petrie. Yvette D’Ath is our local Member and the seat is held by a slender margin. I think it is time to become more direct and I sent her the following letter today. I have deleted some personal information. Perhaps it will encourage others to become directly active.
“Dear Mrs D’Ath, I am a retired Military Officer and live in the Petrie electorate. I am a DFRDB superannuant. My wife is a CSS superannuant…
…Prior to the last election we both openly expressed our hopes for a Labor future and persuaded more than a few to trust Mr Rudd and his team for a fairer, more open, honest, and compassionate administration. I must say we now feel betrayed and taken for fools. For the Government to so readily accept the flawed recommendations of the Mathews Report is incomprehensible to us. Regrettably, we must advise you that unless the matter is reconsidered and the recommendations rejected, us, our families and friends will not support you, or the Government in general, at the next election. I am certain the significant number of veterans and serving members in the Petrie electorate will be active in ensuring that the slender margin you presently enjoy will be eroded to the point that the Seat will be a loss to Labor. It would indeed be a pity and somewhat ironic that the hard won political opportunity to make our Country a better place be lost on the basis that the veteran community in particular, was treated with disdain.”
Excellent letter to your local Member my Senior Classmate of OCS 65/66!Seems like a million years ago, eh?
Keep up the good work mate!
Bernie McGurgan (A Vietnam Veteran & DFRDB superannuate)
25 years in the ARA, 14 as a senior public servant in the Department of Defence, 44 years working in Defence as a Reservist, Regulaar and Civilian. Every single person that I have spoken to who is a DFRDB, CSS or PSS superannuant is appalled by the cynical way in which the government has abandoned them after six – count them – six reviews.
I don’t think that the government understands what a huge pool of resentment it has tapped into.
If we cannot beat them than why don’t we join them by puting up our own cantidates for the upper house. If we are successful we can make deals like the greens. There must be suitable cantidates amoung us we can support. We are a large voting community nation wide. We can then fight our own battles at the front.
Those living in or near Canberra might has noticed a recent letter in the Canberra Times calling us a bunch of well off wingers and compared our position to somebody on the old age pension. From that I took that there may not be a great deal of sympathy for us beyond our near circle. If that is correct, maybe we should move from attempting to seek acknowledgement of our situation from the wider audience and be more focussed on those who have the power to redress the problem.
There is an excellent letter from Phillip Hills (31 Aug)to his local member expressing his dissatisfaction with the outcome of the Mathews Report. I e-mailed my local member (Ellis) before the last election seeking her thoughts on our situation, but I never even rated a response. I have come to the conclusion that isolated and uncordinated attempts to influence those on the hill will continue to be unsucccessful. Indeed, well coordinated efforts focussed on the injustice of the present situation also continue to be unsuccessful. So we should shift our focus from pointing out the injustice of the current system to pointing out members and senators vunerability to a coordinated effort to unseat them.
There is good detail provided by Bill Arden (27 Aug) and Bernie McGurgan (27 Aug)on the possible impact a concerted and coordinated aproach to removing unresponsive members and senators at the next election. But what seems to be missing is a structure to coordinate and promote our cause. Without an effective Australia wide organisation, so that we can cover the marginal areas identified above, we have little hope of having any real impact.
While I am not a member of the DFWA I acknowledge the work that organisation has done in documention and presenting our case thus far and wonder if taking on the coordination role might stretch their resources too far. However, without a coordinated approach I fear we will never be successful.
(A CSS & DFRDB superannuate and probably grumpy old man)
Kate here are the latest figures on the actual number of Commonwealth superannuates, who are greatly effected by UNFAIR, UNEQUAL and DISCRIMINATORY CPI indexation of their “paid-for” superannuation entitlements (as at 30 JUN 07), and taken from the Matthews review page 5!
PSS = 252197, CSS = 145056,1922 Scheme = 7226, PNG Scheme = 799, MSBS = 119745, DFRDB = 58181, DFRB = 4580 and this totals 587,284 ex Commonwealth emlpoyees on superannuation benefits! This is certainly much more than the 300,000 figure quoted above!
If one adds families and extended families the total numbers are in the MILLIONS, and this figure is a very sizeable VOTING BLOCK!
The only thing MPs understand is FEAR of not being re-elected and missing out on all their hughly inflated superannuation benefits and GC entitlements!(Voted out = no snouts in the trough anymore!)
Persevere
Bernie McGurgan (A Vietnam Veteran & DFRDB superannuant)
Bernie,
I am one of the number listed above (CSS & DFRDB) and in a recent conversation with family and a few friends it was very easy to have 22 people agree that the system was unjust and they would most likely support a move to vote out sitting members in support of our case. And I was not attempting to recruit!!!
Still a grumpy old man
The upcoming election looks like a splendid opportunity to express the displeasure of our defence fraternity.
Yet again the government of the day has treated us with disdain. Enough I say!
I am ready to march in public protest to make the point that we grumpy old farts have had enough of this treatment.
Dare I suggest the acronym FOGOF for our banner. Being part of the ‘Fraternity of grumpy old farts’ would allow us to express our verbal displeasure with a battle cry of ‘FOGOF! FOGOF!…’ loud enough to penetrate the deafness shield of so many of this ‘Ruddy Government’. Ohh! and for clarity, I mean that adjective in the British colloquial sense: ‘bloody, damnable’ rather than the more commonly accepted ‘fresh/healthily red’.
Although I agree with most comments made on this site, I feel that we are all hitting the same nail with the same feather. There are some very emotional and informative letters here’ but where are they all going. We need a VC winner or a retired General to take up the baton for us
Mike here is a Maj Gen’s response to the Matthews’ Review!
How can the nprevious five reports say the exact opposite of Matthews??
Persevere
Bernie
THE RAR ASSOCIATION CALLS FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO REVERSE ITS MILITARY SUPERANNUATION DECISION
The Royal Australian Regiment Association’s National President, Major General “Hori” Howard (Retd), has called on the Australian Government to reverse its recent decision to leave Military Superannuation indexed to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), and tie it to the community standard indexation formula that applies to Age and Service pensions.
The Association, which represents over 85,000 serving and ex- serving infantrymen who have served in Australia’s regular army infantry battalions (many in war) and their families, has been seeking the change for a number of years because all those who rely on their Military Superannuation are being disadvantaged by the CPI method of indexation. Those who are yet to leave the service will suffer as well, so the Government’s decision is far reaching.
The Government has refused to provide ADF superannuates with adequate protection against cost of living increases despite The Australian Bureau of Statistics openly stating that the CPI simply does not reflect the cost of living.
General Howard said, “Our members are bitterly disappointed at this decision. We are not seeking special or favoured treatment, only the fair go Mr. Rudd promised prior to the election”. We will not give up the fight for a fair and equitable indexation of our superannuation. Rather, the Government’s decision will provide greater solidarity to the defence community’s opposition to it.”
Media Contact:
Maj-Gen B.W.Howard OA MC ECM (Retd). Tele No 0401996374
National Secretary: Ted Chitham MC OAM. Tele No (07) 3353 2415
What I can’t understand is, why are the ESO’s and SCOA not united in opposing this atrocity! I have seen the SCOA, TPI and RAR Ass’n support, but the others are deafeningly quiet.
Unless we display unilateral support, the Federal Government will continue to do what it has always done; play one off against the other.
It will take a concerted effort to get the Government to take notice.
We need to get this actioned as a matter of urgency! It has dragged on for years, and is now just a farce and a serious slap in the face to us all.
But the only way it is going to happen is if everyone is on board.
Monday, September 07, 2009
Dear Consie/Pia,
Is it possible to post the stats for this site please?
Number of registered readers etc?
Number of hits?
Maybe a hit-counter would be useful for readers to see just how many are interested.
Hi Bill, that is a great idea! I’ve added the suggestion of a counter to the strategic ideas to implement for this campaign, and I hope to do this over the coming week or two (we are redoing our theme at the moment).
In the meantime, below are the basic statistics for all pages with “Comsuper” in the title. I’ll figure out how to automate it all properly later:
* Launched 4th June – stats from 4/6/09 – 7/9/09
* 3,424 Visits (unique session)
* 7,864 Pageviews
* 97% visits from Australia
* Percentage of all traffic by location – 29% Brisbane, 23% Sydney, 14% Melbourne and 14% Canberra. Certainly shows it isn’t just a Canberra issue.
I’m working on unique visitors, but on a per page basis it’s a bit tricky. For context in the same period we’ve had 47,182 Pageviews for the entire site, so almost 17% of our website traffic is related to this campaign.
Hi all, a new post by Kate about this campaign:
“Developing a new direction for the campaign”
http://www.katelundy.com.au/2009/09/07/developing-a-new-direction-for-the-campaign/
We’ll be closing this “Have your say” forum in the coming days and opening a new forum specifically looking at new directions and strategies to move forward in light of the recent announcements.
Senator Lundy recently met with representatives from SCOA, (Superannuated Commonwealth Officers’ Association), DFWA (Defence Force Welfare Association) and ACPSRO, (Australian Council of Public Sector Retiree Organisations to discuss new strategies and will post about this in the coming days along with her ideas for new directions in the campaign.
Cheers,
Pia Waugh
Office of Senator Lundy
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Dear Kate,
I believe there are distinct issues surrounding ComSuper and Defence Pensions (Benefits!) that should be separated.
The Indexation issue affects all of us, and has now become a new issue. One objective should be to now encourage input of detailed (expert) analysis of the Matthews Report (based on fact, not emotions). There is an excellent paper prepared in PDF format by Peter Thornton titled “A Response To The Mathew’s Report And The Government’s Subsequent Endorsement” which was mailed to The Honourable Lindsay Tanner on 4 September 2009. I believe this is exactly the approach needed and a good example of one tactic in the campaign. Peter Thornton was one of the individual respondents who made a submission to the Matthew’s Review,
Another objective could be to compile a list of questions (based on careful research) that we think Parliamentary members should be asking in the Houses on our behalf – then make judgments based on the responses and results.
Other separate issues, which do not affect the majority, are the DFRDB anomalies – commutation (principle, calculation, overpayment and indexation), CPI deduction restoration, retired pay adequacy etc. These are issues that require revision of the rules in a just and legal way (The DFRDB Act and its implementation) and are not dependant upon persuading parliamentarians with new arguments for justification.
How one keeps the common interest but separates the topics in one forum I don’t know but I would not like to see the many valuable contributors syphoned off to just one issue.
Bill Would you send me the DFRDNB info matter you spoke of, CPI indexation from go to whoa please?
I’m on hill55@vtown.com.au
Thanks Mate
Bernie
All should read this submission which was a joint submission from RDFWA/now DFWA, RAAF and RAN Assoc and the dear old RSL from taht place called Canberra?
http://www.finance.gov.au/superannuation/docs/submission_DFWA-RSL-NAA-RAAFA.pdf
Another informative submission was from SCOA and is at http://www.finance.gov.au/superannuation/docs/submission_SCOA.pdf
Persevere
Bernie
I have just posted a new comment:
http://www.katelundy.com.au/2009/09/07/developing-a-new-direction-for-the-campaign/#comment-4283
Kate Lundy
Author
Trevor Rackley
Gentlemen, with this site closing down soon, to me it looks like we should get the current affairs etc media involved, I wonder just how many dinki di Australians realey know how we are being treated, used and abused over many years,done the Governments bidding in serving our country in various wars and conflicts and police actions (some political)and yet we still get the rough end of the pineapple,I have spoken to many friends/family etc some of who voted ALP for the first time will now seriousely consider their vote at the next election (one in power they usually change their spots anyway)Like many other DFRDB contributors I voted ALP for the first time believing I wqs going to get a fair go,B…S…
to that, won’t get me voting for them again, maybe a non aligned person may have some guts to stand up for us,ARA 21 Yrs and a Vietnam Vet and damm proud of it.
While walking down the street one day a ‘Member of Parliament’ is tragically hit by a truck and dies. His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.
‘Welcome to heaven,’ says St. Peter. ‘Before You settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom
see a high official around these parts, you see, so we’re not sure what to do with you.’
‘No problem, just let me in,’ says the man.
‘Well, I’d like to, but I have orders from Higher up. What we’ll do is have you spend one day in Hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend Eternity.’
‘Really, I’ve made up my mind. I want to be in Heaven,’ says the MP.
‘I’m sorry, but we have our rules.’ and with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.
Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people. They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne. Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly & nice guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go.
Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises… The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him.
‘Now it’s time to visit heaven.’ so, 24 hours pass with the MP joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.
‘Well, then, you’ve spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity.’
The MP reflects for a minute, then he answers: ‘Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell.’
So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. Now the doors of the elevator open and he’s in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage.
He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above. The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder. ‘I don’t understand,’ stammers the MP. ‘Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank Champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there’s just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?’
The devil looks at him, smiles and says, ‘Yesterday we were campaigning.. .. Today you voted.’
A fitting epitaph.RIP.
Hi all,
Kate along with Mike Kelly, Annette Ellis and Bob McMullan have sent a letter to Minister Tanner expressing their concerns over this issue.
http://www.katelundy.com.au/2009/09/15/letter-to-minister-tanner-about-comsuper/
We welcome your feedback on the new direction and any new ideas.
Pia Waugh
Office of Senator Kate Lundy
G’day Kate,
All I can say is that every decision by successive Governments to ignore the past six reviews/recommendations should be kept in context with this latest review/recommendation, or is your Government going to do what Howards did, keep reviewing until you get the one you desire.
Sorry, you have already done that, hey.
Brian O’Neill
Advocate/Pensions Officer
RSL Brunswick Heads/Billinudgel
0428118388
Isn’t it strange, that these potwallopers will jump on board after the fact it has been pointed out that they are, really, in marginal seats!
Do they think they are in time? I doubt it.
We may not be able to quite topple the Government, but we may be able to mess with the balance of power, and that is as good as!
So, come on Kevin, call an election, we are waiting with baited breath. See how well you fare at the battle of the ballot box!
A nice little paper revolution for you.
Choose your dates.
Well Kate it’s been 2 weeks since your letter was sent,don’t you think it’s a bit rude you have not recived an answer? If it were I I would be fronting young Lindsy and DEMANDING an answer.Comment?
Thanks for your advice Gordon, we have asked and are waiting for the reply, and will let you all know as soon as we have one. There is no point us getting aggressive or physical about it.
Cheers,
Pia Waugh
Office of Senator Lundy
A grateful “Well Done” to yourself and colleagues Annette Ellis MP, Bob McMullan MP, and Mike Kelly AM MP for your supportive letter of 14 September 2009.
I have personally written to Mr Tanner, my local Member and two Senators. This is something every DFRB/DFRDB member should have done or, be in the course of doing. The only response however has been from my local member (Mr Joe Hockey) who simply “passed the parcel”.
My comments are comprehensively spelt out in files on the website database (under “Document Downloads”) but here are a couple more.
Re; Bernie (McGurgan) post of June 11. It is now 35 years since the beginning of the injustice to veterans suerannuation payments. Secondly, what happened to the “Unique Nature of Military Service” which differentiates Defence Force veterans from “…the remainder of superannuated Australians?”
DFRB/DFRDB are superannuation schemes not pensions. We were all obliged to contribute (out of fully taxed pay packets) and it was the government also that unilaterally decided to place those contributions into Consolidated Revenue. NOTE: an untaxed source for payments and not a normal Growth Fund. This resulted in higher levels of personal tax being levied against already taxed dollars and remainder of payment received.Combined with civilian pay after separation meant an even higher level of taxation.
As for Mr Tanner, his total agreement with the Matthews Report raises many questions about the Review and the Report . Further, to say that any increase in superannuation payments cannot be contained within the budget is pure hypocrisy. In 35 years the economy of this country has been through “boom” and “bust” a number of times. This of course does not give the Liberal Party any reason to boast as they, at times, were probably better placed to right the injustices of the Labour Party. It was however the Labour Party that breached faith and trust with Defence Force veterans concurrent with their breach of contract in 1974. That contract was again breached in 1986 when DFRB/DFRDB payments were indexed against a discounted CPI.
Gordon go read the websites I mentioned 08 SEP 09 and also John Graham’s superannuation website and OCS website!
If you want, provide your email addr and I can send detailed submissions from various concerned individual Vietnam Veterans & Veteran Assoc/Organisations e.g.(Graham/Pritchard/McGurgan/RDFWA/DFWA/RSL sometimes?/TPI/SCOA/Thornton/Weekes/Gunder/RAR Assoc etc from last twenty plus years (20 years is just a throw away figure) to all the superannuation Reviews (SIX of them) in regards to all matters DFRB/DFRDB?
Persevere
Bernie
PS From what I can discover Social Security paid our FN superannuation wage entitlement in 87/88/89 and now trying to discover what period were DFRB/DFRDB entitlements paid out of the Defence vote, in lieu of consolidated revenue, courtesy of whitlam? Does anyone know?
Bernie, this may help answer your query about who paid what and when?
From the outset (or 1985 at least) the Department of Social Securities in each State acted as a paying agent for the DFRDB Authority up to the pay notification dated July 1988.
There is no indication of where the payments came from (or if there had been a change). We need to be careful before jumping to conclusions if our arguments are to stick
The ‘Paying Agent” Identity number no longer appeared from the July 1989 notification.
Quote (in part) from increased Rate of Pension notice July 1988:
“CHANGE IN PAYMENT AND ENQUIRIES ARRANGEMENTS
Near the end of this calendar year, our present pension paying agents, the Department of Social Securities in the States and the Department of Finance in the Territories, will cease to have any role in the payment of DFRB/DFRDB pensions. Pension payments will be then made directly from the Office of the DFRDB Authority in Canberra…”
Quote from an (undated) letter signed by Chairman DFRDB Authority in 1988:
“CHANGE IN PAYMENT RESPONSIBILITIES
The payment of DFRB/DFRDB pensions will shortly become the sole responsibility of the DFRDB Authority. As from pension payday 3 November 1988 pensions being paid by the Department of Social ecurity in NSW, VIC, QLD, SA, WA and TAS will be paid directly by the Authority.”
From July 1990 payment notifications were letter-headed Retirement Benefits Office (RBO) which became ComSuper before July 1994 (Ref 801/28473854). The letter-head remained as ComSuper until July 2002, when it again became “dfrdb” and annual pension figures where replaced with only fortnightly amounts (to date, 2009), except for July 2005 and July 2006.
I have some enquiries of the DFRDB as to how annual amounts were arrived at from 2002 as it appears they were calculated backwards from the fortnightly figures and not continued by direct application of CPI adjustments annually and bi-annually!
Ok Pia,but the frustration most Public servants,and DFRDB Super recipents feel is starting to rise after all these review’s with out a result!
Gordon, we do understand. Consie who works in our office is also affected by and passionate about this issue on a personal level, let alone Senator Lundy who has been an advocate for this issue for some time. We are working very hard to get answers, and I assure you we are doing our very best. Unfortunately, sometimes things do move slowly, no matter how much we are all chomping at the bit.
Many thanks,
Pia Waugh
Office of Senator Lundy
Thank you Bernie have read all, its so frustrating the hours of work put in putting together all those submissions only to be totally ignored. Thank you Pia you are doing a wonderful service for us old and at times cranky superannuates.
You must have had a lot of patiance to put this together
good on you.
Although I am an executive of SCOA I am writing this in my capacity as a Comsuper recipient. Despite all the promises and expectations of “social justice” – I obviously mistakenly thought this was a basic principle of the ALP – Minister Tanner has endorsed with both arms the flawed rcommendations of the Matthews Report.
Just as concerning is the deafening silence from my Federal MP (electorate of Bonner)on the issue – where are you Kerry? I don’t see your name on the joint letter dated 14/9/2009 – I might return the favour at a suitable time!
What do John Howard and Kevin Rudd have in common – they betrayed the very people who supported them in their working lives.
Let us persevere, let us, here’s a good one “Maintain the Rage” and commit to every week making sure your Federal MP and Senator’s know we are going nowhere.
Well said Merv!
It is indeed criminal what the Rudd and Howard Governments, and several Federal Governments before, have done to CommSuper recipients and Australian War Veterans!
Justice will eventually prevail and there is an election soon in 2010!
All Commonwealth superannuants require indexation via CPI, 27.7% of MTAWE or PBLCI, WHICHEVER IS THE HIGHER!
Just like Centrelink customers, nothing more nor nothing less!
Persevere
Bernie McGurgan (A Vietnam Veteran & DFRDB superannuant)
Brisbane 4157
Shame on you Kevin Rudd or is it Dud?. You, Lindsay Tanner and most of our cromies have sold Commonwealth and ex Military superannuants down the drain. Before the last election you made representations about lookin after us. But then again with a wife worth $50(mill) plus and your parliamentary super tied to current rates of payand allowances plus all the perks, you donthave to worry abour money do you.
I served for 21 years in the regular Army(retiring in 1985). I served another 6 years ib tthe Commonwealth Pub;ic Service, only to see my Real income go down in value by 30 per cent in the last 20 years thanks to CPI adjustments. Thank you for ensuring that my standard of living will continue to fall. I knowyour Government care about it. Why should they wuth their super. I receive DFRDB&aCommonwealth pension. I don’t have a shate orproperty portfolio.Theyare my sole source of income apart gtom a disability pension from Veterans Affairs
I am a regular viewer of the Defence Welfare Association web site and I would suggest that all readers of this article check it out.
The RSL agreed to stay non political in retutn for the Veterans Entitlements Act many years ago. The Governments treatment of veterans who served in war zones and ex servicemen who served for 20 years or more has shown an increasing belt tightening from the current government when it comes to preservation of veterans rights and superannuation treatment. Apart from keeping us aligned with CPI, we continue to pay tax on our super payments, albeit because we were unfunded? We did not have the opportunity to choose our super fund and we were informend there was a Government co-contribtion. Where did this money go?
I would ask all veterans who belong to the RSL to start lobbying for the RSL to get behind the Coalition running up to the next election. Likewise for Commonwealth superannuants who are members of their Associations. With 350.000 votes plus votes of all serving Defence force personnel that could help influence the result of the next election. The Labour Government has shown it does not care, In return,wewould expect the coalition to start opposing the current Government and promise to look after military and commonwealth superannuants if they are elected to Government.
You should also write to yout local Federal member exoressong your concerns over the decision to maintain your super payments with CPI adjustments only. If they got 100,000 plus representations, imagine the impact.
The attached is a document submitted under a covering letter to my local RSL Sub Branch several months ago. These documents formed a Proposal to the RSL to seek appropriate action from the Commonwealth. It was accepted unanimously by Sub Branch members and the local District Council.We now await a response from the State Branch. My suggestion is that all affected members, in all States, follow similar action through their Sub Branch to give our arguments added weight.This is in addition to writing to local Federal parliamentary members. The RSL needs to see documented proposals from individuals submitted and accepted through the RSL hierarchy structure. The National Office has an obligation to act on issues received in this manner. Such submissions should, beside the general issues involved, include those issues affecting the individual.
FACTS AND FIGURES
COMMONWEALTH DFRB AND DFRDB SUPERANNUATION SCHEMES
The three currently operating military superannuation schemes were intended to reflect the ‘Unique Nature of Military Service’ as acknowledged in their core legislative and foundation documents.
The Government’s most recent expression of the characteristics applying to this Unique Nature of Military Service was included in the Terms of Reference for the 2007 Review into Military Superannuation (Annex A). In short the main characteristics of military service as described in those Terms of Reference
are:
• liability for combat operations;
• a military discipline with a regimented way of life;
• long and irregular working hours;
• statutory retiring ages well below the community norms;
• high standards of physical fitness;
• frequent relocation; and
• separation from family.
Not included in those Terms for those of the DFRB/DFRDB era:
. the primitive and environmentally dangerous levels of accommodation, and
. the disparity in diversity and levels of allowances as now received by modern day service personnel.
All personnel joining the Australian Defence Services do so under contract to the Federal Government of Australia. Those personnel are then compelled to comply/accept all decisions made on their behalf by the Government of the day. This includes the compulsory requirement to be a contributor to one of the Military Superannuation schemes. As such, the Federal Government has a responsibility to those personnel to act in an honest and fair way.
Note also, ADF personnel are subject to both the civil legal code and a separate Defence Force disciplinary code. The disciplinary code supports the command structures necessary for effective conduct of combat operations and training. The Defence Force disciplinary code imposes restrictions on personal conduct; it demands different standards from those generally acceptable within the community; and it impinges on the individual’s family life and leisure time.
Each decision of an incumbent Federal Govt affecting the DFRB/DFRDB Scheme post 1973 has been based on matters of policy, not in terms of the criteria on which those schemes are based. That is, “The Unique Nature of Military Service” The Federal Government has been neither fair, nor honest in some circumstances, in its treatment of those veterans in receipt of DFRB/DFRDB superannuation payments.
Notably:-
The Jess Review of 1972 proposed a superannuation scheme where the “. adjustment should be related to average weekly earnings and the relativity of retired pay with that index maintained ….(to)… ensure that the man in retirement will be able to maintain his position in relation to rising community standards and he will obtain those increases when needed”; This recommendation was accepted and implemented and all Defence Force personnel had reason to believe the scheme would meet their needs when they finally retired.
This has been a view shared by subsequent Senate Committee Reviews but each time dismissed by members of the incumbent government. Those Senate Committee Reviews include:-
• April 2001.Senate Select Committee on Superannuation and Financial Services. “A Reasonable and Secure Retirement” recommended that DFRDB and Public Service pensions be adjusted on “other than CPI”
• December 2002. Senate Select Committee on Superannuation. “Superannuation and Standards of Living in Retirement” recommended that DFRDB and Public Service pensions be adjusted on “CPI or MTAWE, whichever is the greater”.
• July 2007. Report of the Review into Military Superannuation Arrangements recommended a partial indexing of some military retirement pensions to “a similar basis to that applying to age pensions”. The outcomes of this Review are yet to be announced by Government.
• March 2008. Standing Committee on Community Affairs. The March 2008 Committee Chairman’s key outcomes (Annex B refers) are summarised below:
“The report on the cost of living pressures for older Australians has recommended the Government
immediately move to index Commonwealth superannuation pensions to both CPI and Male Total
Average Weekly Earnings (MTAWE).
There are two recommendations which are absolutely key;
First, we have recommended that the Government urgently review current pension levels to determine
whether these are sufficient to provide a decent standard of living.
Second, we have recommended that while the Government is conducting such a review, Commonwealth and Defence superannuation pensions should immediately be brought in line with other government pensions by indexing these to both CPI and MTAWE.”
Other Background
1. Between 1973 and 1975 the Whitlam Government transferred DFRB contributions from the DFRB to Consolidated Revenue. All contributions had been made from taxed dollars. To then say future payments from Consolidated Revenue were from an untaxed source and subject to aggregation with income from civilian employment, for taxation purposes, was totally unfair. This meant Ex-service personnel were paying tax on previously taxed dollars and at a higher rate because of the aggregation of the two income sources. Those who moved into higher salary brackets were in fact nullifying the already reduced benefit of their superannuation payments and even more so when the Superannuation Surcharge Tax was applied.
2 The replacement of the wage based indexation with the CPI in 1974 was purely a cost constraint for, and a benefit to, the Government but subsequently a large cost to veterans. This particular arrangement was inserted into the DFRDB Act by the Defence Forces (Retirement and Death Benefits) Amendments Act 1977 as set out in the second reading speech, as follows; “In essence therefore, the pension updating arrangements encompassed by this Bill achieve the earlier stated aim of consistency with those currently applying to the comparable classes of pensioners under the Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation schemes.” This position completely nullifies the criteria for setting up of the DFRB/DFRDB schemes. It can only be assumed that the reference to “…comparable classes of pensioners under the Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation Schemes” was in fact a reference to Defence Force personnel.
3 Also in 1974 The Hon. Frank Crean instigated another review. This review recommended that “under the proposed provisions of the CSS it would be appropriate to index the government financed pension to be increased automatically and annually by the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index” (Note: not the DFRDB) Again, this statement belittles the criteria for setting up the DFRB/DFRDB schemes and made these schemes mere shadows of the CSS.
4 The Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Act 1986 amended the legislation governing the operation of both the DFRB and DFRDB from the payday of 23 October 1986 to discount the 1986 pension increase by 2% from 9.2 % to 7.2%. This policy continued till 20 October 1989. Again, purely a cost constraint for the Government. (that is, the discounted CPI portions were never passed back to DFRDB pensioners.) There has never been any attempt to make up for this period of discounting nor, loss of the compounding effect of the full amount due to DFRB/DFRDB superannuation recipients.
5 There were also times when negative CPI results impacted veterans superannuation payments by the fact that no increases were given in those particular years. This was despite the fact that Male Average Weekly Earnings and the Old Age Pension were increasing significantly. And again, no attempt has ever been made to correct this difference and compensate veterans for further decreases in their standard of living.
NOTE: On the basis of items 4 and 5 veterans have seen their payments increase at a level lower than that indicated by CPI increases in Chart 2.
6 Some DFRB/DFRDB recipients took up the option, on their retirement, to commute part of their superannuation on the understanding their would be a compensating reduction of their fortnightly payment. The actual mount to be determined by dividing the lump sum payment by the number of years the retiree was expected to live. This latter figure was extracted straight from the Government Life Expectancy Tables in effect at the time.
7 Life expectancy has increased markedly in the last thirty five years and retirees are exceeding the age limits by which their payments were set. This means that the amount of money deducted from fortnightly pensions to compensate for receiving the lump sum should be reducing. No such reduction has occurred, nor have the outdated Life Expectancy Tables been updated. This is a fact recognized in the 2009 Budget where the Pension Age is to be increased to 67 years.This has been another cost constraint action by the government to the detriment of DFRB/DFRDB retirees.
*Based on full time average weekly ordinary time earnings (seasonally adjusted)
Chart 1
Chart 2
CONCLUSIONS
The criteria on which military superannuation schemes was based have been rendered utterly meaningless by political decisions. Those schemes are now only somewhat of a reflection of the CSS.
The Jess Review in its recommendations stated that indexation should be such that it would “… ensure that the man in retirement will be able to maintain his position in relation to rising community standards and he will obtain those increases when needed”. On reflection it can now be stated that in seeking to meet that objective the DFRB/DFRDB schemes are abject failures.
After 35 years of operation it is obvious that there has been one political policy of “containment of payments” in respect to these schemes and one of self interest for “maximum payment” for MP’s. Service personnel have absolutely no reason to believe the Government will treat them, in financial terms, with the respect they deserve.
Coupled with the fact that the DFRDB scheme is still indexed by the CPI, this has made Australian Defence Force veterans the lowest compensated sector of the Australian community when in fact they should be at the higher end.
THE FUTURE
Will the Federal Government ever correct the wrongs of the past.? Should the Government accept the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Community Affairs Report, March 2008, it will not make good the financial losses of those long retired. It would only help current Defence Force personnel and those engaged in the future. It is hardly expected that it will ever happen in the current financial situation. More likely the Federal Government will just accept that more veterans will have to apply for the Service Pension, Old Age Pension or, hopefully, just die. This is a very demeaning possibility given that many went on to be successful in civilian life and contributed heavily (taxed), beyond that expected of everyday civilians, to the success of this country.
In the current financial crisis it is very likely that inflation will again increase significantly. Will the Federal Government again discount veterans Superannuation payments? If they do, it will be yet another dishonest action against veterans. If they elect to pay all increases veterans will still be well behind all other superannuates unless the wrongs of the past are corrected.
Gidday Colin
Mate we, and that is a big “we” around OZ have been submitting such documents to Government since early 1990s/late 1980s!It is futile to send much to the RSL who have been entirely remiss in regards to indexation of DFRB/DFRDB for their shrinking Veteran membership lists!New President may change situation but I doubt it?
You should be in 2009 supporting the DFWA, TPI Assoc, VVF and SCOA and John Graham’s superannuation site! The DFWA is the way to go as they are “full bottle” on the subject and have no qualms about telling Government exactly how it is!They have good investigators!
I am still waiting for the National RSL to again “get into the fray” but they are prepared to stand behind whatever Dave Jamison/DFWA have to say on the matter! “c’est la Vie”!
We have covered again and again all the points you make = Rudd could not give a “Sierra” = Brick Wall but we will persevere and Win the War eventually!
Bernie (A Vietnam Veteran & DFRDB superannuant)
Here is a direct quote from the front page of the Sept/Oct 2009 edition of VETAFFAIRS newspaper regarding the recent pension rise:
“THE PENSION REFORM PACKAGE INTRODUCED A NEW PENSIONER AND BENEFICIARY LIVING COST INDEX WHICH PROVIDES A MORE REALISTIC INDICATOR OF CHANGES TO THE COST OF LIVING FOR PENSIONERS. THIS NEW MEASURE OF PRICE CHANGES WAS APPLIED ON 20 SEPTEMBER TO INDEX BASE PENSION RATES AS IT WAS HIGHER THAN THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX AND THE MALE TOTAL AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNING BENCHMARK.”
The key words are: A more realistic indicator of changes to the cost of living……Surely this also applies to our DFRDB pensions.
It’s pity the Rudd Government aren’t “More Realistic”.
The Defence Community are a tough bunch and we won’t let up on you Kevin.
Our PM promised before the last election to look after veterans and those serving in the military.
It is good to see him visiting our forces in Afganistan and in Australia. It is also good to see hime honouring those who have fallen on active service.
What about the servicemen and women who gave up a minimum 20 years service in the best years of their life, to serve our country in uniform?
PM. You have said sorry to the aboriginal lost generation. You have said sorry to those children abused in orphanages and foster care.
Maybe now its time to say sorry to those people who gave so many years in service to their country and now see their superannuation dwindling, due to irrelevant adjustment formula. The same people you said were owed a debt by the country and you promised to help. Fix our super indexation now to make it fair and equitable and no aplology will be requested or expected.
Well Kate you and your mates received the same dismissal all retired Public Servants and Defence Force Members have been receiving for years,How does it feel?But then it doesn’t really affect you other than you might lose you job next year and how far will your super go?
Nice Try Kate but you won’t change the Labor Party policy to shaft
those who serve them!
Regards
Gordon