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
Commonwealth superannuants have their pensions indexed at a different – and significantly lesser – rate than old age pensions. This has led over time to a very substantia erosion of these pension benefits. There apears to be no logically defensible rationale for this discrimination. They should be treated the same, with regard to indexation, as all other Cwealth pensions and payments.
There has been some talk of a new index for pensioners(actually, based on a fairly small subset of the present ABS expenditure surveys). It is important that this new index represents what pensioners might reasonably be expected to spend their money on for a decent standard of living. If it is simply based on pensioners current expenditure patterns, it runs the risk of entrenching present inadequacies: for example, because of limited incomes, pensioners spend their money in a certain way – foregoing certainn things because they cannot afford them. Using this basic expenditure pattern as the basis for the pension simply provides a fallacious rationale for continuing to exclude those items of expenditure which pensioners cannot at present afford.
Congratulations on your website Kate. I imagine it will get great use on many issues.
I cant understand why the Government is still sitting on the Mathews report on Commonwealth and Defence superannuation pensions. It is now 6 months since the committee reported – nine months after Labor promised to give a decision on this issue.
Surely they all realise this is a matter of social justice.
Joe Clark
Gidday Sen Lundy
All Commonwealth superannuants have been treated in an unequal, unfair and unjust manner for the last twenty years! All indexation of PSS/CSS/DFRDB and DFRB superannuation schemes has been conducted using the CPI ONLY! This is discrimination to the extreme!Even Centrelink customers have their entitlements now indexed using the CPI or 27.5% of MTAWE whichever is the greater!
WE are simply asking to be treated the same, and not in any special manner to the remainder of superannuated Australians!
All Commonwealth superannuation schemes must be indexed using CPI, 27.5% of MTAWE or Cost of Living Increases, whichever is the greatest!
Bernie McGurgan (A Vietnam Veteran)
Brisbane QLD 4157
I am a DFRDB recipient and like many others I have been waiting the outcome of this Pension Indexation Review. I have read elsewhere that the Report has been finalised, and is waiting with Senator Nick Sherry. Apparently it has been with him since early May.
Adrian Rogers
Forest Hill QLD 4342
Thanks for the Blog.
I am not cynical, but…
I see we have been given two week in which to make our submissions to the government (SMH 13/06/2009). Nice one, five schemes over six decades and we get two weeks!
This nearly puts the crown on Keating’s theft of 2% of our super, nearly.
I have just resigned myself to the need for veterans to storm the parliament and spill blood.
Let me know anyone if you’d be party to this: stolenisgenocide@kultcher.com
A couple of hundred should do it.
Jim
WA
Sapper
Dear Kate,
DFRDB and MSBS
Its been a long time and I am now retired but active in the community and helping in looking after the interest of many, especially veterans.
The present system of indexation of pensions is grossly unfair and inadequate for this era. A great number of Service retirees are hurting badly and simply afraid of the future. They served this nation with dedication and pride. Yet they are being treated as lesser beings to the unemployed and others who have ensured the value of entitlements are maintained.The tree needs shaking and Service personnel need to be treated equally with others.
Warm regards to you and your Mum,
David Ferguson
Sandstone Point 4511
Many of us ex-military types saw a new beginning during the lead up to the last election. An era of openness and fairness beckoned as Mr Rudd articulated his vision and we got behind him in droves.
The “profession of arms” engenders a generally uncomplaining breed who get on with their jobs with a purposeful sense of duty. Even so, they do put a value on their contribution to the Nation’s security and feel a genuine sense of despair when they sense they are being taken for granted.
Sadly, the reality for many veterans is an insufficiency stemming from a mean-spirited attitude by Government towards compensation and retirement funding. Political will can only be described as obstinate as delays in following up ‘reviews’ continue.
A grateful nation rightly remembers those who died, were wounded or served on the battlefield. A decent nation ensures its warriors are never unsaluted and the dignity of the more vulnerable is never compromised. Our war dead would never forgive us if it was otherwise.
Phillip A Hills
Bridgeman Downs QLD
All veterans condemned the previous Government, under Howard, for the callous way they treated veteran pensioners. It now appears that the present Government, despite what they appeared to promise, are even worse
Jim
Let us not forget that Kevin Rudd served on one of the reviews a few years ago. He spoke of this prior to the election. The review recommended changes favourable to us. Where does he stand now?
After all this prevarication, procrastination and oligarchic masturbation, you’d think we’d learn. Pollies only give a shit when there’s a media grab, we don’t promise that at all, remember, the media wants only one thing – advertising and for that they have an ethic of if it bleeds, it leads.
We’ve bled. We are only of use on 25 April and 11 Nov.
Forget the facts that Rudd is anything other than a disrespectful son of a Sapper and brother of a brother Vet, because that don’t mean money. If we want a seat at a Ministerial table, we’ve got to do what business does, pay $100,000 up front!
Remember, at the TPI demo in 2001, not one government minister, nor one opposition shadow had the good manners to even move outside John Holland Hill and hold a conversation.
Plainly, we are not a policy item.
UBIQUE
A Politician is man/woman who will double cross that bridge when they get to it
Hi Kate,
Initially, thanks for giving us (ex-servicemen/women) the opportunity to voice our views.
Not since Paul Keating (the HAWKE Govt.) ripped us off of two percent of our pension, which of course, he said he would re-instate in his following budget, AND DID NOT!! And we are still behind that two percent!!
I found it interesting that “Blue” Ryan, the National President of the TPI Assn., mentioned in his letter to RUDD, that we are an estimated 11.4% deprived in relation to ordinary Centrelink OAP’s. How can this happen??
I am not saying that we (disabled servicemen/women) are the most deservicing of the greater commuity, BUT, we should be given, at least, equal consideration. RUDD is not doing this. Indeed, SWAN, a KEATING clone, (Snake-oil salesman) seems as if he wishes to diminsh our contribution to society.
All we (ex-serciemne/women) want is equal benefits that are being given to the greater Australian community, through “CENTRELINK”.
If need be, we, who are above the sixty year age level, can go to CENTRELINK, and probably get more each fortnight than we currently receive!!!
Gus Dodds.
My Dear Kate,
Your efforts are to be applauded, but you still lack a basic understanding of the military mind!
I quote from your email “The more online support we can build around the topic, the easier it is for me to demonstrate to my colleagues in government the scale of this issue and its impact on the community.”
Call it indoctrination, call it brainwashing, call it intimidation, but soldiers have a general attitude of “just do your job and shut up, or…..”. Relatively speaking there are but a handful of ex and serving defence personnel who have “broken out” of the mold and who not only dare to speak out, are most vociferous in their arguments and demands. To say this is an example of the Pareto Principle would be totally inaccurate. In this case the “doers” would not even equate to 5%, and the remainder would fall into the categories of “I’ll follow if it doesn’t inconvenience me”, “perhaps I’ll look at it if you can convince me”, “it hasn’t changed in the past (x) decades, why should it now?”, “just couldn’t be bothered”, and even “I’m alright Jack, I’ll take what I’m given and won’t rock the boat”.
On the surface this may all seem like a pathetic situation – but when you consider what these people have all gone through (both in training and in “application”), what they physically and mentally have endured (and how that will continue for them for the rest of their lives), how their individual situations have also affected their families – is there any wonder that these attitudes prevail?
Kate, I wish you well in attempting to “get the numbers”, but I very sincerely doubt your success. Unfortunately, through no fault of their own, Defence personnel are their own worst enemy.
But even a much greater pity, in fact a travesty, is that our Governments for decades have taken advantage of this, and totally ignored the pleas of the few for the remainder – and for those that follow in the future.
It is very difficult to understand, but it really does come down to “walk a mile in my shoes”.
Action. Decisive action. Action taken according to the pleas and demands that you do hear is the only thing that will have any worth in the Defence and ex-Defence community. Not only should action be taken, but it should also be seen to be taken. There is a huge SKEPTICISM you have to overcome, and the longer the “inactivity” on your (Govt’s) part, the deeper and more solidly entrenched that skepticism becomes.
LISTEN to the demands. Nothing “extra” is asked for. All that is asked is “equity”, “parity”, a “fair go”.
To remind you of the demands (there are only five):
1. TPI and DVA associated benefits be increased by the current minimum shortfall around $92. (Partial catch-up estimated shortfall per fortnight approx $80)
2. The immediate application of adjustment of indexation to male average weekly earnings. (So far, deafening silence)
3. The redefinition of what constitutes war service, ignored to the detriment of serving and future ANZACs. It really is simply … “any ANZAC deployment anywhere, armed to intercede on behalf of the executive government WILL be gazetted as “warlike service” (and all warlike service WILL be tax free)
4. The redefinition of the clinical determination as to service caused mental trauma. (So far, ignored. Any ANZAC who suffers any form of mental illness as a result of defence service will be accepted for whole of life liability until proven otherwise. (damaged in the service to the nation is liable)
5. The creation of “The Prime Ministers Veteran Advisory Council”. (So far the perception is: It is a Claytons Council of agreeables, ie the first ANZAC council was not expected to be any more than a prime ministerial front with a controlled agenda. OK the apprenticeship is over, so now the ANZAC criteria applies, “get publicly relevant on behalf of the people who imposed the council, the non aligned ANZAC community, or piss off”.)
Not a good track record so far. You’ve got the ball Kate, and the game is still on. How well you play this game will detarmine how long you remain in the game. Time is running out!
Loyalty and Service.
Rob de Haas
Melbourne
As a migrant of 40 years it is my previledge and honour to call Australia my home. I duly paid my previledge with 30 years service in the Aust Reg Army. I am now a TPI and struggling on $26k a year. Noting my Army Pay (SAS) was a six figure income and my civilian occupation remmunation was also in that order. I am now broken both physically and mentally and unable to work. I will not get access to my Super (which will be taxed) until I turn 55 years of age in another four years. Until then I will need to make do on living on a mere $26k per year, this is about the same amount politician receive for their “travel expenses” during their term in office and the amount of tax I payed on an annual basis for many years.Come on where is the fair go. If I were a civilian on a pension, my pension I would be on 27% of the MTAWE index with cost of living. I ask the question or we a lesser breed because we were and most are still willing to make the unltimate sacrifice in the interest of this nation? Fair suck of the sauce bottle. Give us only what we deserve or are we getting the politician we deserve because we were silent or too busy focusing on our jobs and trying to stay alive in hazardous conditions? Maybe it’s time we start to protess and rally on the door steps of parliamenent until we get a fair go.
I’m with you Clancy,
Guy Fawkes is becoming an heroic figure!
Sapper
i support the reply made by Jim on the holding a protest parade on the steps of Federal Parliment, we could all wear our medals and stop the bloody “pollies” from gaining entrance the their holy of holies. what can do to us ? send us to Vietnam??
Thank you Kate for a chance to comment.
We as ex Servicemen, seek equitable reforms in the indexation of military superannuation pensions. We are not asking for special indexation treatment for military superannuants, despite the unique nature of military service providing solid ground for special treatment. We merely seek equity with age, veteran and parliamentary pensions. Again we strongly believe as a matter of simple equity, that a change to indexation in line with the methodology applied to aged, veterans and other government pensions should now apply to military pensioners. Specifically, we seek the ability to maintain contemporary living standards.
We as ex Servicemen also seek the rectification on an anomaly to DFRD/DFRDB retirement pensions where currently indexation is not applied to the full amount of pension for those members who do not commute a portion of their pension to a lump sum. We seek indexation of the whole of military superannuation pensions in these circumstances.
Regards,
Ernie Gimm (ex Vet of Malays/Thailand/Vietnam)
Townsville Qld 4815
Should not all Australians be treated equally?
Why should their pensions be treated differently?
Those willing to serve their country should be rewarded not discriminated against and yet all we ask is to be treated fairly in relation to all other forms of Australian pensions.
The present system of indexation of pensions is grossly unfair and inadequate for this era. A great number of Service retirees are hurting badly and simply afraid of the future. When we are sent to war we are told that we will be looked after when we come back. We served this nation with dedication and pride. Yet we are being treated as lesser beings to the unemployed and others who have ensured the value of entitlements are maintained.The tree needs shaking and Service personnel need to be treated equally with others.
Come on get the ball rolling and implement the Mathews report, or at least have the guts to tell us why it will not be implemented.
Gidday
John Graham’s excellent website in relation to Defence superannuation is at http://www.militarysuperannuation.for-our.info/index.php
Persevere
Bernie mcGurgan (A Vietnam Veteran)
Good Afternoon Kate,
An excellent email from Robert de Haas. Most of his letter is explained clearly and concise of which I agree. No further words are required jus offered support. By the way, what happened to my 2% that was stolen from me also. Pollies gave themselves 8% that year.
Justice is due in the form of reinstatement of the discrepancies in our super. We Veterans have done our bit for Queen and Country.
Richard Marek
RAN
WA
Richard Marek
Have a look at John Graham’s website above-explains it all!
Persevere
Bernie
Senator Lundy,
Thank you for establishing the site a a way of interacting with the “people”.
I note there are several comments attempting to point out what we as servicemen and women consider an injustice. Unfortunately, There is little or nothing to be gained by people restating the situation that governments on both sides of politics have known for years. There have been more than enough reviews where very detailed submissions were presented for anybody who cares about our concerns to be fully informed. I sent an e-mail to my local member (in Canberra) before the last federal election on the issue, but as usual was ignored. I know there was a feeling of hope when Dr. Mike Kelly was elected that he might be able to bring some weight to our concerns, clearly a first term Member of the House does not carry such weight.
I have come to the conclusion that no matter how eloquent the argument, or how clear the facts, it is falling on deaf ears as those we elect to represent us simply do not care.
It is important that we do not mix our messages in this forum.
The issue of Disability Pensions and the Special Rate in particular has been aired again today in Minister Griffin’s response to Blue Ryan of the TPI Association. The letters are included in an email from Bernie McGurgan to addressees on his widely circulated list. The letter deserves close study and reflection and a considered reply as appropriate.
At present though, let us focus and pursue the quite achievable aim of bringing fairness to our superannuation arrangements. The existing system is manifestly and outrageously flawed as is being expressed quite colourfully and articulately by the contributors to this site so far. Consequently, with a unity of purpose and of effort, we have more than a even chance of success.
Finally, we should be arguing that our superannuation, which we all contributed to, is not a pension but ‘retirement pay’. A consistent use of that terminology in forums such as this might well be useful.
Phillip A Hills
Bridgeman Downs, QLD
Hi Kate,
Thanks for the opportunity to put in my twopence worth.
I retired from the RAAF 22 years ago. To date, my retirement pay hasn’t even doubled in all that time. Also, surely by now I have “repaid” my DFRDB commutation and if so, then surely I and others in the same boat, should be entitled to a refund of over deduction, with interest.
With Kind Regards
Derek Wilkinson
Tura Beach, NSW 2548
Hello Kate, Thanks for your forum, Is any body listening or do they care.
Like many ageing men and women in the Ex service community All we are asking for is a fair go. Something akin to politicians Super mention it once and there is bipartisan support. Sorry I got that wrong there is nothing fair about that. Lets face it the information is in you know what we want and the clock is ticking.
I tried hard not to be cynical but Gee Whizz what else can I say
In our Parliment in Canberra When all is said and done, more will be said than will be done. Just do it
I applaud this forum. I would like to see postings with the latest at the top and, if possible, links to relevant articles commented upon (threaded!)
In relation to the 1986 to 1989 CPI discounts:
I have the documentation, which gives a full explanation by the Chairman DFRDB Authority.
Extract from the notice dated October 1989:
“In 1986 legislation was enacted which provided that the DFRB/DFRDB benefit increase of 9.2% which applied from payday 3 July 1986 was discounted to an increase of 7.2% from payday 23 October 1986. The Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Act 1989 has recently been enacted which removes this benefit discount on payday 2 November 1989, but the legislation does not provide for any refund of the amounts flowing from the benefit reduction over the three year period concerned”
There is a full explanation of the basis of the discount and the restoration on the reverse of the form. The discount actually applied was 1.831502% and that restored was 1.865672% (the percentages have been rounded to the sixth decimal place).
Of particular interest, the actual published CPI figure for the March quarter 1986 (applied in July 1986) was 9.251101 which, according to the DFRDB Act, should have been rounded to 9.3% not 9.2%; another diddle!
Hi Bill, we’ve added threading (thanks for that!) but will keep the most recent at bottom, otherwise threading becomes…. hard and confusing. You can subscribe to the comments too and get emailed with updates if that helps
Cheers,
Pia
ICT Policy Advisor and web hackery (devel) person for Senator Lundy
As in the TPI indexation fight, Government is again employing delaying tactics by not releasing full details of the enquiry into military super. Many of the sound argument used in the TPI struggle are applicable to mil super. It is so obvious that the previous liberal government duck shoved a decision and now the labour government is applying the same inexcusable tactic.
There is no need for further investigation, there is no way government can morally, ethically and legally deny military superannuants their deserved increases. David Jamieson and others have over the past 5 years presented a well argued evidence based case for substantial increases, these representations have not been rejected by government so we can only surmise that there is broad agreement for adjustment.
Financial crisis or not, the tardy response from government and the failure of the previous liberal government to address this inequity gives strength to the perception that our serving and exserving personnel are top of the list for back slapping and photo opportunities but last when fair and equitable entitlements are considered.
The opposition is party to this debacle and their silence in parliament is deafening.
Malcolm Wheat
State President
VVFQld
Dear Senator. I wish to comment on the no comment so far regarding how the non raising of veterans age limits with the general population still leaves antiquated rules when it comes to disability assessment for those aged 65 yrs and above. The VEA lays down the rule governing disability pensions for special and intermediate rates and requires the veteran to have been employed for 10 yrs in the same employment,trade or calling before the age of 65yrs and to fulfill the ‘alone’ clause. Where in the world are people let alone ex veterans employed for 10 yrs with the conditions of VEA 120. Of the 30000 vets on TPI pensions some are still serving? How can that be except on restricted hours per week.
Contrary to veteran opinion I do not believe that TPI rates should be linked to CPI. Regards
Like so many others I suffer from PTSD. I am currently appealing through the AAT against an adverse decison regardng a pension for my condition.This is basically because the traumatic incident didn’t last enough! Like many others I am suffering because of the inequities we have been forced to endure in relation to our rightly earned pensions. I want back the 2% taken from us and I want the same indexation as others who haven’t been exposed to the trauma I have suffered. The DFRDB pension should be returned to its full value after we repay the amount commuted.
Like so many others I voted for the Rudd government in the belief that a fairer society would result. So far the result has been somewhat mixed – a fairer regime for asylum seekers – but those who fought for our country get almost nothing.
Gidday
Another good website in relation to Commonweralth superannuation entitlements and unjust, unequal and unfair indexation of same is at http://www.scoa.asn.au/whatsnew.htm
The SCOA is doing excellent work in relation to ALL Commonwealth superannuates,PS and ADF members, HAVE A READ!
Persevere
Bernie McGurgan (A Vietnam Veteran)
Excellent Kate. Thank you for this opportunity – it would be good if something is done to remedy this situation, before I pass. I think John Graham’s website is the best starting point: and the 5 points mentioned by Rob de Haas are extremely relevant. I trust at last we will see some action to level servicemans entitlements to the same levels as Centrelink recipients.
Ciao,
Peter Hartwell
Canberra
Dear Kate,
I notice in an earlier comment that some TPI recipients are allegedly still serving in the ADF. How is this so?. It is spelt out in DVA SOPs that recipients of TPI, or Intermediate Rate, are not to be in paid employment, or working in a volunteer capacity for family or friends with a profit making business.
Best Regards
Derek Wilkinson
Gee that was helpful to the discussion about DFRDB/Military Superannuation
You must be a busy man to perpetuate a myth.
If the contents of your submission is not related to the topic and you feel the need to get it off your chest, tell someone who cares but don’t waste our time here
Hi Kate,
I have no other arguments to add – the many contributions filed before mine have said it pretty plainly – clearly it is up to the government to restore confidence in their governance! I simply add this comment in support of most of the arguments already put forward (I would draw the line well before a storming of parliament!). Now in my 63rd year, with 25 years of military service behind me, including a full tour of duty in Vietnam, I too would like to see the serious anomalies corrected so that, when I can afford to step out of the work force, I can say to my ever supportive and oft suffering wife in our golden years – ‘it was all worth it!’
Dan Nebauer
Kilsyth Victoria
Derek
You may have heard of Graham Edwards who lost both legs in SVN and was a Federal MP for many years! I understand even though he was TPI an arrangement with DVA was undertaken and he continued to work as a Parliamentarion until he retired last year!
I guess the ADF members have done a similiar deal to enable them to continue serving in the ADF!Every case on its merits I guess!
Persevere
Bernie McGurgan (A Vietnam Veteran)
Dear Bernie,
Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I certainly do know Graham Edwards, owing to the fact that I was once employed in the House of Representatives and witnessed the excellent job he did during his time as a MP.
As to his being a TPI and also being in full-time employment – surely this has set a precedent for other TPI’s?.
I am a tad puzzled as to exactly how TPI status is determined – I personally know of one TPI who plays golf two or three times a week and spends most evenings in our local pub (good on him). Another TPI I know was granted that status because of a partial hearing impairment, even though he never saw service outside Australia (good on him too). As you pointed out – each case on its merit!.
With Regards
Derek
Derek, this is not the place to start or spread low-life rumours. A story starting with “I know a bloke” is of no benefit to anyone and is especially frowned on by ex-servicemen and women especially TPI’s. Making derogatory comments about TPI’s does nothing to improve your standing in this discussion and will inflame some of us who have done it particularly tough.
I know many TPI’s and there are some who live in the most appalling situations others live well but their mental health is terrible and you only see them on good days.
I suggest you make yourself more familiar with the man behind the man before you create widespread problems for people who, in many cases, have lost so much.
Dear Senator Lundy,
I have read the various postings on your website and am forced to the conclusion that you and your Government are actually worse than Howard’s was. Rudd clearly promised what he hasn’t delivered – the fact that you have this site operating is clear evidence of this. Why aren’t you battering down the PM’s door?
I am a DFRDB recipient and am mainfestly aware of the lack of equity and social justice emanating from our government – regardless of their colour. There is no logical reason why ex-Defence personnel should be discrimated against – there is every reason why they should be discriminated for! When I reach the age of 65, I will not have access to many of the benefits available to OAPs because my DFRDB benefit is more than the threshold – let’s remember that all Servicepeople paid for their benefit. It may be argued that Servicemen and Servicewomen of today are far better off – so be it – we all should have been in their situation, but we were’t, and we accepted the situation. However, given our worsening situation relative to virtually the whole of Australian society – the society that we volunteered our lives and livelihood to protect – it’s time to correct the injustice.
As an aside, I note one posting referring to ‘warlike’ conditions. I served in UNMOGIP, in Kashmir. The Government has never accepted that service in Kashmir should attract DVA benefits. When I compare our service with that of many Servicepeople in our current deployments, I agaion wonder about relativity, equity and social justice! I am not criticising teh benefits available to these ADF people – merely asking that they be retrospectively applied to those who now need them?
Gidday Neil Churches, long time no see, another life long ago was it not?
My email is hill55@vtown.com.au and I will send you some interesting submissions, if you wish, that we have made during last two/three decades, to Howard and Rudd Governments, and predecessors, in regards to just indexation of DFRDB paid-for entitlements and maintenance of the fast degenerating “status quo” between Centrelink payments and DVA disability enttilements!
It is all a matter of justice, fairness and equality for all ex ADF people, nothing more nor nothing less!We are not asking to be dealt with any different to the rest of the retired Australian population!
Persevere
Bernie McGurgan (A Vietnam Veteran)
Brisbane QLD
Senator, It MUST BE THE TIME to have the DFRDB brought into line with other super recipients. This goes to the period of Whitlam another Labor Government that robbed the DFRDB fund. On the matter of Special and Intermediate disability rates it is also time for reviewing the anomalies contained in the VEA. Some replies have suggested that they are looked upon as each individual case. Of course they are however the regulations do not allow any interpretation with regard to employment and salary the hours are clear and so is that of earnings these are some of the requirements for eligibility. My advice to any veteran under the age of 65yrs and with 70% disability and worsening conditions should apply now. The rules are tough because some of our mates wrought the system; but the system is wrong and was introduced initially in 1920. Give us all a break. Regards.
Doing your duty and loyalty should be reciprocal. Service men and women understand those principles and live by them throughout their period of service. What we do not understand is why our government(s) do not reciprocate when it comes to indexing our pensions in a fair and equitable way. CPI indexation is not fair and equitable so please fix it now.
Gidday
The latest shamozzle from Department of Defence!
Persevere
Bernie
Defence settles $15m dispute
BY PAUL DALEY
21/06/2009 10:12:00 AM
DEFENCE has settled one of its longest-running, most contentious and costly legal disputes with a former Royal Australian Air Force officer it sacked for suffering depression.
After a decade-and-a-half of legal action costing taxpayers an estimated $15 million, the Defence Department has finally made a generous settlement with former Wing Commander Russell Vance.
The settlement with 55-year-old Canberra-based Mr Vance is an admission of the Defence Department’s liability for his loss of earnings, because his promising RAAF career was destroyed after a petty dispute involving subordinates. Defence also paid his $1 million-plus legal bill.
Defence moved to settle the case late December when former Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon demanded answers about unsatisfactory aspects of the Defence Department’s conduct of the case.
Mr Fitzgibbon intervened after the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department launched an investigation into whether the Defence Legal Office was conducting the case appropriately.
For more, pick up a copy of today’s Canberra Times
Bernie
I think your post is indicative of the Public Service mentality that we are battling against. The people who are responsible for mismanaging Veterans Affairs, including our superannuation, have no concept of service life and use their own experience as a measuring stick. They sit in their comfortable surroundings with the benefit of overtime/airconditioning/weekends off/gymnasiums and all the comforts offered by government employment today.
Even the request by the Good senator smells of hypocrisy. She wants us to justify to her why our superannuation should have the same indexation advantages as her super.
So here we are begging with bowls in hand playing their game. A game we can not win, for we were soldiers/Sailors or Airmen not scribes or people who resorted to the pen to prove a point. We were employed to come in and clean up when politicians failed which is a long way from what they are asking us to do now.
It’s a great con to throw us into this superannuation mess and tell us to JUSTIFY YOURSELVES IN WRITING and we will consider it when really the facts are all that is needed and all we really need to do is keep pointing them back to the facts and ignore everything else.
I appreciate your hard work for the Veterans of Australia. There is not a politician who comes close to your contributions to this country.
Laurens
May I suggest that we (all Commonwealth superannuants)ring Chris Bowen’s office at least once a week and flood his email box to boot. Nothing like being an irritant. You never know, a pearl might emerge! We shouldn’t let him get away with sitting on the Matthews report for another six months like his predecessor did.
G`Day Senator Lundy.
I like your comment `Taking Australia forward with openess and vision`, on your websight. Having read all responses so far, there is nothing to add.We are forgotten!!What was it the PM said on 08 Sept 2008? “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 Nations uniform. Because there is in my view no higher calling than to wear the uniform of Australia.”
Well, Kev, I did for 22 years,and now I am waiting for YOUR Government to stop; sh…… on the ex service community who just want a fair go!!!!
Wally Schiel
Ex RAN
‘Onya Wally, You’re justified in your comments and no doubt supported by many others ,including myself. I truly believe the Rudd Government aims to correct many anomalies of past Governments (Lib & Labor)….just hang in there and watch as it progressively unfolds. I may be wrong, but it’s truly what I believe and expect to see happen. Regards, Nev
Senator Lundy, G’Day.
Thanks for setting up this avenue for us to air our concerns and support your actions. Like many above I am also a DFRDB recipient, who served in the RAAF for 31 years; and like many before me, also wonder at the lack of reciprocal fair treatment we suffer, and at the bald-faced hypocrisy of the politicians of both stripes who continue to award themselves better seats at the trough, whilst blithely ignoring the difficulties faced by those who chose to protect the way of life to which we aspire!
I look forward hopefully to seeing positive outcomes.
Regards,
Mike
Dear Senator Lundy,
Thank you for your interest and creating this website.
It is a real shame that people that have volunteered to serve their Country for whatever reason, making sacrafices with their and their family lives to carry out the whims of politician with many making the ultimate sacrifice (their lives) are not treated equally.
How is it that defence force member had to do a least 20 years to get a pitiful pension $17,000-$20,000 and indexed to CPI when a politician only had to 7 years to get a least $50,000 a year and indexed to MWATE or CPI whichever is the highest?
How is it that there is no monies to make up the difference of indexing DFDRB to MWATE or CPI whichever is the highest but there is monies for rise in politician wages and expenses (which you do not even have to accout for)?
How is it that the illegal immigrant that was brought to Australia are looked after better than the sailors on the patrol boat that brough or escorted them to Australian?
Why is the Military is looked as big drain on the budget but are the first Australians helping out in all types of disasters here and overseas?
Why do a survivors of a fatal helicopter crash helping out Indoneasians in a natural disaster have to prove that the crash caused thier Post Traumatic Distress?
Why do submariners have to prove that being under sea for months on end in long black coffins chasing so called enemies covertly is causing mental and physical anguish?
Why do defence force members have to go through the same exercise each time a new government is elected stating that after all the sacrifices they have made they only want to be treated equal when it comes to benefits.
I do really hope this is the last time and that this government will do the right thing.
Stephen O’Rourke
Navy
Dear Senator,
The fact that DFRDB recipients are not treated as all others are is unfair and a slap in the face to those that have given more than the average person. I would even place pollies in the category of average person.
There is a need within the Federal Governments to do something to be changed their apathy and procrastination on this matter and I feel that it falls on people such as yourself to do so.
Good luck and thankyou.
When I retired after 20 years service, my pension was $12,000 per year. The house I bought was $82,000. 20 years later the house is valued officially at $380,000; that’s a 4.6 fold rise. My pension has only risen 1.6 fold. At that rate, my house would only be worth $130,000. Why is this so?
I am curious as to why we still, and again, need to justify our situation.
The facts of our superannuation mismanagement are there in black and white. Representation has been made to this government and the previous rock show. This problem has been going on for a long long time and now you set up a blog and ask us to air our grievances on superannuation.
From my perspective of the political machine, you are doing what the previous government did and Rudd is now doing ……. you are making it look like you are doing something.
My Military superannuation income has not yet doubled in over 20 years. Inflation has more than tripled in that time. How simple do you want it.
If the Military superannuation indexation method is so good then why did the politicians superannuation indexation move away from CPI to MTAWE.
Please stop attempting to look like you are interested and instead do something constructive. Put the value of our superannuation back to where it should rightfully be.
Dear Laurens,
I certainly was not making “derogatory remarks” or as you state “spreading low-life rumours” regarding genuine TPIs. I simply stated factual accounts. Did you expect me to get personal and name names???. I have many ex Service colleagues who fully deserve to be classififed as TPIs and maybe I should have included this in my previous email – my sincere apologies if I may have inadvertantly upset any TPI who may have felt slighted by my bona fide comments. The first TPI that I alluded to has a long history of playing the system for pecuniary gains and the second TPI I alluded to is as I stated – has TPI status awarded for a partial hearing loss and in over 20 years service, never stepped foot outside Australia. I send every good wish to both these guys and to every other TPI, including your good self.
Sincerely
Derek Wilkinson
I suggest that you leave the bitching about your personal opinions for another place. Generalised smearing of any ex service member especially TPI’s is not at all appreciated and frowned on. This site is about Superannuation, not getting shit of the liver.
I will also do some guessing and suggest that you have led an easy service life and therefore can not understand why, a man, who has become the focus of your resentment, is a TPI.
Mate…. get off this site, you have not added anything constructive, and in fact you demean yourself by slandering people who are unable to defend themselves.
Laurens,
You are treading a thin line when you accuse me of slander. Exactly who did I slander?.
You are not the guardian of this website, but merely a contributor like me. So I will not “get off this site”. As for my having led an “easy service life”, your guesswork is as poor as your “slander” accusation. I had my bad times like most service people, but these were outweighed by the good times.
This is my final comment on this subject. Please do not demean me further by your petty comments.
Dear Derek and Laurens,
Could I respectfully ask you both to please keep your tone and language in this discussion calm and reasonable. I can understand the stresses many of you are under, but it doesn’t reflect well on your *public* record on this topic to start an argument.
Could I ask all contributors to this campaign to please ensure they leave comments that are constructive and backed up by their direct experience and facts. All of your contributions will help us in furthering this issue with other politicians, and it is all on the public record. For the most part these comments are constructive and important records of your thoughts on the matter, so thank you to everyone for your contributions.
More to follow soon.
Dear Pia,
Your comments are understood and noted.
I would just like to point out that I never expected my comments to be debated with a third person and I apologise for even replying to the other subscriber involved . I will not be making further comment to this forum, but will follow its progression towards a successful outcome for all concerned.
With Regards
Derek
Pia…… Are you comfortable in your nicely airconditioned office?
I am a TPI and have had friends who have committed suicide because of departmental neglect. Families torn apart from war caused disabilities and departmental neglect. I have seen and lived the journey of a TPI and also know of blokes who appear to be living the good life knowing full well that the journey that got them there was horrendous and the hurdles they have to go through to become a TPI. For anyone to imply that the system is being rorted directly reflects on the people I know and I would dread to think what would happen to those people if suddenly they were caught up in some sort of a witch hunt by bureaucratic bunglers.
This page is about the theft of our super and if you had been on the ball you would have kept it to that.
Kay Lundy is playing with us, like a cat with a mouse and we are not amused. The records and statistics about the theft of our super is available for her to read. Just fix the problem and you won’t need to waste your time on this window dressing
Hi Laurens,
We have not “kept it to that” with this forum, because we are trying to encourage an open and frank discussion about the issues, in order to help. Senator Lundy (Kate, by the way) wanted to engage with people like you in this public forum to build up a publicly accessible collection of information and experiences on this issue, which hopefully will help others in government consider this issue more strongly. It is meant to try to progress an important issue that hasn’t had a lot of movement.
I am saddened and disappointed at your reaction to me, as a) I was trying to ensure the comments on this topic were constructive and helpful in achieving what *you* are trying to achieve, b) I was trying to ensure people would stick to either their direct experience or the facts, which was backing up your concern at Derek making leading and unsubstantiated comments, and c) you don’t know the first thing about me and yet are happy to assume the worst.
Quote” You don’t know the first thing about me and yet are happy to assume the worst.”
Pia……… that assumption is very simple and as a result of over 35 years of dealings with Governments and Public servants.
The debacle about our Superannuation, DVA neglect of Vietnam Veterans, Government Denial about the use of Agent Orange, DVA legal challenges against Sick Veterans who are not capable of continuing the fight, as below
DEFENCE has settled one of its longest-running, most contentious and costly legal disputes with a former Royal Australian Air Force officer it sacked for suffering depression.
After a decade-and-a-half of legal action costing taxpayers an estimated $15 million, the Defence Department has finally made a generous settlement with former Wing Commander Russell Vance.
The settlement with 55-year-old Canberra-based Mr Vance is an admission of the Defence Department’s liability for his loss of earnings, because his promising RAAF career was destroyed after a petty dispute involving subordinates. Defence also paid his $1 million-plus legal bill.
Then there is the Atomic Bomb tests and the Melbourne Voyager collision all cases where the various Governments have sought to prolong/avoid the act of dealing with the issues openly and honestly and all at the expense of the men and families of those involved.
What is much worse now is with this window dressing, which we have all experienced before, you are giving false hope to those who still have some fight in them. There are many who are too cynical, ill or not computer literate to be involved in this public service orgy of window dressing.
It is my personal experience that on a whole we ex-service men and woman deal with the issues and the facts, we don’t tippy toe around networking, socialising and selling our ideas or needs by negotiating our way through long lunches and long term friendships with public servants or politicians to reach a mutually acceptable decision.
We were trained and employed to do a job, a very very tough dirty job that we were often under equipped and unprepared for. We learned on the job and learnt quickly as failure to learn meant death.
At no stage during our preparation for battle did we consider that the political system that we went to fight for were not interested in our long term welfare. We were merely political pawns, cannon fodder to be discarded when the political situation changed or the job was done.
So here we are well after the events for our generation having fought for 40 years now for recognition, compensation and treatment for sick and injured veterans. This process was at the expense of more mens lives who lost the ability to fight on against a government that did not care, so they chose the only options available, suicide or death by cop.
So Pia Waugh, here you are with your enthusiasm and lack of depth of knowledge offering us a carrot, given to you by your political master who as far as we know will be just like the others.
I suggest that you make yourself familiar with the history of what we have been through starting in the early 60′s, the lies the deceit, the damage done the integration of returning soldiers into civilian life at around midnight to avoid protesters and then the neglect by successive governments of the veterans.
Whilst I was in Vietnam the government changed the rules on how much leave I could accumulate so when I got back I lost some 35 days (7 weeks leave, and just to cap it off they sent me out on exercise out bush).
As a 20 year soldier I was promised that in the final few months of my career I would be able to attend resettlement (for civilian life) training. At 19.5 years the government pulled the plug on and changed the rules.
We all have our stories and most of them are about government deceit and lies. We are now trying to address the issue of theft from our superannuation and indexation of superannuation and you PIA WAUGH and your fellow public servants walk innocently out of the darkness offering to show us the light.
Please catch up on the facts for all our sakes
Hi Laurens,
As you have pointed out, I am not deeply knowledgable about your experiences, your pain, your disappointments, or the entire issue. I am but part of a team trying to help. I will do my best to come up to speed with the issue, and to assist Consie (who is the main person in this office driving this campaign, and who _is_ affected by it and deeply knowledgable about it) and Senator Lundy (who has been trying to assist with this issue for quite some time) to try to make a difference.
In return we would ask one small thing of you. To please not direct your 35 years of frustration and anger at us.
We are not assuming a happy talkfest will solve the problems, or that social networking will make it better. We are however trying a new tactic, a very public tactic to draw out the perspectives, and to put them front and centre on Senator Lundy’s website to try to encourage the people who can make the needed changes more aware of the concerns and needs of this community.
This is not a carrot, this is hopefully a little more empowerment for the many important people who are affected to speak directly in their own words to the people making decisions that affect them, through the conduit of this website and with Senator Lundy’s support.
Hang on lady, I was not having a go at anyone I was merely stating that service personal should be treated like everyone else no better (unlike yourself, what’s your super rate?) and no worse. I am a TPI and no I didn’t have an easy service life I worked my arse off for what I achieved. I find you response both demeaning and insulting. Also if this is the way you reply to people it is the last time I vote for you lot.
Dear Ray
I apologise if you are upset by this subject, and I understand that I am not able to empathise with you or any of the other contributors to this post, however i do agree that all people should be treated equally. That is why it is important that you and others continue to contribute to this issue.
I would like to thank you for your input to this forum so far.
Thank you.
Annika Hutchins
Media Adviser
Senator Kate Lundy
Hi Ray,
Which post were you responding to with this comment? Could everyone please remember that most of the comments on this page are being made by the general public, and not by Senator Lundy or her staff.
We defence superannuants do not have to justify our demand for equitable indexation; six senate and other Committees have done thatfor us, most of them over the past decade.
in 1973 that one term arrogant Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, rejected recommendation six(6) of the Report from the Joint Select Committee on DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS lEGISLATION
May 1972 ( commonly known as the “Jess Report”).
That recommendation read :”thatretired pay be expressed as a percentage of final pay and be adjusted annually so that relatively with average weekly earnings is maintained. A possible method of achieving this would be to maintain the relativity of benefits to current pay for the rank held on retirement.”
Whitlam did not accept the recommendation but applied it to the Parliamentary scheme that all pre 2004 political retirees and serving politicians will continue to receive. Hipocrytical? You bet!
Whitlam then dictated that we would have the same indexation as public servants- CPI. The conditions of service for Defence personel are vastly different; public servants occasionly get shouted at; servicemen get shot at.
Since Whitlam made this decision, all governments have refused to correct this shameful injustice, on the basis of cost. Funny how a huge amount of money has been found to fund Parental Leave in 2011. I wonder if it has anything to do with securing the women’s vote for the next election?
The terms of reference for the last inquiry into Military Superannuation, instigated by the Coalition, outline the perceived conditions of service that would indicate that Military personnel should not be treated in the same manner as the non – combatant public. The results of that report are still outstanding. It was received by the Coalition Government in June 2007, but not released until January 2008. Since then it has been referred to all manner of Committees; it’s all a bit like ‘Yes Minister’.
The other Committees have all urged that Military Superannuation indexation should, at least be on a parity with that of the Age Pension ie MWATE or CPI, whichever the lesser.
You can view all committee recommendations, reports,The Jess report etc on my Military Superannuation site at
http://www.militarysuperannuation.for-our.info/
The site contains a forum , facility to download content and add remarks.
Gidday
Well said John Graham and could not have been put more succinctly! I would simply add that Defence superannuation MUST BE indexed against CPI, 27.7% of MTAWE or Cost of Living Increases, whichever is the greater!
The politician superannuation schemes use rises in backbench MP salaries for indexation of their schemes, this figure (wages based) is ALWAYS a much greater figure than the three criteria that I have mentioned above! Why is this so politicians?
As John also says we have nothing to prove, this has already been done via SIX ADF superannuation reviews in the last decade, and in which all said we must be indexed in a fair, equal and just way, just like recipients of Centrelink pensions or Tax-payer funded pensions!
PS Whitlam also stole our accrued superannuation funds in 1972/73, which were self sustaining and ensured all DFRB/DFRDB superannuates were then paid “retirement salary” out of consolidated revenue, therby creating huge foressable problems for all future Defence superannuants, right up until the present!
Bernie McGurgan (A Vietnam Veteran)
Kipling said it a century ago. just substitute Digger for Tommy, and its us Brothers and Sisters…
Tommy
I went into a public-’ouse to get a pint o’ beer,
The publican ‘e up an’ sez, “We serve no red-coats here.”
The girls be’ind the bar they laughed an’ giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an’ to myself sez I:
O it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, go away”;
But it’s “Thank you, Mister Atkins”, when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it’s “Thank you, Mister Atkins”, when the band begins to play.
I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but ‘adn’t none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-’alls,
But when it comes to fightin’, Lord! they’ll shove me in the stalls!
For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, wait outside”;
But it’s “Special train for Atkins” when the trooper’s on the tide,
The troopship’s on the tide, my boys, the troopship’s on the tide,
O it’s “Special train for Atkins” when the trooper’s on the tide.
Yes, makin’ mock o’ uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an’ they’re starvation cheap;
An’ hustlin’ drunken soldiers when they’re goin’ large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin’ in full kit.
Then it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, ‘ow’s yer soul?”
But it’s “Thin red line of ‘eroes” when the drums begin to roll,
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it’s “Thin red line of ‘eroes” when the drums begin to roll.
We aren’t no thin red ‘eroes, nor we aren’t no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An’ if sometimes our conduck isn’t all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don’t grow into plaster saints;
While it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, fall be’ind”,
But it’s “Please to walk in front, sir”, when there’s trouble in the wind,
There’s trouble in the wind, my boys, there’s trouble in the wind,
O it’s “Please to walk in front, sir”, when there’s trouble in the wind.
You talk o’ better food for us, an’ schools, an’ fires, an’ all:
We’ll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don’t mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow’s Uniform is not the soldier-man’s disgrace.
For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Chuck him out, the brute!”
But it’s “Saviour of ‘is country” when the guns begin to shoot;
An’ it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ anything you please;
An’ Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool — you bet that Tommy sees!
Good one Jim – the more things change the more they stay the same.
A parody on Rudyard Kipling’s ’IF’ –
“If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
… maybe it’s you who have missed the point!”
I do have some more relevant things to say in this forum but we need to focus a bit more first, and remember we don’t want to be accused of ‘still saying it when it’s all been said’.
Did anyone listen in to the National Press Club meeting – it’s worth listening to. One term used in the discussion of the Defence White Paper by the Professor was “a strategy of deferral”, does this sound familiar? There were many other relevant parallels.
The real version, by Rudyard Kipling:
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise;
If you can dream – and not make dreams your master;
If you can think – and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build ‘em up with wornout tools;
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: “Hold on”;
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings – nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run –
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And – which is more – you’ll be a Man my son!
Dear Senator
I have been retired from work for 9 years now after 22 years Air Force service and 19 years with the public sector I reckon I have done my bit and have earned the right to my Comsuper pension which has slowly declined in buying power over the last 9 years. Now at 66 I can look forward to declining health (Lungs are shot and the rashes don’t go away) due mostly to exposure to hazardous chemicals during my military service. Despite a dozen mates, (those that are still alive that is)with similar ailments or worse, the chances of getting Defence to admit they bear some responsibility are not good as most of you know. I am too old and fed up for one more pointless un-winnable battle. So when it comes to my pension that I worked long and hard for, aren’t I entitled to a reasonable rate of increase at least equal to all the no hopers I see at the local Centrelink, many of whom have never held a job in their sorry lives. With my taxes in hand they then head straight for the pub. Cynical? You bet. At the next election I will remember the promises made leading up to Kevin getting the nod. Maybe we should have another inquiry to see if there is any justification for treating us fairly. Yeah right, the pigs are fed and ready for take off.
Clive Macrow, would you please contact me on gimms@internode.on.net.
Regards,
Ernie
I am sorry that you have gotten the roughest end of the sick. There is something so disgusting and appalling about politicians attitude to ex-service people that makes me want to vomit when I hear from any of them.
Now we have a bloody senator throwing open a web page to placate the ignorant (I mean that in the nicest way, because there are people amongst us who still think that pigs can fly)
Disabilities suffered by ex-service personnel as result of service. and the theft of our HARD EARNED SUPERANNUATION points to a public service attitude of misinformation, ignorance and neglect that goes well back and continues to this day and it represents itself on this very web page when we get an insult from KATE LUNDY asking us to justify our entitlements.
I am sorry that you, like so many others, has had your quality of life so severely reduced as result of the service to your country.
I do think you have missed the point of this initiative. Senator Lundy has long campaigned for a change to the method of indexation of ComSuper and Defence pensions, as have many of her colleagues in the Parliament. She has NEVER asked you to justify the need for this change which she has worked for. The support she is getting through this website, and the individual case-studies which we are receiving, are all most helpful to her campaign, which is supported by SCOA, Defence and retiree organisations
Consie Larmour, Office of Senator Lundy (status part-time and often voluntary), and member of SCOA
You have hit the nail on the head,bernie and others have been hitting their head against a wall of ignorance on behalf of all political aparties,while I am still survivng I can see that no govt will commit itself to lift a finger
Agree with comments. I have been shafted twice I have both DFRB and Comsuper pensions, both of which are indexed at the same rate.
The Great CPI Robbery of 1986. (originally posted on http://www.militarysuperannuation.for-our.info/)
Here are two comparative tables to aid in analyzing the imposed 1986 CPI reduction effects on the retired pay of those affected. These calculations are presented for peer review. I have used a different approach to Clive and if my calculations are correct he can now ask for a refund of $928.51 instead of his $891.63!
The first table shows the events by effective paydates rather than the beginning of the relevant accounting periods, as Clive did, because I think this is easier to relate to your own figures in pay slips/notifications, which use the same notation. I basically agree with Clive’s figures and have used his salary for the examples (and to avoid confusion with another lot of figures).
My methodology is to use a start amount of $100 for calculation to represent 100%. In this way the CPI effects are clear and the result can be applied to your own pay situation by dividing your pay by 100 then multiplying by the CPI growth.
A B C D E
2 Effective Applied CPI growth Annual $ Notes
3 Payday CPI Per $100 Example
4 04-Jul-85 100.00 13217.35 Your Annual retired pay at start (1985)
5 03-Jul-86 9.2 109.20 14433.35 13217.35 / 100 * column ‘D’ value (use your salary in ‘E4′)
6 23-Oct-86 -1.831502 107.20 14169.00 Legislation reduced the CPI base by a nominal 2%
7 02-Jul-87 9.4 117.28 15500.89
8 14-Jul-88 6.9 125.37 16570.45
9 13-Jul-89 6.8 133.89 17697.24
10 02-Nov-89 1.865672 136.39 18027.41 Legislation restored CPI base by a nominal 2% after 1106 days
11 12-Jul-90 8.6 148.12 19577.77
NOTE: The ‘applied’ CPI is that used by the DFRDB Authority. The applicable published 1986 ABS figure was 9.3%!
The second table shows an annualized version of the same details. From this you can calculate your specific situation and compare the results with your own records. The legislated CPI amendments were separate from the normal annual adjustments (Table 1), so I have tweaked the annual ‘Applied CPI’ to give the annualized results that compare to the first table.
The method of arriving at the discrepancy was to sum the ‘Expected’ and ‘Actual’ results over the annual periods then subtract one result from the other to find the difference (the shortfall).
The result is a deficit of $6.433110 in every $100 (6.433110%) of your pay immediately before the adjustment period.
To calculate your own annual figures substitute your annual retired pay on 3 July 1986 in the first row then multiply that by the amount in column ‘F’ for each following row.
To find YOUR deficit simply multiply your annual retired pay as of 3 July 1986 by .0643311. You then have a figure to challenge the Commonwealth for a (tax-free?) refund of that amount, if you wish to make a point, and you should!
A B C D E F G H
2 Effective Published Expected Applied Actual Difference Annual $
3 Payday CPI Per $100 CPI % Per $100 Checksum Example
5 03-Jul-86 100.00 100.00 0.00 14433.35
7 02-Jul-87 9.4 109.40 7.396350 107.40 -2.00 15500.89
8 14-Jul-88 6.9 116.95 6.9 114.81 -2.14 16570.45
9 13-Jul-89 6.8 124.90 6.8 122.61 -2.29 17697.24
11 12-Jul-90 8.6 135.64 10.626100 135.64 0.00 19577.77
12 Total paid 1986 to 1990 586.89 580.46
13 Difference of payout for 1986 to 1990 per $100 6.433110 %
14 Example amount underpaid (0.0643311*14433.35) 928.51
NOTE: No rounding has been used in the calculations so there may be minor differences of a few cents depending on the calculation method used by others.
When the amounts ‘saved’ by the government are considered it makes one wonder why they bothered. It’s a pity the Government did not grasp the present opportunity under the Australian Government’s economic stimulus plan to solve two problems at once by further stimulating spending in the present financial crisis and by honouring the entitlements of Service men and women – not to mention copping a bit of good PR as well, a ‘fair suck of the sauce bottle’ for all.
Bill Arden (32 years R.A.A.F) – Sunday, June 21, 2009
Pia,
My apologies for the mish-mash in my posting. It looked okay in MSWord! Tables do not apparently travel too well to your site. I will try a different tack in future. Do you have any way of linking to a PDF submission? I have several to make – one of which I believe is a positive interim solution for CPI adjustments/improvements and another on a lateral thinking proposal for a variation of Commutation versus Life Expectancy ‘repayments’ utilising a polynomial trendline etc.
Hi Bill, we haven’t yet put an upload function for comments, but will likely do a little into the future. In the meantime, please email me the pdf’s at pia.waugh at aph.gov.au and I will put them on the site and link them in response to your comment above. Thanks! It looks like very useful information.
Bill Arden sent me a PDF which I’ve put on the site at this link for everyone’s information.
The Great CPI Robbery of 1986:
http://www.katelundy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/CPI-Adjustments-1986.PDF
I would like to thank you all for your mostly constructive suggestions and comments into ComSuper and Defence Pensions.
This blog was intended to hear your ideas about the current policy, what the report recommendations have said and where you would like to see the policy go. That said, the positives associated with wanting to contribute are very much in the spirit of why this post was established.
As Consie Larmour has pointed out in other posts linked to this subject, 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.
I would like to encourage you all to keep posting your suggestions on this issue including your thoughts from the report recommendations.
Thank you again.
Annika Hutchins
Media Adviser
Senator Kate Lundy
Annika,
have the question asked in the House/s. Contact with the Minister’s office will not get a result. Bowen’s track record is not too flash on several issues of late and I doubt therefore he is particularly interested in anything that does not improve his media immage. However a question in the House/s will at least demonstrate his awareness of the issue at a particular point in time. John Roberts.
Hi John,
Asking a question in Parliament is a useful suggestion. Senator Lundy isn’t back yet from her trip, but I’ve put it in a shortlist of actions to discuss with her as soon as she is back early next week. We can reference the many useful comments on this page to her colleagues as part of that question.
Many thanks,
Pia Waugh
Office of Senator Lundy
There needs to be separation between superannuation and compensation concerns, let this opportunity to comment on DFRDB be restricted to that topic and refer compensation matters to DVA.
Much has been written about indexation and what more can I say, DFRDB recipients know they deserve a fair deal and ask for no more. This will only be achieved when indexation is based on CPI, 27.5% of MTAWE or cost of living expenses whichever is the greater. Who could possibly agree that that there was no increase in living costs in Jul 08 and 09, somebody did as DFRDB recipients received no increase.
Let us not forget the situation of commutation, there are thousands of DFRDB recipients who have passed their life expectancy by many years and are still paying back the “prepayment” (Politician and Public Servant words). The DFRDB scheme was supposed to and expected to cater for the very special conditions of employment of Service Personnel. Service Personnel get shot at, spend long periods away from family, go where they are told to go when they are told, regardles of impacts on self and family. Service Personnel often can’t purchase a home or business until after discharge due to posting turbulance and that is what I believe was the reason for the introduction of commutation. Resettlement from Military to civilian life is a major hurdle for many exservice personnel, it is a whole new world. Part of the formula for calculating the amount of commutation was to use the life expectancy figure for the applicant, why use this figure if it did not have a bearing on when repayment should cease surely some other figure could have been used. This formula was explained by “Servants of the Commonwealth” at military resettlement seminars and when I left my seminar I had absolutely no doubt that if I achieved Life Expectancy my pension would revert to the pre commutation level. Over many years I have raised this issue with politicians of all persuasions and I have received such enlightening comments such as “Commutation is the lump sum pre payment of part of a members future retirement pay, it is an advance not a debt” What a play on words, should a Centrelink client receive an advance of future entitlement they repay it and then revert to their normal rate. How is it possible for an advance not to be a debt, any advance I have ever received has had to be paid back. Another comment used by politicians is “I have been advised” I must ask whether the Public Servant providing this advice is the same one who recommended commutation at Resettlement Seminars. Although I have previously requested details of the specific section of the DFRDB Act that clearly states that commutation must be repaid for the whole of life I have never received such details. If the Act does not specifically state that on attainment of Life Expectancy the repayment continues then it could be assumed that this has been an administrative decision and not based on Legislation. Yes I read the recent information on Politicians using their “living Away from Home Allowance” to pay rent to their spouse,(a sneaky way to buy property) both sides of the house agreed that there was no legislative reason why this was not right and proper. Maybe both sides of the house could consider the difference with repayments of commutation for whole of life. (not likely)
Then of course there are the widows of former DFRDB members they only receive 5/8th of the pre commutation entitlement, good enough for the widows of ex-service personnel but not good enough for the spouses of politicians.
If any of these issues are ever resolved in favour of those that fought for this wonderful country, those who view their plight as downtrodden DFRDB recipients there would be considerable claw back as Centrelink and DVA Service Pension entitlements would be reduced. Did Treasury modelling go this far or were their figures only based on cost?
As a member of the most “Reviewed Superannuation System in the Country” I wait with great anticipation for the release of the latest review which has gathered almost as much dust as the review commissioned by former Minister Bilson. Of course now that there is a new Minister maybe another review is required.
If the Government are going to continue to treat the defenders of the country in the way we have been treated since Prime Minister Whitlam confiscated our funds in 1973 then for God’s sake stand up and say it.
There are a number of related issues, such as compensation, which we can look at developing in subsequent campaigns, with the backing of SCOA, Defence and retiree organisations. One of the criticisms levelled over the years at this campaign for a change to the method of indexation of ComSuper and Defence pensions has been that it is basically just a “Canberra” issue, and a second charge has been that its aim is to benefit the “fat cats”, or that it is a case of “middle-class welfare”. This is belied not only by SCOA and Defence statistics, but by the case studies we are now receiving. It is great to get support and so many comments from the States. Do let us know your area or postcode.
Consie Larmour, Office of Senator Lundy
Yes Jim Hislop,
“If the Government are going to continue to treat the defenders of the country in the way we have been treated since Prime Minister Whitlam confiscated our funds in 1973 then for God’s sake stand up and say it.”
This well feeds into today’s biggest defence dilemma, recruiting. I believe that unlike our fathers who were a huge “no cost” benefit FOR recruiting and today, because we have been so shafted by successive governments, I maintain that we have so well informed the current recruitable generations, that they are as cynical as we are.
This anti-recruitment by us as ex service personnel feeds into the sharp end (combat arms and critical musterings first) my experience being an ex explosive detection dog handler informs me of this, a critical trade for deployment, and I know of handlers whom have been “touched” for their third tour in three years.
Further, from speaking to the WIVES of sub mariners, (remember we can only crew two of our six boats) its the wives who do not permit their men to re-muster. This in spite of a submariner chef, for instance, getting $200,000 a year!
More, my daughter has just ended a beautiful relationship, her boyfriend was SeaHawk aircrew, six tours in five years! He’s still in the navy, but very single.
I reckon that this as a consequence of our being industrially ABUSED by successive political masters and mistresses is feeding into the AMF on a logarithmic basis. ie. This is only going to get worse as our treatment gets worse. I know that any young person who approaches me and asks about my service just get a face full of negatives about the consequences of service rather than the actual service.
Any thorts?
Sapper
I have just read Jim Hislop’s comments and wholeheartedly agree.
Below is an extreact from a paper submitted to the Review Committee of Super and Indexation Arrangement in Aust Government Civilian and Military Super Schemes by LtCol JA Graham. I am sure he will not object to be quoting from his paper if it furthers our cause.
On the matter of reversion to a member’s original pension value on repayment of his/her commutation, he writes:
There is no provision for reversion to the full value of retired pay once the Commutation Lump Sum, in the case of DFRB/DFRDB superannuants, has been repaid. The commutation is an advance against future earnings.
In the interests of equity, the DFRB/DFRDB Acts needs to be amended to provide for benefits to revert to the full level, once the advance has been repaid in accordance with the life table used to calculate the reduced retirement pay.
The practice of a member continuing to receive reduced retirement pay for the rest of his/her life is akin to a bank continuing to deduct mortgage payments from one’s account after the mortgage is discharged. It is morally wrong.
Medical advances and lifestyle changes have resulted in life expectancies being considerably higher than calculated at the time of an individual’s commutation application and has resulted in this (probably) unintended consequence of using an outdated life expectancy table. Mr Podger, in the previous inquiry report felt this was unimportant.
The table below shows the variation in life expectancy between 1960 and 2002-3 and illustrates the point in using non current life tables being very much detrimental to the contributor.
Year: 1960 Male 68 Female 64
2003 Male 78 Female 83 (Source: Aust Bureau of Statistics)
The application of the Life Expectancy Tables, not having been updated in relation to DFRB/DFRDB, have led to an anomaly in relation to Commutation, in that a superannuant will pay back far more than the advance, because of the greater life expectancy than that on which the commutation payment was based.
Example:
A DFRB superannuant who retired in 1978, whose life expectancy was 70 years using the life tables applied to his/her application, the commutation was to be repaid by that age. He is not 77 years of age and has continued being paid the reduced rate of his fortnightly benefits. This constitutes an unfair loss to the member of $59.82 per fortnight or $1559.73 per annum. The member’s loss since he repaid his commutation in the form of reeduced retirement pay, is not $11,913.11.
A superannuant with 31 years service, retiring in 1986, received the following written advice from Comsuper:
Retirement Pay $20924.56 per annum; or $802.56 per fortnight.
Reduced Retirement Pay after commutation $17464.79 per annum: or $669.88 per fortnight.
This member will continue to lose $133.64 per fortnight, or $3474.64 per annum after he has repaid the commutation.
Senator Lundy, the above are just words unless someone somewhere takes this matter seriously, and does something about it. YOU are in a position of power and YOU are THAT person. This time, let’s see some action!
Regards,
Ernie Gimm (Malaya/Thai/Vietnam Vet)
Gidday Ernie
Mate what you are on about has been well and truly disseminated repeatably to all SIX superannuation reviews, all MPs of both sides of the House and countless newspapers around the country over the last 10/20 years!
ADF superannuation entitlements are unfair, unjust and unequal not to mention discriminatory!Most MPs care little as their very own superannuation entitlements are “well above the norm” and they do not wish to see, nor to hear and understand the immorality and injustice of ADF superannuation entitlements! Is it any wonder ADF recruitment is so difficult in 2009?
We now have a new DFRB/DFRDB Federal minister and it would not suprise me to see “another bloody review” to soak up time and procrastinate even further under the Rudd Government (All words and NO action)! We are still awaiting to see the recommendatiions of the Matthews review handed to Government DEC 08?????
There are many, many other serious structoral problems with our “Paid For” ADF superannuation entitlements, Indexation by CPI, 27.5% of MTAWE or cost of living increases “whichever is the highest”, DFRB/DFRDB Widow’s entitlements of “62.5%” compared to Politician’s widows entitlements of “83%” of their husbands superannuation entitlement,reversion to full fortnightly entitlements once life table age expectancy is reached and commutation repaid, use of 1972(37 years ago)Life Expectancy Actuarial Tables, “splitting” of taxable income with wives,use of ABS figures “three months past their use-by-date”,refund of the 2% indexation increase STOLEN by a Labor Governement in the 80s,tax free entitlements for all those over 60 years of age,commutation/non commutation differentiation of “paid for “DFRB/DFRDB” entitlements,use of the discriminatory word “pensioner or pension” (which we are NOT and do not receive) in lieu of entitlements/retired salary/retired wages etc, comparison with Centrelink customers who are treated more favourably via indexation when compared to “paid-for” ADF “old soldiers” superannuation schemes,choice of superannuation funds,average ADF superannuation entitlent is now $21,486 PA(JUN 08)many thousands of dollars below the Henderson Povery Line which the Government uses!
Finally in the last 20 years military retirees’ superannuation entitlements have increased by just “under 70%”, whereas the Age pension has more than doubled, “by 110%”, and MPs’ superannuation entitlements have increased by “over 130%”??????
Where is the justice, equality and fairness in this you may well ask your local Federal member in 2009?????
Dear Kate,
Whitlam to a big chunk and Governments ever since have treated us like idiots. Kevin 07 and his team were going to fix things if we voted for him. Ha Ha.
Keep up the good work. Remember the Japanese water torture did work.
Ex-Apprentice 11th
Worth the watch Senator:
http://www.beforeyougo.us/play_byg_vn
Sapper
I will be away for 2 weeks, but I am really hoping that there will be positive suggestions to comment on when I get back. I look forward to catching up with your ideas when I get back. Thank you to all contributors, and do remember please to add your postcodes or addresses to your posts.
Access to Resources
Dear Consie, maybe you could ask the DFRDB Authority to provide you with a demographic of their recipients (is this for voting strength evaluation?). Kate, maybe your resources can help this forum be more productive by some research through the Parliamentary Library and other Government Departments. I also would like to be able to access records like the DFRDB statistics of the demography of recipients and number who have commuted etc. I would also like access the full Statisticians Life Tables since 1962 for a more accurate proposal I have prepared (there aren’t any complete records available publicly that I can find). All I need are links to the data, or have it made available through your pages.
Did You Feel The Sting?
Here is a score-card of ‘the Government V the DFRDB Pensioner’ over the years.
The Indexation Sting.
If you retired as a full pensioner believing your pension would be fully indexed, you were wrong.
The full (un-commuted) pension is only indexed by part of the CPI, as if you had commuted four times your retired pay. For example: if your full retired pay was $100 and the CPI was 10% you would have expected to get $110 after indexation. Had you commuted and your residual retired pay was $85 you would receive $8.5 increase – and that is what you would get added to your full retired pay, that is for each $100 you would not get $110 but $108.5.
Gov 1, Pensioner 0.
The CPI Payment Sting.
The CPI index is calculated each quarter (3 monthly in June, Sept, Dec, Mar). Originally, retired pay was adjusted annually in July, as of the March quarter index increase for the past 12 months. From 2002 this changed to a bi-annual indexation, paid in July and January. Why not a quarterly change?
Here’s the sting – an annual change of 8% can be represented as follows:
Annually. Take $100 and adjust it by 8% annually and it becomes $108 in July
Bi-annually. If the bi-annual CPI was 4% in Sep and 4% in March the $100 would be $104 in Jan then $108.16 in July ($104*.04).
Quarterly. If the CPI for each quarter was 2% the results for $100 would be $102, $104.04, $106.12, $108.24 in July.
Gov 2 – Pensioner 0
The CPI Fiddle Sting.
For retired pay recipients between 1986 and 1989 the government reduced CPI indexation by a total of 6.43311%. Add to this the errors in application of CPI changes since 1999 i.e. March 1999 1.1% instead of 1.2% published (-0.1%). March 2005 2.3% instead of 2.4% published (-0.1%). March 2007 2.5% instead of 2.4% published (+0.1%). This equates to a total reduction since 1986 of -6.53311%.
Gov 3 – Pensioner 0
The Commutation Payback Sting.
This is an example given in the January 1985 DFRDB Information Pamphlet for an Army Major (DFRDB figures, with minor variations due to different rounding by me)!
The Major retired in 1986 and received $42606.80 in commutation. His life expectancy was to age 71.75 (i.e. in 2019). By then he will have ‘repaid’ his commutation advance of $42606.80 by forfeiture of some retired pay but, if he lives to be 82 he will continue to forfeit another $13334.91 in excess!
Gov 4 – Pensioner 0
The Forgiven Debt Sting.
By way of justifying the continued refund of commutation beyond life expectancy the Authority have argued that if a recipient dies before ‘repaying’ the commutation debt that they ‘forgive’ the debt rather than claim against the estate. No wonder the Government is being magnanimous in forgiving the debt! If our Major (example) died on day one of his retirement the Government would save a minimum expenditure of $634753.95, for the period to his normal life expectancy age.
Apparently the Government of the day saw the light because the quoted statement never appeared again, until recently.
Major dies age 39 on 11 May 1986 – expected to live to 2019!
Lump sum outstanding (commutation debt) -42606.80
Pension Payments saved (extrapolated to 2019 – min) 634753.95
Government outcome (commitment less debt) 592147.15
Gov 5 – Pensioner 0
The CPI Fiddle Sting – updated.
Additions, corrections and clarification of my previous post on this subject. Thanks to those supplying additional data.
If all the variations between calculated (ABS published) and applied (DFRDB) figures between 1979 and 1999 are considered there has been a discrepancy of -0.3%.
The period between 1986 and 1989 saw legislation reduce CPI indexed payments by 6.43311% over the three years.
The annual examples I originally quoted for 2005 and 2007 (although they balanced out) were mistakenly applied. They do not apply because they were in the period of bi-annual CPI adjustments from 2002, not annual adjustments. I have not detected any other inaccuracies in applied CPI since 1999.
The bottom line is that we have had discrepancies totaling -6.7% since 1979. It’s not so much the percentage – but the way it leans!
Gov 3 – Pensioner 0
Year Index % Change % ABS % DFRDB Variation
Mar 1978 38.2
Mar 1979 41.3 8.115183 8.1 8.2 0.1
Mar 1980 45.7 10.653753 10.7 10.5 -0.2
Mar 1981 50.0
Mar 1982 55.3 10.600000 10.6 10.5 -0.1
Mar 1983 61.6
Mar 1984 65.2 5.844156 5.8 5.9 0.1
Mar 1985 68.1
Mar 1986 74.4 9.251101 9.3 9.2 -0.1
* 1986 to 1989 Reduction (payment reduced) -6.53311
Mar 1997 120.5
Mar 1998 120.3 -0.165975 -0.2 0.0 0.0
Mar 1999 121.8 1.246883 1.2 1.1 -0.1
Rounded Total = -6.7%
What Is Our Political Strength?
Before we get too macho about ‘storming the Bastille’ or mounting an electoral challenge we should consider our strengths and weaknesses. The most recent data I can find is in the Australian Statisticians Report dated 2005 and it shows there are 7072 DFRDB contributors in uniform, and 56185 recipients, a total of 63257 people who are subject to the DFRDB (and DFRB) conditions. That number has no doubt reduced and will continue so to do. All the DFRDB members need to get involved now as the numbers are only headed in one direction.
If you watch a sporting match at the MCG where only 63000 turn up you will see just how few we are! To fill the Stadium we would have to add the 44491 MSBS contributors and 5509 recipients as well. The total would then include the ENTIRE Defence Force and superannuates, about 113257.
I my view, spreading this number around the Australian electorates or States would not provide much of a political impact unless the marginal seats were loaded. It would seem to be more productive to cultivate a few sympathetic ears in Parliament who are prepared to listen and act.
All Commonwealth superannuation pensioners are in this together and there are hundreds of thousands of us. The one thing that politicians are more sensitive to than anything else is how people will vote. Nothing else necessarily bothers them at all. Cynical, you bet.
Thanks Michael. I was referring also to specific DFRDB problems as well but you are correct, other organisations have interests with the CPI effects.
ComSuper Scheme Statistics – 30 June 2009 (they are ahead of the game here!)
This link will take you to the ComSuper Scheme Statistics page on the Web.
http://www.comsuper.gov.au/the_schemes/schemes_stats.html
Including PSS (252355), CSS (149054), Military (128877) and DFRDB (62797)
therefore there appears to be a total of 663124 superannuates.
I’m not sure how the ‘Preserved’ or ‘Deferred’ membership is counted.
Well Kate,
A little further down the track and you have a number of comments.
Unfortunately, add up the number of individual contributors (quite some of whom have made more than one comment) and you get a very, very small number as a “representative lot”. I would only hope that this small number is sufficient to make the impact you desire.
Two points from comments previous to this:
1. The “stings” mentioned by Bill Arden – I would really like to see the Govt’s counter to these points, and
2. Numbers equating to MCG crowds (again by Bill Arden) – the total numbers almost seem insignificant to warrant any attention, and yet, being so “insignificant”, how can the Govt’s view that any change would be “cost prohibitive” be valid?
One thing is for sure – if the Govt continues the way it has (like so many Govts of the past) – this particular Govt will only be able to enjoy its one term in office!
Best of luck Kate, but keep your resume current. You will need to use it again shortly…!
I have read through all of the above comments and the two that have made the most sense and stick to the point at hand are made by John Graham and Jim Hislop. The research that they have done, which I don’t have the capacity to do, makes very good reading and is something I can understand and agree with.
I do recall, however, frequently reading the expectation prior to the last Federal Election of a better deal if we have a change of government!
I guess it’s ‘wait and see’ but don’t count the money until it gets into the bank.
We can now wish ourselves the best of luck but we should also thank the two gents mentioned above for the time and effort they have put into their research and their excellent submissions.
I retired from the army in 1979 and commuted part of my(DFRDB) comsuper to use as a deposit on my 1st home as no government scheme was available at that time,thus this resulted in me having my fortnightly comsuper payment reduced,I have assertained that I have repaid the amount I initally borrowed from my comsuper (DFRDB) therefor I was astounded that the Government has made no allowance in the DFRDB rules to reinstate me to the full comsuper pension but still continues to take out of my comsuper the amount I initally had to repay therefor the Government iis penalising me for borrowing on my comsuper,if I hadn’t borrowed the money in the first place I estimate I would be now receiving approx 35% more each fortnight,now multiply that by the thousands of service members who did the same and you will find the Government is reaping quite a large sum of money off those who served this country.
From the MSB Annual Report 2007-2008
> Table 13: Male and Female Contributors by Years of Service
> Year Male Female Total
> 0-9 34 890 1802 36 692
> 10-14 5266 963 6229
> 15-19 2951 441 3392
> 19> 2756 286 3042
> Total 45 863 3492 49 355
What do these figures tell us about expertise retention?
75% are at the PTE-CPL/LT-CAPT!? No bugger wants this as a career!!!!
I guess it also says that the current crop of two way rifle range targets are less slower learners than us that served the compulsory 20+, no?
All that IET, mil skills and first promotion training down the toilet.
Hi Jim,
They really are interesting figures but how you choose to interpret them is the crux of the problem. They may merely show what I, as the RASIGS Personnel Manager would have expected, that there is a pretty classic pyramid forme – related to a large degree to authorised manpower levels. Not everyman is destined to become a SGT or above.
As an aside, I don’t think ADF recruiting is as bad as some posts claim. We Aussies, from New Army days onwards until MSBS, tried to keep soldiers in for at least 20 years – the Poms (still) have a policy of disharging all soldiers at age 41 (I think) unless they accept a ‘QM’ commission – they have used this approach as a mobilisation tool. Who’s to say they are wrong given European strategic conditions?
The fact is that not too many young people have a sense of vocation to any profession nowdays and that’s what the ADF struggles against.
Have a great day,
Neil
Related to a comment by Cansie Larmour (Office of Senator Lundy).
Thank you Consie for your comment above.
Might I ask, please, who the “many of her colleagues in Parliament” might be? Or if you are not at liberty to nominate these members, perhaps you could ask them to add their comments to this Forum?
It would be very helpfull to us (DFRB/DFRDB, SCOA, etc) to know who might be on our side in this matter!
‘Av a beaut day!
Vietnam War NZ Apology
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12Cg6c0ZEOA
I don’t know of anywhere else to post this , so I am hoping that someone can answer my question.
Does anybody know of any woman who served in the A.W.A.S. during WW2 in Australia who is receiving a service pension?
My mother signed up and served in signals, drove trucks delivering confidential documents. When she signed up, she had no say in where she was posted, the same as everyone else who signed up in any of the forces, but has been told that she is entitled to nothing, as she did not serve overseas or was not in any danger. I know of a person who was in the airforce who did not serve overseas and served in Darwin after it was declared no longer a war zone and ended up with EDA and the Gold card. I do not begrudge this person this as I believe that all service people deserve this. As it stands now my Mother has to wait for my Father (EDA and Gold card holder ) to die to get any entitlements.
If anyone can help with information that would be great.
Cathy
The High Road to Commutation Justice.
I wonder if anyone else is aware of the decision by the HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA in which the Full Bench ruled that ‘prospective rather than historical life expectancy tables should be used’. This order was made on 19 April 2007 and should have a direct bearing on the way the DFRDB Act is applied. The High Court of Australia is the highest court in the land and there is no appeal on its decisions. All other Courts in Australia are bound by its rulings.
Source: See Paras. 68, 69, 70 at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2007/15.html
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan And Crennan JJ
10 April 2007
“Life expectancy tables
68. The primary judge assessed the plaintiff’s life expectancy by reference to historical tables published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Those tables were based upon annual information with respect to deaths and made no allowance for any future improvement in life expectancy.
69. The plaintiff submitted at trial that life expectancy should be calculated by reference to certain prospective tables also published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Those tables take account of the predicted improvement in life expectancy. The tables look forward rather than confining attention to what history has already revealed about life expectancy.
70. The Court of Appeal held that “it is appropriate for the courts to make their estimations on the basis of the best information available: the projected tables would appear to be a more accurate assessment of future trends than the historical tables.” There is no reason to doubt that the Court of Appeal was correct in its conclusion that the projected tables published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics were more likely to give an accurate estimate of future life expectancy than the historical tables published by the Bureau. That being so, it follows that the Court of Appeal was right to conclude that, despite the then prevailing practice in the courts of New South Wales, the primary judge should have used the prospective rather than the historical tables.”
Comment by the Bench that “…despite the then prevailing practice in the courts of New South Wales…” highlights a possible reason for the use of the ‘hard-wired’ historical life expectancy table in Schedule 3 of the DFRDB Act, which was included when it was drafted in 1972 or earlier. Decisions by the NSW High Court would have supported that practice and would have been the logical guide to the legislators at the time.
Following the legal precedent now set by the High Court of Australia I am surprised the DFRDB Act has not been amended by removing Schedule 3 (the 1962 Life Expectancy Table) and amending both references to it in the Act (in Sections 24 and 32A) which are essentially identical except for S32A dealing with invalidity pay.
For example, S24(3)(b) under Section 24 ‘Commutation of retirement pay’ would be amended to delete ‘Schedule 3’ and references to it with ‘the current Life Tables published by the Australian Statistician’. The Section would then read:
…
(b) the amount per annum of the retirement pay payable to him,
on and after the day on which the election takes effect, is the
amount per annum that, but for this paragraph and subsection
98K(1), would be payable reduced by an amount calculated
by dividing the amount referred to in paragraph (a) by the
expectation of life factor that, having regard to the age and
sex of the person on the day on which the election takes
effect, is applicable to him under
…the current Life Tables published by the Australian Statistician.
This all seems legal, fair and responsible – but, it will take us back to the situation in 1973 when it will be 22 to 42 years before recipients discover they are overpaying their commutation debt! As commutation was a new innovation, legislators at the time may not have realised that they would have to contend with other peoples problems that far into the future – right?
I believe there is now a legal and manageable model to get around all of this and I believe it will solve most of the problems arising from the current application of commutation, retired pay and indexation (CPI) adjustments, all within the framework (and spirit) of the DFRDB Act. I will reveal this in a later submission, complete with graphical charts – if I can get a PDF file published on this site, or elsewhere.
I still have faith in this forum, so if you are ‘fair dinkum’ please comment, and either dump me or encourage me – this involves a lot of work!
Only just come accross this forum and felt the need to comment. There is no doubt that ex-servicemen and public servants are receiving nothing short of disgraceful treatment from the current and previous governments. I enjoyed a 36 year career in the RAN and had hoped to stay in until retirement age. Unfortunately I was medically discharged in 2004 as a result of PTSD related disabilities. After discharge I spent many periods at St.John of God hospital in the PTSD ward and in 2005, with my problems seemingly insurmountable, was arrested during a bizarre suicide attempt. I was subsequently sentenced to a five year good behaviour bond thanks to a very understanding District court judge. I have come to believe that I cannot work or live in Australia any more for fear of breaking my bond and consequently live in Thailand.
Not long after my discharge I was given TPI status, something which is the source of great shame to me. I would much rather still be a productive and respected member of my community but feel stigmatised by receiving TPI. My salary at the end of my career was in excess of $75,000 and my prospects for promotion were excellent as were my prospects for excellent post military career. Now I am reduced to paying the mortgage and surviving on significantly less that my final salary, through no fault of my own.
To be treated so poorly by sucessive governments leaves a distinctly sour taste in ones mouth and it is no suprise to me that you have not had too many contributors to this blog, due to the fact that many veterans and PS personnel would see it as a waste of their time.
With respect to those questioning the validity of TPI’s being gainfully employed, please check the DVA fact sheet regarding the Veterans Vocational Rehabilitation Scheme.
I wish you luck with your campaign. My bones, once filled with enthusiasm are nor filled with cynicism and I will not be holding my breath waiting for a fair and equitable outcome.
Ex LCDR, RAN
Dear Senator,
The inconsistency and hypocrisy by most politicians on the indexation of DFRDB and MSBS superannuation compared to their own parliamentary schemes is amazing but almost totally expected.
This aspect alone must impact on recruiting and retention of valuable,trained and needed people in the ADF.
To see the prevarication by the responsible politicians following six reviews of the Defence super problems means they are not serious, nor do they really care for the long-term impact on the ADF today.
In the interests of fairness and equity for yesterday’s ADF members and today’s and tomorrow’s Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen, this indexation problem needs fixing now.
It was nice to know that as I served I was happy in the knowledge that the Government would look after me in my dotage because I had to make a compulsory DFRDB deduction from my wages towards my pension, unlike my civilian peer. My civilian peer could spend all his wages throughout his life and was secure in the knowledge that he would collect the pension when he retired.
The 9% SGA levy is paid by my civilian employer on my weekly wage and is deposited into my Super Fund account each month. This fact would be reported to the ATO by various means. Why is there no SGA levy on my fortnightly DFRDB pension payment? The ATO views my DFRDB pension payment as taxable income, and as I am not yet 60 am not entitled to tax free income streams. If the SGA levy is payable on all income earnings, and this is an oversight by the Government, then I like many others are entitled to some ‘back pay’.
With 23 years in the RAAF to earn a highly prized DFRDB pension, and topped up with another 20 years working in private industry my best option is to do some quick ’round the world trips’ to use up all my still accrueing private super so that I can enjoy a trip to my local Centerlink office to argue a case for an increase on my fortnightly DFRDB pay out just so that I can live as a normal Australian pensioner.
As I am still working I now have clear goal as how my wife and I will spend our twilight years – very poorly.
Hi there Senator,
unless/until the Minister releases the report initiated by Sherry former ADF and APS pensioners have no specific (current) issue to which they are able to direct their ire. Obviously the equity argument continues to fall on deaf ears. Given the government’s relatively slim electoral majority and the growing disaffection of the Greens with current policy direction/debate, 350,000 votes may be enough to tip the balance towards the opposition parties. Perhaps the Minister may be more responsive to this argument in the context of a’timely’ release of the report.How about a question regarding this issue to the appropriate person in either/both houses. Let’s get it on the record that natives grow more restless.John Roberts.
Hi there Senator,
perhaps Greg Combet may be interested in this issue. After all he was a passionate supporter of workplace/employment equity in a previous life. Given his new portfolio includes “defence personnel” perhaps you may wish to engage him in the debate?
Cathy,
you should contact DVA with your query after you have ensured your facts about your mother receives no benefits. Does your father receive a Service Pension in addition to his EDA? If he does, your mother also receives a part Service Pension too. She may also receive consideration for pharmeceutical benefits. Her scripts will contribute to your Dad’s Safety net provisions. When you contact DVA I am sure you will receive courteous attention. If you are not satisfied with the answer, you should air your concerns to Alan Griffin, the Minister for Veterans Affairs. He is a good bloke.
Thanks John,
I will find out the information from what you have said and go from there.
Thanks again
Cathy
Dear Kate
I have been out of the navy for 32 years on a commuted pension.
I think I received about $20,000 for my commution. If over the last 32 years my pension was deducted by $1.20 it would now be payed off and I should be back on a full pension if the proper life times were emnployed. I’m not on a full DFRDB pension and so I can only assume that I will still be paying it off to the day I die.
Could you please thank you colleagues for there being no rise to the pension this half year. I would imagine that the Public Servants got their rise.
Graham
Graham. Not sure what you meant by “I would imagine the Public Servants got their rise”. If you are referring to an increase to our pensions on 1 July, the answer is NO. Like you, we did not get an increase.
P/S
To say that there is no increase hides the fact that all Commonwealth superannuation pensions will actually be cut in due course.
The December 2008 quarter CPI was -0.3%. The March 2009 quarter CPI was +0.1%, a net result for the six months of -0.2%. Assuming say the CPI actually increases in the June 2009 and September 2009 quarters by a total of 0.2%, the -0.2% will be factored in which means that we will not get any increase either come 1 January 2010.
So much for Ms Gillard’s notion of a fair go and Mr Rudd’s fair shake and suck of the sauce bottle!!!! All rhetoric ie whatever it is that emanates from a bull!!!
CPI Changes
Michael, if you graph the CPI Index (I stress ‘Index’) you will soon see how it has gone up since 1948 but especially from 20.5 to 166.2 since 1973. There is a small flat spot around 1998 but I have read somewhere that the ‘basket of goods’ was reviewed at some time – that could be when it happened. It’s really the change in the index, not whether we get a rise or not every six months. You noted the quarterly changes and if we were on a quarterly increase we would have got, from March 2008 – 1.3, 1.5, 1.2, 0.0, and 0.1. Don’t despair it will go up again but then we will soon have AWOTE won’t we!
I’m fairly sure politicians don’t have any involvement with the Statistician’s methods – but then!
Senator Lundy
Could you please confirm with your colleagues and let us know who exactly is responsible for the indexation of Commonwealth superannuation pensions. It was Nick Sherry. Then it shifted to Chris Bowen. As I understand it, it then got shifted to Lindsay Tanner. I have just been on the phone to the Prime Minister’s office. The person I spoke to insists it is Chris Bowen and not Lindsay Tanner. I rang Chris Bowen’s office and the person who answered the phone said “yes” Chris Bowen is responsible for superannuation and she will get someone to ring me back re the Matthews Report. I trust I am the one who is confused for if Government is confused about who is responsible what hope is there for anyone???
The value of our superannuation has been decreasing for over the 20 years that I have been collecting it.
The true value of my superannuation has decreased by well over 300% in 20 years, and when you consider what a piddling amount it was to start with, we have well and truly been shafted.
Just to add insult to injury we have to pay for medication for illnesses that came about as result of service.
Ex Pollies are sucking up public money with Unlimited Gold Card allowances benefiting mostly themselves, after accumulating huge superannuation payouts for 6 to 9 years of easy service in comparison to 20 years if Military Service.
After 20 years Military Service I was paid a lump sum of around $36000, with a $9000 income. I will be paying back the lump sum for the rest of my life.
My ongoing super payment is currently, $18000 a year with the value dropping as we continue to try and get some justice from people who have perfected the art of “Nest Feathering”
A good reflection of the Governments deceit is the fact that in 1995 my income tested Service Pension, started at $120 a fortnight. My superannuation income reduced the Service Pension.
My means tested Service pension is now well over $350 a fortnight because my superannuation income has not kept up with the rate of inflation as calculated elsewhere
Michael Fong I am told on good authority that Greg Combet is now “The DFRB/DFRDB Minister” responsible for Defence super and the Matthews report, under strict instruction from Rudd/Tanner/Swan/Faulkner/Smith et al!
After the typical Rudd Government “switch-a-roo” I believe this is correct!
Persevere
Bernie
I have been asked by the Australian Veterans and Defence Services Council to prepare a number, say ten, examples of how individuals have been financially effected by receiving CPI rather than a wages based indexation.
I need volunteers of people of differing ranks and lengths of service at time of discharge. I will guarantee anonymity of the final result. If you don’t have your basic information from retirement, you will have to request it from COMSUPER.
The above is to be used in a further submission to government on indexation.Of course I will be a volunteer.Please contact me for more details
at johngraham@railscenes.com.au
Hi John, that looks like a great initiative. Let us know if we can help at all. We look forward to seeing the results.
Many thanks,
Pia Waugh
Office of Senator Kate Lundy
Hi John
Thanks for all your posts! I want to offer a suggestion regarding the preparation and presentation of case studies that may assist in drawing more political attention to the inequities. What do you think of a public forum in which we have people present the ten different case studies? A digital recording of these presentations could form part of future representations, and/or to highlight the heart of the issues in response to the request for the case studies. With the support of my terrific staff, we can provide the support (technical and otherwise) and subsequent hosting of the video on this blog. Please let me know what you think.
Dear Senator Kate,
Your active support is encouraging but I cringed when you suggested using your staff effort to produce a video! I doubt a video clip of unprofessional proponents in an amateur production will be very helpful. I recall the news interviews with servicemen’s wives during the review of conditions of service many years ago and I thought it made the Service look like a bunch of whingers. When you read through the comments in this forum you will see that this is far from the truth – contributors here are airing their true grievances and concerns, they are not seeking sympathy.
If you really want to make a video, get Laurie Oakes to interview some relevant members of Parliament about the questions raised in this forum, in due course.
I suggest to you that a better use of your staff resources would be to obtain a Research Paper through the Parliamentary Library based on all the issues raised here (eventually), and get behind the thoughts and reasons for past decisions and relate them to the present circumstances. We now have the advantage of hindsight, after 36 years of field-testing the DFRDB scheme against reality and I doubt anyone is afraid of the facts being revealed. One important fact that may have been overlooked is that the DFRDB Act 1973 was drafted around 1971-72 and indexation was not introduced (or thought of) until 1976-77, as an add-on (Part XA – read it and weep). Much of the earlier thinking and wording in the Act did not take indexation into account, and it persists to this day.
Thanks Bernie. Looks like the Matthews Report is regarded in Government circles as the poisoned chalice. Best wishes to Greg Combet. Bet Mr Combet’s minders are busy trying to figure out how to pass the chalice to someone else. In the meantime, back at the pensioners’ front …
Bill – thanks for your information re the Index. Very interesting. Yes, we will soon have the AWOTE – if Mr Combet bites the bullet. Being an ex-unionist I have no doubt he would be filled with the great Julia Gillard sense of “a fair go” and Mr Rudd’s vision of a “fair shake and fair suck of the sauce bottle” for all. I am at the stage where I would be happy for any kind of sauce – even left-overs from the PM’s RAAF or executive jets. But, no peas in the sauce please.
Avasquiz at this one…
===================================================================
THE HON WARREN SNOWDON MP
Minister for Defence Science and Personnel
Senator Gary Humphries
Senator for the Australian Capital Territory
148 Bunda Street
CANBERRA ACT 2601 26 MAY 2009
Dear Senator Humphries
Thank you for your letter of 18 January 2009 concerning the possibility of altering the terminology used to describe payments made to members of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits scheme. I note your letter was received in my Office on 24 April 2009. The delay in responding is regretted.
You indicated in your letter that a number of your constituents had raised concerns at the use of the terms `pension’ and ‘pensioners’ in a recent brochure that had been sent to those constituents.
While I can appreciate the concerns of your constituents, 1 am advised that it would not be practical or cost effective to do as you suggest. The terms that you refer to are used interchangeably within the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973 (the Act), which provides that a member of the Defence Force Retirement Death Benefits scheme who satisfies relevant requirements is entitled to a retirement benefit, referred to in the Act as ‘retirement pay’. However, the Act also provides for the payment of invalidity benefits in the form of invalidity pay, pensions to widows, spouses and children and special pensions.
The Act uses a generic term ‘pension benefit’, which is defined to mean retirement pay, invalidity pay, widow’s pension, spouse pension or child’s pension and stipulates that `pension benefits’ are to be paid in fortnightly instalments. The Act also provides for ‘pension increases’, as distinct from ‘retirement pay increases’, as a result of changes in the Consumer Price Index.
I regret that I cannot assist you on this occasion and trust this information provides clarification on the matter for you.
Yours Sincerely
WARREN SNOWDON
===================================================================
What a load of mincing ministerial verbal masturbation! I’m well satisfied that when a minister’s mob get a piece of correspondence that is pointed well at any rational point of debate they are trained (no conditioned!) to say to themselves; “Well how can I write a response that does NOT answer the question.”
My lexicographal point has always been, the word “benefit” when it is not! Indeed, as discussed by many above it is in its “parliamentarian speak” the exact opposite of its true meaning!
Jim
Sapper
Set out below is an email I have just sent to the Acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard, copied to Tanner, Bowen, Combet and Sherry. FYI
My dear Minister
Further to my email below, I note Government’s assessment that the 1.3 million workers on the minimum wage will see their take-home pay reduced, even though the CPI for the December and March quarters actually decreased by 0.2%. I also note on television your annoyance that these workers were not granted a pay increase.
I agree whole-heartedly with the unions proposition and Government’s view that the cost of living for those on the minimum wage has actually gone up and up and up and that they should have received a pay increase. In other words, the Government is saying that there is simply no relationship between the ABS’s CPI and the real cost of living for those on low incomes such as those on the minimum wage and pensioners. This is a well canvassed and well known fact as you would be fully aware. The ABS itself has consistently said so.
I applaud you for standing up so passionately for the 1.3 million Australians on the minimum wage. I am still applauding and will continue to applaud you for it.
I would be most grateful, Minister, if you will direct the same passion in bringing about fairness, equity and justice for all Commonwealth Superannuated Defence and Public Service personnel.
I look forward very much to your response. Note that I have already copied this email to all Ministers who have had or who currently have anything to do with the Matthews Report.
From an outside stand-point it just seems like the Report is simply being passed around in the hope that the issue will go away, with successive Ministers’ minders telling anyone who rings up that “the matter is being considered at the senior levels of Government and that a decision will be made in due course” – a Sir Humphrey response.
Thank you for your time Minister.
Yours sincerely
Thank you for posting your letter. Would you mind please adding the date you sent it for posterity. Thanks.
Pia – office of Senator Lundy
Michael, I am a little confused with the basis of your argument “…workers on the minimum wage will see their take-home pay reduced, even though the CPI for the December and March quarters actually decreased by 0.2%.” This is a bit contradictory because if the CPI (cost of living) goes DOWN it gives a reason to NOT increase the minimum wage – or have I missed something? Reference to the change in CPI since the last review of the Minimum Wage would seem more relevant and according to my calculations from March 2008 to March 2009 we accumulated a 2.7% increase, which is what we got (over the year) – but they didn’t get it.
Pia, have you worked out how to link to a supporting PDF file in this Blog yet?
I have read through the comments again and can readily align with the anger that exists in relation to the declining real value of our(DFRDB & CSS). I was fortunate during my long service career and am not a TPI but I have friends who are and their problems are real, so I can appreciate their concerns as well. In a previous comment I mentioned that no matter how eloquent our argument, or how clear the facts, the submissions are falling on deaf ears as those we elect to represent us simply do not care. Maybe a way to focus the attention of those uncaring souls is to mount a campaign to vote against sitting members regardless of political persuasion. Perhaps loosing their ticket to keep their snout in the trough might help them to conmsider our case. Maybe our individual difficulty in voting for another party might be outweighed my moving the uncaring out of office. Worth a thought??
Received a letter last week from DFRDB telling me that as there was no CPI increase I would not get a rise in my DFRDB.
This week I got a letter from DVA telling me that as there had been a cost of living rise I would get a small increase in my service pension.
Someone somewhere is attempting to manipulate the truth, actually it is more written proof that we are being shafted.
We now have 6 reports on our DFRDB and waiting on the results of the last report which is held by an unknown/unidentified minister, but I feel a lot better because Senator Lundy is gathering information for us.
Bill Arden, Gidday!
The CPI index is not a reflection of cost of living increases, it is a measure of inflation! Why else did the Howard Govt chage the indexation method of Centrelink entitlements, besides winning votes, against the greater of CPI and now 27.5% of MTAWE during the 90s? Have a read of the ABS site!
A new ABS measure is about to be introduced to supposedly reflect more accurately cost of living increases but it remains to be seen if it will actually do that and not another Rudd “Red Herring”!
All we ask is for equity in that indexation of DFRB/DFRDB/PSS/CSS be calculated against CPI, MTAWE and new cost of living increases indicator, whichever is the greater (I have personnaly been saying this over last three decades to many MPs)-just like Centrelink tax payer funded benefits!
I remind you Politicians superannuation schemes are measurewd against rises in salary of a “Backbencher”-lets see what the Remuneration Tribunal says shortly, I believe it will be immoral, indecent and very unequal as Politicians will undoubably get a large salary rise come SEP(?)this year whilst Ex Commonwealth employees and basic wage Australians get “Stuff all”!
Bernie McGurgan
Bernie,
You will get no argument from me that the CPI is an inadequate indexation method for my Retirement Pay.
I have read both the statement in the Senate Select Committee Report of April 2001 in which “the Australian Bureau of Statistics stated that the CPI is not a measure of the cost of living”; and the submission by the ABS to the current review ‘Paper received from the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ which states “While the ABS has no direct role in deciding how its measures are to be used in relation to either wages or pensions, the CPI is a robust measure of general price inflation for the household sector and the best available broad measure of changes in the cost of living faced by Australian households”.
There are confusing terms here but I accept your correction, and the ABS definition that CPI is a measure of ‘price inflation’ and not ‘wages Inflation’, although they also define it as ‘a measure of cost of living’ – go figure.
Hi Bill (Arden)
I agree – my comments are a little confusing.
I was simply making reference to the assessment by Government and the unions that the cost of living has gone up for the 1.3 million workers on the minimum wage. My point was that in the six months from 1 October 2008 to 31 March 2009 the CPI actually fell ie that the Government is contradicting itself. On the one hand it is de facto telling us Commonwealth superannuants that the CPI is a measure of the cost of living. On the other hand, when it suits, it ignores the CPI and relies on “gut” that the cost of living has gone up. I have ABSOLUTELY no doubt whatsover that the cost of living has gone up for low income persons in the six months to 31 March – I shop, and have to pay for other basics of life.
I realise that over the 12 months from March 2008 to March 2009 the CPI actually went up, but none-the-less my point was that the Government should make up its mind which way it is going to jump with the CPI, cost of living and the indexation of Commonwealth Defence and Public Service superannuation pensions. Government cannot be totally ecletic and have it every which way. Surely, as cynical as I am, there must still be some politicians left who still adhere to some principles some of the time on some issues. Hopefully there is a confluence of the right politicians, the right time and the right issue for us. (I refrain from saying kangaroos might fly.)
Michael
We all agree there is a problem, the politicians know there is a problem, and here we are indiscriminately urinating into the wind.
Pollies love a talkfest and they have drawn us into one of their stupid games. There is nothing that has been added that is new or will make an ounce of difference to what needs to be done.
I would suggest that the best option is to suggest to the good senator that she grab hold of the report that we have all been waiting for, release it for all to see, and we can then take whatever action is necessary.
In the meantime lets not demean ourselves by supporting this useless web site.
It is possible that this web site may be being used to gather statistics on just how many people actually care about the issue, and if there is not enough support the matter will be ignored.
Dear Senator
To date I have submitted 2 entries yet have received no reply, it seems to me that a select few who may have an axe to grind are getting the coverage on this site.
I also note that out of the thousands of DFRDB members only a few have made comments,I suppose the rest are fed up to the back teeth with everything and can’t be bothered as nothing is done to help us,Irecently received an increase in my service pension due to a CPI ? increase ? I have made a promice I will not spend it all at once (No it was not a $900 hand out) it was a miserable ELEVEN CENTS increase a fortnight. Yahoo
Hi Trevor, Senator Lundy has been away for the period of both of your posts (28th and today) but as soon as she is back she will be catching up with all the comments she’s missed. Consie Larmour is the person in our office driving this particular campaign, and she is also away. I’m sure one of then will get back to you next week. Apologies for the delay.
Pia Waugh
Office of Senator Lundy
Dear Senator
I am a former C’wlth public servant with 33 years service. Like many of my mates, we are at a loss as to why Governments of both political persuasions don’t do what 3 separate Senate Committee Inquiries have recommended – i.e. stop the erosion of the standard of living of the almost 200,000 Australians who have served their country either in delivering consecutive Goverments’ programs or in proudly serving their country as a member of our excellent Defence Force. We are not asking for special or favoured treatment, only the community standard for indexing our pensions, a standard the former Government set more than a decade ago.
Cost can’t seriously be an issue because:
i) it will cost about one sixth the cost of providing what it cost to fairly index the Age pension and the need for a Future Fund wasn’t seen as necessary.
ii) there will be indisputable cost clawback of approx. 40% due to increased tax revenue and reduced Age Pension expenditure.
iii) the Future Fund, allegedly created to pay for long term C’wlth. superannuation commitments held about $64 billion in June 2008 and is set to grow, (world economic conditions permitting), at 5% p.a. above inflation.
It’s high time the Prime Minister honoured the repeated claims he made about “fairness” and “decency” during the run up to the last election.
And he better not come on about difficult economic times because he was able to find billions, not a few million, for several economic stimulus packages. A few extra bucks a fortnight for those affected will also help stimulate the economy but more importantly provide the fairness Mr Rudd led us to believe he would practice if Labor won office.
John Coleman
Well said John.
It’s nearly 36 years since we were ripped off and each successive government has offered to rectify their blunders on DFRDB.We know we won’t get justice,hence the silence from many who want to save their blood pressure.My 22years service was a waste of time as the age pension has far outstripped my paid for DFRDB.As for commutation fleecing it beggars belief that no politician understands the policy or do they want to? Great post from Jim Hislop and John Graham which explains our predicament and frustration.