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
G’day fellas,
I recently called for volunteers to prepare examples, for submission to Government, of the devaluing effect of CPI indexation on members’ retirement pay. I have not had one response. I have too many officers who have volunteered. In order to give a balanced picture I need NCOs to come forward. If people are not willing to participate in constructive moves, they are playing the belly-aching game, but doing little to help their own situation.
Please contact me at johngraham@railscenes.com.au if you are willing to come on board.
Hi John Graham (our erstwhile pro-activist supreme – I salute you, along with your mates).
I have approached my network and had several responses (all RAAF retirees) – several SGTs, a FSGT, a WOFF, an LAC (complex two stints), a SGT’s widow (now getting less than half the basic wage) and several WGCDRs, and a GRPCAPT. I will pass on the results once I prepare charts. I have also charted the two DFRDB examples of a SGT and Major from the 1985 DFRDB Information leaflet, right up to date. I am charting against the AWOTE and Federal Minimum Wage (and Aged Pension when I get the info) and anything else that will tell the true story – including the great Commutation rip-off.
Of interest, is that to get personal data from DFRDB older than seven years you apparently need FOI and that takes time – not many of us have kept complete records since 1973. I am amazed that ComSuper doesn’t have all recipients’ history on their computer database. This could be a reason for the delay to your request.
Incidentally, I have also advised some Army contacts who had no idea that this was all going on – they are spreading the word. All in all I have probably alerted over 100 recipients. Hang in there Laurens, there are still other things to investigate, and brighter minds than mine to contribute – all is not yet said.
This will be very valuable. We know that not everyone on ComSuperand Defence pensions has been able to invest a lump sum, take subsequent employment and otherwise top up their pensions. We need SCOA’s statistics on lower incomes and numbers, and case studies such as these to keep reinforcing our case.
Senator Kate Lundy
Can you please give us an update on what Government is doing about the Matthews Report, from your perspective and as a result of your discussions with Ministers and others?
Will you be asking questions in the House? (A question without notice would be nice, but might get you into trouble, although even a Dorothy Dixer will at least make the Minister get on his feet if nothing else, whichever Minister it is.)
Thank you
G’day Bill Arden,
thanks for your update. It is certainly our greatest requirement for examples be for PTE to WO ( or equivalent) for the reasons you touch on. I have to get my details from Comsuper to forward to you.
You are really the mainstay in this work because of your computer analytical skills. Thankyou.
The lack of action after so many reviews infers it is extremely unlikely that anything will change unless – like any good general would advocate – we change our tactics. An essential would be to infiltrate the responsible offices with people likely to support our cause. Politicians largely act on recommendations from these offices. Unfortunately, DFRDB recipients and their ilk in other affected schemes are mostly aging themselves out of contention for employment there even if they are of a mindset to try. What other tactics may sway young uninvolved advisers to support our cause? We need to bend our minds to motivating these advisers to recommend the changes we seek.
I only get a part DFRDB pension, because of enforced discharge, and a Governmnt job to maintain my benefits.
Every time the DFRDB goes up, my Service pension goes down, I have to pay Tax each year, then claim the whole lot back at the end of the financial year. My wife’s portion is subjected to the same decreases when the DFRDB goes up. So, essentially we gain nothing with pay increases on DFRDB payments.
Yet continue to take tax. Try explaining the wasted effort, and one may as well request a greek interpreter. They refuse to understand simple sentences!
1. Increase TPI & DVA compensation & associate benefits
2. Adjust indexation to male total average weekly earnings
3. Redefine war service
4. Redefine clinical determination of service caused trauma
5. Creare the PMVC
These are the Veteran 5 Demands originally agreedes to
by the government. some have been partially implemented and
some have been completly ignored. Judge for yourself with your
vote
Great Work to John Graham and Bernie McGurgan.
Just to let you know I have just posted a comment about Ministerial responsibility for Comsuper.
I notice on the Prime Minister’s website the very first photo shows him standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the three heads-of-Services. I hope it is an omen of which way he is leaning.
Dear kate Lundy,
thankyou for your suggestion of a forum etc. I think this would be very much to our advantage and is a positive move. I thankfully accept your offer of assistance by your staff.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for my input. To determine the losses most individuals will have to contact Comsuper for details to work on. My understanding is that anyone who has been discharged for seven years, or over, has to apply through Freedom of Information procedures. Bill Arden will then work on the figures, and we will then contact you. It will be the waiting for information from Comsuper that will cause delay. I thank you for your interest and help.
I believe that DFBRF has and always will be a ripoff as its administrated by public servants and not service personell they cannot and will not understand the scheme as they do not benefit from it personally. Having worked as a State Public Servant when I got out of the Army I feel I can state how there mind works under a parerworked, beuracratic system overseen bt Politicians who promote them when they save dollars.
Other Comments about TPI recipients are disturbing since you have to literally sweat blood to get it fron another great government buerocracy DVA but there should be some form of distinguishment in name/title between War sevice TPI holders and other sevice TPI holders PS exscuse the spelling
Not So New Science
CSIRO has discovered the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element, Governmentium (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.
These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to comnplete.
Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2 – 4 years. It does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganisation in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.
In fact, Governmentiuym’s mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganisation will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.
When catalysed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.
Gentlemen, this is why we are unable to get any response from Governmentium after many Reviews. I can see the wheel commencing another cycle here. We (the morons) are in danger of becoming the ‘Isodopes’ once again! If this whole dam saga weren’t so serious, it would be laughable.
I have read with interest, all comments made so far. When will you all wake up to the fact that this site, like any other politician’s site, will take no notice, no action, no nothing. Like all politicians. this person is like the barbers cat-full of piss and wind. People are bleating about Keating’s theft of 2%. What about Goof Whitlams descision to swipe $640 million of our funds and put it into consolidated revenue.
Rudds promises are worthless as are the efforts of this person. Whilst the politicians can grab their unfair share of super we will be left to wallow.
Hi Neil,
It would be far more useful for you to have some constructive input to this discussion rather than taking out your (understandable) frustration on a person who is actually trying to help. The Senator herself has taken notice, engaged and even offered to run an event with the outcomes of some of the discussion to help draw attention to the issue and help actually get some movement.
Consie Larmour who has contributed here several times works for Senator Lundy specifically on this issue, so do please continue to contribute, and we will do our best to a) keep you all informed and b) move this issue forward.
We have kept this forum open to all input, even though a few people have been quite negative as we believe it is important to capture the range of perspectives in an open and transparent way.
Thank you to everyone who is contributing constructively, as we care about this issue too, and we hope that this public discussion will help the appropriate people in Government better understand the importance of the issue, and the needs of those contributing.
Pia Waugh
Office of Senator Kate Lundy
Gidday Bill Arden
To ask the Parliamentary Library and/or researcher to produce a paper is frought with danger! Most of the contributors could not get it right if they tried! They are after all paid for by the encumbent Govt! There is a prime example on DFRB/DFRDB “Fact or Fiction” or “Defence Super Fact or Fiction” written by such an academic researcher (Leslie Neilson from memory?)Supposed to be on Def Super and turned out it was in fact on PSS/CSS, how wrong can one get it?
Persevere
Bernie McGurgan
Sorry Bernie but I can’t agree with your synopsis of the research paper. Any references to CSS is only as an introduction to how the DFRDB indexation came about. I think everyone contributing to this discussion should read this paper, especially before blaming one ‘party’ or the other. The full paper is available on the Internet at
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2007-08/08rp16.pdf
Here is an extract to show the general thrust of the paper:
Military superannuation—myths and reality
10 January 2008, no. 16, 2007–08, ISSN 1834-9854
Leslie Nielson
Economics Section
Executive summary
• Military superannuation arrangements have been subject to extensive changes. Yet another change may occur in the wake of a recently completed review of military superannuation arrangements.
• Both serving and retired members of the Australian Defence Force have legitimate grievances in relation to superannuation matters. However, often lobbying efforts in pursuit of these grievances have been based on a poor or inaccurate understanding of past
events and current conditions.
• This paper presents background information on past events and current arrangements for any discussions following the recent release of the report of the review of military superannuation.
…
Conclusion
No-one can question that serving in the Australian Defence Force is a unique and very important occupation making a significant and lasting contribution to overall national security and welfare defined in its broadest sense. And no-one should make light of the stress and dangers of this occupation. Indeed, service personnel are subject to considerable danger,injury and death whether or not they are serving in an area of combat operations. Further, in past years a service person was encouraged to retire from the military once they had completed at least 20 years of service and had reached a particular rank (the actual age at which this occurred depended on the rank reached). This age was a comparatively young one by civilian standards.58 Military service is a special occupation and deserves special recognition.
In the same way, no-one should make light of the often legitimate grievances that retired service personnel have about their superannuation arrangements. However, neither should the
presentation of those grievances be based on poorly understood events in the past or a less than adequate understanding of the advantages of current arrangements. The object of this paper has been to provide better information on these matters.
Parliamentary Library Research staff do not work for the Government. They work for the Parliament, and traditionally the major part of their work is for the Opposition, minor parties and backbenchers. Ministers have their Government Departments to inform and advise them. See Bill Arden’s comment below.
Bill,
I have researched this paper and have even spoken with the author.
I go along with what Bernie has said.
The document was written for politicians to use against us. I reviewed it and made comments, and the document ‘died’.
Not sure whether you have seen my comments on the document but if not, It is on my Military Superannuation website, and I commend it to you; http://www.militarysuperannuation.for-our.info/
Dear Pia Waugh,
Have you asked yourself why you getting so many negative comments?
The thousands of long serving DFRBF members are so frustrated at this matter being ‘duck shoved’for years, that’s the reason.
Why doesn’t the Government act on the previous Senate recommendations?
What about you coming back with something constructive.
Hi Terry, I have asked this question, and I did put “(understandably)” in my response comment as it is obvious why so many people are frustrated about this issue. All I was suggesting was to try to keep this online discussion constructive rather than some of the negative, and in some cases quite nasty and personal comments that have been made.
In terms of what I am doing – I’ve set up this website and am supporting both the Senator and Consie to find new ways to get the message through to those who make these decisions. There have been not only some very constructive responses to this post, but also some new ideas and link ups resulting, which we think is more empowering than just sending letters. We felt a public discussion may assist in pushing the issue forward and in connecting the affected community together for community support and discussion.
Hi Pia
I refer you to my posting on 15 July 2009 asking if Senator Lundy could give us an up-date etc etc and whether she intends putting a question in the Senate.
I know you are busy people, however, it would be useful if all of us can get an up-date every now and then, even if the up-date is “nothing is happening” or “Tanner is ignoring us” or whatever!!!
Providing us with links to Tanner’s website and the PM’s website only serves to increase the frustration that Terry Dillon is talking about. What is the point in going to all these websites if emails and letters one sends to Tanner go un-answered. It only serves to raise the level of cynicism and blood pressure. The blood pressure is high enough just watching the ball passed from one Minister to the next – much like watching a rugby game. The Labor Ministers and advisers leave Sir Humphrey for dead!!!!!
We need some feed-back or action – not more links to ever more websites.
Michael
Yes, Senator Lundy will put a Question on Notice to ask about the timing of the release of the Matthews report, and we hope that this may help to move things along. We are hopeful that we will have access to the report very soon.
I am no wordsmith but know we are being ripped off
I retired from the army on 2/2/1986 after 20 years service ,serving in australia,vietnam and papua new ginea.
I happen to have kept all docs from DFRDB.
I took comutation of $43220.59 less tax $1579.56, less purchase price of previous service $112.67 and recieved $320.93 retirement pay/fn My current pay is $821.46 less tax $168.00.Roughly double in 23 years. I purchased a house with my savings and war service help for $86000.00 this house is now valued at $430000.00 arise of 5times the value .DFRDB cetrainly has not kept up with prices .To me housing is a true indicator of cost of living ,not a bunch of selected groceries.
Hello??? Anyone there???? (Pia, Consie, Kate)
Hi Michael, Consie runs this campaign and is here once a week, hence the delay sometimes (plus she is new to using a blog and comments). I know she is speaking directly to the appropriate staff and has a meeting coordinated in the next week or so, and she will update this forum as soon as she has something new to report.
I know she has brought this forum, it’s comments and evidence to people’s attention, and she is finding out exactly where things are up to in order to figure out the next best steps.
I’ll ask Kate to do an update as soon as Consie gets the latest information from her meeting next week.
Thanks for your input.
Pia Waugh
Office of Kate Lundy
Can someone please tell me who is the Minister responsible for DFRB/Comsuper etc
Greg Combet as far as I’m aware Terry!
Persevere
Bernie
Thanks Pia!
dear Kate
I draw your attention to the Australian Bureau of Statistics web site CPI Jun 2009 in part,THE ALL GROUPS CPI states rose0.05%.
However DFRDB stated there is no up ward movement this quarter.
Even .05% would mean an extra $1 to those who need it.someone is cheating us to save the gov a pittance.
Noel
The indexation Of DFRDB entitlements is worked out for JUN 09 by using CPI figures from preceeding MAR 09 (Out of date by THREE months) and CPI figure from SEP 08 (out of date by NINE months)!
Thus using the formula in the latest “Pension Update” we get a resultant -0.18% and all minus results = NO INCREASE!
Get onto Combet and complain about this antique method of calculation and why do they not use the CPI, % MTAWE or PBLCI, whichever is the highest?
They use CPI and % MTAWE, whichever is higher, for Centrelink indexation increases on their entitlements?????
Bernie
When I retired as a Major, in 1981 after 24 years service, I was advised that because my DFRDBF retirement pay would be increasing with the cost of living I would never be eligible for an aged pension. I received retirement pay of approx $13K. By 2005 it had increased to approx $25K ie. A rise of 100% in 25 years. An aged pensioner retiring in 1981 on the same $13K would by 2005 have been receiving approx $33K. A politician who, unfortunately, retired in 1981 on $13K would have by 2005 been receiving about $55K.
Had this poor politician and I both died in 2006, their spouse would have started receiving a benefit of approx $46K whilst my spouse would be trying to exist on approx $16K. Where is the equality in this ? Surely there is amongst the many International agreements that the labo(u)r governments have signed, a promise to treat all members of the same gender group as equals. Is this another broken promise ??
I didn’t die in 2006, I reached 65. I now needed Centrelink to look after me.
My next milestone is that age where I will have repaid to DFRDBF the amount I drew on as commutation or advance of my retirement pay. However, my repayment will not cease. I will be expected to PAY and PAY….
In this time of Global Financial Crisis, Mr Swan keeps harping on about how he expects “The Banks” to treat their clients. If they continued to extract money from Working Families after their mortgage had been repayed, there would be an outcry – there would be retrospective legislation enacted.
How hypocritical can one be ??? OR When is this farce to be rectified ????
It’s great to see so many comments coming to this site on this critical issue. I understand the frustration and anger of all those affectd however let’s be careful that we confine our comments to the subject so that Senator Lundy is best placed to inform her parliamentary colleagues of the issue and not have it blurred by comments on issues that whilst also critical, might reduce the Senator’s capacity to positively influence her parliamentary colleagues.
The Government didn’t need yet a further review of indexation of C’wlth superannuation pensions because:
i) three Senate inquiries have said so and Senator Sherry was Deputy Chairman of two of those committees; 2001 and 2002.
ii) the ABS says that the CPI is not a cost of living measure.
iii) the ABS says that the CPI does not measure/reflect product substitution such as households buying chicken when red meat prices are high; i.e. it doesn’t measure impacts on households’ standard of living.
iv) The former Govt discarded the use of the CPI for indexing Centrelink and Veterans’ pensions more then a decade ago – the then Labor Opposition understandably supported this change.
A matter that some, including MPs may not be aware of is that the CPI is dicounted for product improvements. These improvements most commonly occur with electronic goods but also occur with motor vehicles. So if for example the cost of a base model Commodore increased by 10%, and there are features in the latest model that weren’t in the previous model, e.g. ABS brakes, air bags etc, the Aust. Bureau of Statistics discounts the percentage price increase in those cars to the extent of the value of the new/added features. With so many of these products affected by improvements, you cannot buy a model without the added improvements so product improvement discounting of the CPI is a con. It was introduced in some overseas economies to make Governments look good by appearing to keep inflation increases to a minimum. Unfortunately Austalia adopted this misleading practice.
Just for the record, MPs’ pensions are not indexed to MTAWE. They are indexed primarily by movements in Parliamentary salaries and allowances.
The Prime Minister is said to be an evidence based politician. He can’t surely need more evidence, such as the Matthew’s review to convince him and his senior cabinet ministers of the need to provide the fairness and decency he promised during the last election campaign.
He might like to justify how Labor was prepared to accept money from the public sector union, the CPSU to fight the last election campaign but then say to those whose money assisted Labor to win office, I don’t care if you have your standard of living eroded when you retire because of unfair pension indexation.
Mr Rudd did temporarily freeze MPs’ salaries a while ago so that means retired MPs’ pensions were not increased either. Given the recent promising news regarding Australia’s weathering of the economic storm we will no doubt see that freeze lifted before too long.
Retired Pay Adjustments 1972-77.
I would like to get details of any % increases in retired pay from 1972 to 1977, when automatic CPI adjustments began. If anyone out there has the records (DFRDB or DSS notifications) would you mind putting the details up here please? I believe the intention was to apply 1.4 times the increase in the lesser of CPI and MAWE, but not on a regular basis.
I am trying to prepare retirement profiles and between when the DFRDB Act came into force on 1 October 1972 (Royal Assent 19 June 1973) and the introduction of automatic indexation by annual CPI by Part XA of the Act which was added in 1977, there was a period (about 5 years) where any adjustment are unknown to me. Maybe someone can fill the gap.
For anyone still interested, I have obtained information by mail from the Pensions Administration Section of the DFRDB Authority outlining the CPI applied to DFRDB pension payments since DFRDB’s inception. For information; the first CPI adjustment was effective from 1 July 1976 (13.4%) and the second was effective from 1 July 1977 (13.6%), and so forth. Data I have received from a friend who retired in 1973 indicates that there were other increases (not necessarily CPI amounts) in his DFRDB pay wef 21 June 1974 and another wef 20 June 1975 indicating that there was no increase in 1973.
This friend retired as a FSGT in January 1973, after 20 years service; on a pension $16 higher than that received by an aged couple combined (he was married). From 1973 onwards his indexed pension continued to fall below the age pension until 2009 when he now receives only 68% of the aged couples pension and 59.6% of the Federal Minimum Wage!
The authority also stated that “The pension increase is calculated on the lower of the notional or actual (contributor) amounts and the resultant increase in pension is added to the notional, the actual and the uncommuted amounts, the uncommuted amount being the rate used to calculate a spouse’s benefit.”
Note that the ‘entitled Retirement Pay’ on exit does not receive the full CPI at all, thereby discounting the full CPI indexation even further for Service men and women. This is brought about by commutation, which is a voluntary election upon retirement, and does not apply to all. Service members are the only ones affected by this discriminatory discounting of the full CPI.
I do share the frustration on the delay that is expressed, but I endorse John Coleman’s idea that the factual and positive comments will be the ones most useful to the campaign.
I welcomed the idea of the new review on the question of indexation(the Matthews report) even though the change had been recommended by the 2 Senate inquiries in 2001 and 2002, and by the Podger report in 2007. The main reason for needing a new review, apart from the length of time that had elapsed, was that the figures on costs and numbers were unclear. The costings to the Senate were often imprecise about whether they were public service (CSS and PSS) figures only, or whether (or when) the Defence retirement figures and costs were added. NATSEM did a great paper on costs, but they were unable to clarify this. The Department of Finance would not then include “claw back” savings in their calculations, and insisted in looking at costs in terms of unfunded liabilities, rather than projected annual expenditure.
SCOA has done some great work on costs and we wait to see whether the Matthews report concludes, as we believe, that the cost to a change in the indexation method is affordable.
Meanwhile, I am working to arrange meetings and looking at what strategies (including a possible question) would be most effective in the lead-up to the next sitting period from 11th August.
Consie Larmour
The “number crunchers” of Canberra fail to appreciate that of the current 52,757 ex ADF receiving superannuation “retirement salary” or “retirement pay” via DFRB/DFRDB, there will be at least 30/40 thousand of these superannuates receiving also War Service entitlements! This means in basic terms that any rise in superannuation payments wil be countered by a comensurate drop in WS entitlements i.e.”COST NEUTRAL TO GOVERMENT”!
You need to talk to Alan griffin, who cannot produce exact figures promised to me in 2007/08 in Brisbane!
So cost increases are not an issue for ex ADF folks receiving just, equal and fair indexation of their superannuation entitlements but are of considerable concern for ex Public Servants superannuation schemes (CSS & PSS!) which is a different argument altogther!
Bernie mcGurgan
Additionally Consie Larmour, Pete Costello set up the Future Fund in 2008 so as to be able to pay all future Commonwealth outlays for ALL Federal Government employee’s superannuation! It now has some $80/90 billion in its books,and, provided Rudd/Swan do not steal such monies, as per Whitlam in 1972, all Commonwealth superannuation outlays will be easily obtainable and catered for, and payable, by whichever Party happens to be in power in that place called Canberra!
Bernie McGurgan (A Vietnam Veteran & DFRDB superannuate)
Burnie,
Surely this ilistrates that not only using the CPI as oposed to the centrelink indexation method is unjust but also the method of delayed reactionin aplying the calculation is also unjust.
Noel
I have been saying thus since 1987 but “YOU KNOW WHO” refuse to listen!
We need to have indexation of DFRDB entitlements via CPI, 27.5% of MTAWE or PBLCI, WHICHEVER IS THE GREATER!This is the ONLY fair, just and equal method!
Yes our miserable CPI indexation is always “Past its use-by date”!
Remember each time a backbencher’s salary goes up, up goes indexation of their superannuation entitlements
Persevere
Bernie
I have had a meeting with Mr Tanner’s staff and feel assured that he is keen to release the Matthews report very soon. I have also had the chance to highlight and pass on some comments on this website highlighting inequity or hardship. Any case studies of those now on ComSuper or Defence pensions doing it tough, will help to make our point. I commend the work of Bill Arden (See his comment posted 15 July.)
Dear Senator.
The comments keep coming and I would expect that situation will continue for some time, some comments may appear negative but they also reflect years of frustration.
I continue to research this topic and In would like to draw your attention to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Hearing of 13 Sep 1985, a fairly long report but one section is of great interest and I quote “On his first exit from the service, on 24 December 1976, the applicant elected to receive a commuted amount of $26,632 plus $5,685 per annum pension, and these amounts were paid. The commutation of a portion of retirement pay pursuant to s.24(1) of the Act represented an advance of some future retirement pay, namely four times annual retirement pay entitlement. By s.24(3) the amount per annum of retirement pay payable to a member who commutes is reduced by an amount equal to the lump sum paid divided by the member’s life expectancy. The principle is that a member who by commuting receives an advance of pension should receive lower amounts per annum by way of pension payments and therefore in effect make repayments in respect of that Advance”
It is the last sentence where the Tribunal stated that the reduced pension level after commutation is in fact a REPAYMENT IN RESPECT OF THE ADVANCE. If this is the case and I believe this was the special condition of the DFRDB Act to recognise the unique nature of Military Service then maybe COMSUPER have got it all wrong.
Should you get the opportunity to discuss this with COMSUPER could you ask for the section of the ACT that clearly states that repayment of the advance is a life sentence of repayments.
Thank you for your interest.
Gidday Jim
Mate I have asked DFRDB exactly that and no one to date has quoted/presented to me the Legislation (Act) which reflects that! I went to couple of resettlement seminars in 1987, when I retired, and no mention was ever made that the “reduced” entitlement would remain for life! It is like taking a Bank loan, and once the loan/interest has been repaid, the Bank continues to take deductions from your account, for ever more! Great loan that, as far as the Bank is concerned!
In my DFRDB pamphlet of 1985, which I still have a copy of, NO MENTION ANYWHERE is ever made that the FN entitlement will never ever go back to what it was, prior to commutation!
I note DFRDB have “closed the gate, after the horse has bolted” and mention is now made in the latest DFRDB pamphlet (Website), that FN entitlements will not revert, to the full amount, once your notional Actuarial Age (1962 another rort) has been obtained!
More importantly if you do not commute, indexation via the lousy CPI is made on your entitlements as though you had commutated? Stiff Sierra and work that one out?
DFRDB/Comsuper have used Admin procedures to effect this “discrimination” against Defence superannuates for many, many years, and they most certainly got it wrong otherwise why have they not produced the Legislation? I don’t believe they could retrospectively Legislate this in 2009?
Have a read of John Graham’s website, all info is obtainable therein!
Persevere
Bernie McGurgan
Jim and Burnie, I believe you know the answers but;
Interpretation versus Wording of the Act.
The DFRDB Authority repeatedly expresses an opinion that the DFRDB Act precludes restoration of commuted pension to a full pension once life expectancy is reached and often quotes their interpretation of the endurance of deductions as being ‘Permanent’. For example:
“Although a life expectancy factor is used, full retirement pay is not restored should the member live beyond normal life expectancy.” DFRDB circular 193/7, dated 2 August 1973.
“…It is a common misunderstanding that pensions are reduced after commutation in order to repay the amount commuted. The Honourable Mr Bruce Billson 9 August 2006.
“Please note that a commutation of a benefit results in a permanent reduction in your pension even if you the member attains or exceeds his or her life expectancy.” e-mail from ComSuper 29 January 2009.
Note the first quote is dated 1973. The Authority was well aware of this disputable interpretation and it’s implications from the beginning but no attempt has been made in 36 years to amend the act to clarify the precise intention, one way or the other.
Despite the determination of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in 2001 in
“DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2001] AATA 599 of 28 June 2001”
Gordon Cedric Reynolds V DFRDB Authority.
“Sub-paragraph 24(3)(b) operated to determine the “amount per annum of retirement pay payable to [the applicant], on and after the day on which the election takes effect” (emphasis added). In the opinion of the Tribunal, s24(3)(b) clearly and unambiguously provides that the annual amount then payable is a reduced amount [….] In the opinion of the Tribunal there is no other reasonable interpretation that could be made of those provisions. It is not reasonable to say that the phrase “amount payable … on and after the day on which the election takes effect …” has a limitation based on the life expectancy factor used in a calculation to arrive at the amount. In the opinion of the Tribunal such an interpretation is simply untenable and would be counter to the plain words of the provision. In essence, those were the submissions of Ms Munoz, for the respondent and which this Tribunal respectfully adopts.”
If the words ‘on and after the day on which the election takes effect’ are read in conjunction with the words of the associated sub-sections of Section 24 they take on a different interpretation. Because an election to commute is flexible and can be taken up to one year after becoming entitled to retirement pay (or such further period as the Authority, in special circumstances, allows) it requires that the commencement date be specified. The words ‘on and after’ then only define when the deductions will take effect, not how long they will endure, or if they will cease at any time (as determined by the AAT). They simply mean ‘on and not before the day on which the election takes effect’.
Note however that the Tribunal also qualified its decision (part):
“…In the opinion of the Tribunal however, it is not open for it to consider whether the legislation in question has been incorrectly framed. And, as in the present case, where the legislative provisions have a plain meaning consistent with the objects of the legislation then that and nothing else is the meaning which must be attributed.”
I disagree with this interpretation because the ‘plain meaning’ in the Legislation, when read in context, is to only define when deductions commence, not their endurance. However I do believe that the Legislation is incorrectly framed and this aspect has never been challenged..
Note: Commutation of a benefit results in a permanent reduction in your pension even if the Member attains or exceeds his or her life expectancy. (See factors at Table 3 in ‘Commutation’ section).
From the DFRDB website “html” pamphlet!
Bernie
So Tanner is very keen to release the report “soon”. That is rivetting news.
Define “soon”
Senator Lundy,
Thank you for the opportunity to be part of this blog. I think that just about all aspects of our grieviences have been, or are being covered by these excellent gentlemen. However, going on the track record of all federal governments from 1959, when the DFRDB came into being, to the present,it does not appear that we will get a satasfactory redress of these grieviences.Therefore, with your forbearence,I propose that we review some very relevant events that have taken place since federation.So as to keep this submission as brief as possible I will present the undeniable facts in a timeline.
Dec 1900 An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 1900 (UK) was proclaimed by the authority of the Westminster Legislature, and asserted to by Queen Victoria, the Monarch in Parliament.
1911 A resolution was passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom changing the name from the Colony of the Commonwealth of Australia, to the Dominion of the Commonwealth of Australia.
Aug 1914 King George V, by the consent and authority of the Westminster Legislature, declared war on Germany in the name of the British Empire, which included the Dominion of the Commonwealth of Australia, a colony of the United Kingdom.
Oct 1918 As a colony of the United Kingdom, Australia was excluded from taking part in signing the armistice with Turky.
Nov 1918 Australia was also excluded from the signing of the general armistice with the allies.
Jun 1919 The Commonwealth of Australia signed the Peace Treaty of Versailles as a beligerent nation in its own right. It’s first act as an independent sovereign nation. (Hansard 10SEP1919-01OCT1919.)
Oct 1919 The Commonwealth of Australia is a new legal entity, no longer under the authority of the Westminster Legislature, incorporating the Monarch in Parliament. At the same time, the existing government in australia did not have legal authority over the sovereign citizens of Australia. Legally, that government merely had a caretaker roll.
The citizens of the Sovereign Nation of the Commonwealth of Australia now held the power to detirmine their own future.
A new constitution was now urgently required as a sovereign document to enable the australian people to detirmine a new system of government and to elect the same.
Now, ninety years later the politicians of successive governments have not produced, or even attempted to produce, a document of sovereignty following independence. They have continued to use the invalid “An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 1900(UK)” as a document of sovereignty. In doing so they have usurped the powers of the citizens of the Sovereign Nation of the Commonwealth of Australia. What we have now and indeed since independence on the 1st of October 1919, is a series of dictatorial governments.
I have been told that members of the ADF are now trained in how to handle social unrest amongst the civilian population. The government relies on it’s armed services to maintain good order and dicipline, and compliance. This is the instrument of sovereignty successive governments will ultimately use if necessary.
After all that, I now ask why that section of personnel who are reliant on the DFRB/DFRDB have been singled out for special attention? The simple answer seems to be…..
BECAUSE THEY CAN!
And as you can see from the forgoing, they really can. Sorry about that.
Well Kate,thanks for getting this far, now the ball is in your court. A private members bill to authorize an independent panel of our very best, to put together a draft constitution to be put to the people, who must be the final arbiters.This has been urgently needed for ninety years. Give Australians back their Sovereignty so that our Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen who fought and died for our freedom in the Great War, the war to end all wars(sic). They must have been turning in their graves all this time. Lets give them the peace they deserve.When this is achieved we can make sure that the right thing is done in the future so that all of the people that serv their country are looked after in a manner that is becoming. It’s called “A Fair Go” I believe.
Oyster
“The great enemy of clear language is insincerety. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns, as it were, instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting ink.” George Orwell.
Hello Bernie. Your message of 24 July makes a very valid point in stating that the cost of providing fairer indexation for Defence superannuants will to some extent be offset by a reduction in Veterans’ Affairs Service Pension that many such superannuants receive. i.e. there will be a 50 cents in the dollar reduction in Service Pension for every additional dollar received due to improved indexation. I am assuming that the reduction is 50 cents in the dollar as it is or will be from Sept. for Age Pensioners?
You then said Bernie that cost increases “are of considerable concern for ex Public Servants superannuation schemes(CSS & PSS!) which is a different argument altogether.”
That is not the case. Because the average C’wlth super pension is so low, many recipients receive a whole or part Age Pension. When indexation of CSS/PSS pensions is improved, there will be cost offsets because those receiving an Age Pension will have that pension reduced by 50 cents for every dollar received due to improved indexation. i.e, clawback savings will also be achieved in relation to ex public servants’ superannuation. SCOA had the University of Canberra produce a report in 2002 on what the cost clawback would be and the percentage was about 40% due to a combination of:
i) increased income tax revenue
ii) reduced Age Pension outlays and
iii) increased GST receipts.
Items i) and iii) would of course also be applicable to Defence superannuants.
We need to ensure that MPs are reminded of this significant cost clawback whenever we contact them about fairer indexation and certainly whenever they raise cost as a reason for denying us indexation justice.
By the way Bernie, can you tell me where you got the Future Fund figure of $80+ billion from? The last figure I saw, (Oct 2008) was closer to $60 billion, which is rather significant nonetheless. Cheers.
I to cannot believe that the Mathews Report has not been tabled.I would imagine that it’s contents is the same as the last 8 reports over the last eight years or so.These reports have been totally disregarded by both Parties, we the EX cannon fodder are to be left at the side of the road as we are not good enough even for a photo session as the main men have now used and abused us just like they will with the Cannon Fodder that is now overseas.
Sen Lundy please ask your leader,who is fond of talking, “why is the Matthews Review” being hidden away and not released by the responsible Minister after being with you for over seven months? Gestation period for a human being is just nine months and I would imagine the Matthews review is well and truly cooked by now?
What is he so afraid of, that he continues the Howard tactic of procrastination?
Methinks there is more foul play afoot in regards to the “conditions of service” for all servicemen and women?
Bernie McGurgan (A Vietnam Veteran)
4157
Bernie
An excellent question which I believe the good Senator will have difficulty in answering.
My reasoning-easy-there is possibly something in the report that may favour the veteran and we can’t have that happening. It may mean the government won’t be able to raise the politicians perks for a while
Neil Layton
Just rang Lindsay Tanner’s office. I was told that the Matthews Report will be released VERY SOON. I asked if it was days or weeks, but the person on the phone was unable to tell me, although I must say the impression I got was more days than weeks.
Being the naive person that I am, I AM HOLDING MY BREATH!! If I asphyxiate my wife can blame Lindsay’s office.
Michael
Have a look at my comment on 29th Juk. The silence was underwhleming.
I think they are still looking fo a definition of “soon”
Appears a much used word with no real explanation.
Neil Layton
Lsst night I dreamt that the Matthews Report was (finally) released. In my dream the report recommended that everything veterans had sought (and more) should be granted forthwith. However, the report also recommended that a further report should be undertaken to reinforce the contents of this report. It further recommended that an interim report be issued so as to allay any fears that alleged reports of further procrastination regarding the current report were put to rest.
At this point I was shaken awake by my wife, who was awoken by my earth shuddering screams of anguish!!!
Houston, we have a problem.
Come in Houston.
Houston?
(Well, what else was i gonna say that hasn’t been said already)
Ex RAN Chief,
21 Years,
11 Operational Deployments.
Gentlemen,
We all expect the Matthews report to be issued soon, so what, it is not the release of the report that is important it is the enactment of the recommendations. Remember the Report of the Review into Military Superannuation Arrangements” signed by Mr Podger on 31 July 2007. The previous government hid the report, the current government released the report and commissioned yet another report. We can only hope this government will quickly enact the recommendations and introduce some level of fairness into the treatment of ex service men and women by accepting the “unique nature of military service”
Hopefully this will be my final comment on this site and that is there are around 663124 contributors and pensioners (I don’t like that word but that is how Comsuper refer to us) involved with Comsuper (refer 07/08 Annual Report) when you think about it that is a lot of votes and that does not include disgruntled partners.
Hi Having just received the Veterans News Paper with a well done layout of changes to pensions and other detail it amazed me that none of the subscribers to the Kate Lundy initiative in this wildly distributed paper particularly as many vets do not use the Web. Vet Afr Min is mentioned on numerous occasions but guess what the Mathews report isn’t and it would appear that it wont this year! Those better abreast of the subject need to press the issue in all areas. How is it that the Opposition hasn’t been asked to raise the Mathews report in the House? Geoff
More knowledgable people than I, have laid out all the figures and graphs explaining our problems with the DFRDB as is .Plus all the never ending reports . I always understood if you wrote a report some-one had to implement it, or at least comment on it .
Guess this aint Kansas Toto !!
As a 15 year old sailor in ’65 , we were told that the DFRD Scheme was the thing to aim for , you just had to serve 20 years . So I did and loved it .
Did I get what I served my country for and was promised…No Way .
I just hope that this isn’t another politician building a “castle” that will see her through to retirement .Been a few of those .
The latest CPI “no rise”..Where are you buying your food and services in Canberra ?
Had my rant , my wife thinks ASIO will be visiting .
Dear Senator Lundy
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
We all know what the grievances are concerning Commonwealth super schemes. By now there must be a mountain of submissions, examples, analyses, reviews, and reports on the subject. I doubt that anyone could present a completely new point of view after all the years of discussion.
The interminable delay in coming to a conclusion has led to the expressions of frustration presented on this forum. Surely no further discussion or review is needed in order to decide on a course of action to put the issue to rest.
What is needed now, is the government to “cook or get out of the kitchen”.
Dear Mr Ken Durie. Exactly. Enough, enough already! We know what has to be done, and why. No need to get on here and preach to the converted with all the same old data, pie charts and graphs. I don’t need to have it explained to me over and over again! I want some damned action from those who are cheating us! I am heartily sick of Politicans falling all over our ‘Digger Heroes’ every time they open their lying mouths, drumming up votes at our expense, whilst deliberately ignoring this issue. ‘Bout time our Senior ESOs got off their clackers and got involved in a serious way on our behalf too. Instead of tripping around the globe in the pockets of the Pollies.
Action Not Words!
I agree with all of you but this is not going get those fat Arsed Pollies off there lying butts.We the retired members must do something we have been hoodwinked in the passed but not now.Time the RS&L Chief Crews got off there fat As as well Ive seen what he thinks!Maybe we should unite and get Slater and Gordon to act for us in the High Court!
This forum has been going for just on a month. I just put “Lundy” into a search on this page and it appears the Senator has personally provided the grand total of one message that states that she is prepared to lend her staff to provide assistance to make a video.
It makes me think that everyone who has taken the time to contribute, has in fact, completely wasted their time.
In hindsight, shoulda been a politician, the Super is fantastic and you don’t need to do 20 years to collect.
Senator Lundy, will YOU personnaly, please advise everyone if there “has/is/will be” any outcome from the entries and discussion on this forum.
Steve: Of course I am watching it; Consie is collating all the feedback that we used to approach the Minister as per her comment and I have just done a vodcast mentioning the issue and the fact that I have prepared a question on notice for next sitting period.
I hope this allays your concerns and reassures you that I am doing what I can. My staff are supporting me as you can see. Consie is the staff person dedicated to this campaign.
Kate Lundy
The vodcast mentioned by Kate is the first “Monthly wrap” vodcast which Kate is doing to try to better communicate her activities and stuff happening in the ACT, ICT and in Parliament. This campaign is mentioned 25 seconds into the video (for those just wanting to watch the ComSuper related bit).
http://www.katelundy.com.au/2009/08/05/vodcast-kates-monthly-wrap-1/
Cheers,
Pia
ICT Policy Advisor
Senator Lundy
Thanks for taking the time to reply Kate. Will be interesting to see what sort of response you (we) get.
Regards
Steve
How much backbone does it take for our politicians to make an announcement re our DFRDB? For God’s sake if it’s going nowhere at least tell us and put us out of our misery!
Thank God our Diggers (soldiers, sailors and airmen) aren’t gutless like our elected representatives and their minders!
Senator Lundy has put a Question on Notice asking (1)when the Matthews report will be released, and also (2) when the Government response will be made. I have posted the full text of her question in the comments on the Matthews report section of this website.
The question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Deregulation.
Minister Lindsay Tanner, Minister for Finance and Deregulation, has overall responsibility for the Matthews review and report, while the Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science, Greg Combet, has the main responsibility for the review of Military Superannuation (the Podger Review).
Parliament sits again next week.
Thank you, Senator Lundy, for this site. It is a ‘first’ as far as I’m aware from any parliamentarian.
I am involved with the Defence Force Welfare Association (DFWA). Here are some comments on indexation:
* The latest DFWA magazine should be in the mail to DFWA members early next week. The magazine, titled ‘Camaraderie’, includes an illustrated article on indexation of military superannuation pensions. The article does not say anything new (how could it – all the arguments have been put repeatedly to seven inquiries over the last 37 years!) but does help consolidate the principal issues. And it is both objective and authoritative.
* Information on indexation may be found at the DFWA site (www.dfwa.org.au). Some information needs updating because of the effects of the last Federal Budget, which was great for single Age pensioners but served to further disadvantage military superannuation pensioners.
* The most telling single argument in favour of equitable indexation is a three line graph prepared by SCOA illustrating the rise of: 1. pre-2004 MP pensions, 2. the Age pension, and 3. military/commonwealth superannuation pensions over the last 20 years. Contributors to this site have already mentioned the numbers in earlier posts but the key is to see those numbers pictured in the graph, which is in the latest ‘Camaraderie’. An older and busier version of the graph is at http://www.dfwa.org.au/CMS/uploadedfiles/Submissions/rsl_dfwa_naa_raafa_-_indexation_review_submission_16jul08.pdf
* To me, the main obstacle to equitable indexation is the widely held misperception that all defined benefits super schemes (as opposed to the accumulation schemes enjoyed by the wider community) are ‘gold plated’. Gold plating may well be the case for certain defined benefits schemes with wage-based indexation but is certainly not true for those with CPI-based indexation. Check the graph. Defined benefits schemes are not all created equal.
* And that’s before taking into account other facts that demonstrate the advantages of accumulation schemes and the disadvantages of military defined benefits schemes. Here are just some facts:
- ADF members compulsorily contributed to their superannuation out of their own pay. Accumulation contributors can, but don’t have to.
- Retired ADF members pay tax on their superannuation pension, albeit at a slightly reduced rate. Aged accumulation beneficiaries pay nothing.
- Accumulation beneficiaries can bequeath their fund’s remaining lump sum to their surviving dependants. Military super pensioners can’t. There’s no lump sum to bequeath.
- Surviving military spouses receive only 5/8 of the deceased superannuation pensioner’s pre-commuted fortnightly benefit. Military widows (surviving spouses are usually women) receive no accumulation-style lump sum and a much lower percentage than certain ‘gold plated’ defined benefits schemes.
- Commuted sums are never considered ‘repaid’ even after they clearly have been.
- Etc.
* Critics now focus on the lousy accumulation fund returns of the last 18 months or so. But even Senator Sherry said (2 Dec 2008 – 12 months into the Global Financial Crisis) that accumulation super funds have returned about 5% above inflation for 35 years. That’s 35 YEARS. So much for the GFC. DFWA calculates that conservatively invested accumulation funds will return about the same as military defined benefits schemes over the long term. In the short term the latter are insulated from variance, which is seen as an advantage. Long term accumulation fund gains are conveniently forgotten.
As other posters have noted, we are not asking for special indexation treatment despite our compulsory contributions and despite the unique nature of military service. We just want the same indexation as our fellow Australians.
Finally, if equitable indexation is unaffordable for military superannuation pensioners, how can it possibly be affordable for other groups of Australians? Why are military superannuation pensioners still singled out for discriminatory treatment?
I have just found this section of your website Kate -Congratulations on establishing it. Like many others, I am fed up with review after review, and nothing ever happens.
I served as a Naval officer for 30 years, and have a DFRDB pension, which as you know is only indexed at CPI. I resigned from the Navy (in the rank of Commander)about 19 years ago and have slowly seen the value of my pension decrease. If I had retired today (having served for the same time and at the same rank)my military superannuation would be nearly double, but then that too would start to decline in value.
As it is, I now find that I qualify for a Centrelink part-pension, with all the attendant indignities that come with Centrelink, such as having my wife and I to tell them each and every time our bank account balance changes by more the a few dollars, etc. We have to tell Centrelink when we go on holiday, if either of us works part-time to supplement our income, and if we even have a tax rebate from the tax I pay on my DFRDB superannuation. Such micro-management takes away the dignity I felt in proudly serving my country in uniform. The cost of Centrelink’s micro-management of my affairs could be avoided completely if my military superannuation had been indexed at the same rate as the age pension.
Please keep the pressure on the Government to correct the wrong that has been perpetrated against Australia’s service people for so long. Please also work towards a Liberal Party policy that they will fix this problem when they return to office. If you can achieve that, I am sure the Libs will gain very many votes.
A second issue – please commence using up-to-date life expectancy tables, rather than the 1962 tables which are currently used. This causes unfair treatment of Australia’s service men and women for the remainder of their lives.
Thank you for listening to me.
Richard Usher, Commander RAN Rtd
WA Branch President, Defence Force Welfare Association
Dear Senator,
My thanks for establishing this forum. I feel a little awkward about some of the negative/cynical comments you have been receiving. Hopefully you understand that this is mainly a result of the level of frustration and anger that exists due to the neglect, dishonesty and duplicity which a succession of Governments have demonstrated – I don’t think it’s personal. However the current incumbents, in spite of promises, are demonstrating that they are no different from their predecessors. Surely the role of Government is to fairly and equitably administer their citizens. Previous comment on this site articulates the issues of concern without me repeating them. Surely we can at least get the Matthews report released into the public domain. When??? “Soon” just isn’t good enough.
Ex 22yrs Army, Viet Vet.
Like all the others,I too am waiting since Goof Whitlam stole the servicemens and womens money in the 1970′s. and then Paul Keating’s promise, will it revert to my next of kin when i’ve passed on.
Howie Stevenson
Howie
Your widow, if you have one, will receive around 62.5% of your FN DFRB/DFRDB entitlement! If no NOK/Widow stiff it all goes back to Government!You cannot nominate son/daughter etc!
Politicians wives recieve around 82% of their husband’s entitlements?
Sin Loi Baby!
Bernie 4157
COMMUTATION and DEDUCTIONS.
There is justification for an additional advance of continued deductions from future pay.
Here are some REAL LIFE examples that someone may recognise as their circumstances as well.
A SGT retired in 1974 and received an advance of $12000. He was then expected to live to age 71.59 years (by 2008) at which time $12000 would have been deducted from his pay at $346.92 a year.
His life expectancy then was for another 13.76 years and he would continue to pay a further $4773.6192 in excess, without a further advance of his future pay deductions.
A WOFF retired in 1976 and received an advance of $19806.88. He was then expected to live to age 71.67 years (by 2009) at which time $19806.88 would have been deducted from his pay at $588.26 a year.
His life expectancy then was for another 13.76 years and he would continue to pay a further $8094.4576 in excess, without a further advance of his future pay deductions.
A MAJ retired in 1986 and received an advance of $44202.81. He was then expected to live to age 71.75 years (by 2018) at which time $44202.81 would have been deducted from his pay at $1349.7 a year.
His life expectancy then was for another 15 years and he would continue to pay a further $20245.5 in excess, without a further advance of his future pay deductions.
A WGCDR retired in 1981 and received an advance of $53146.6. He was then expected to live to age 72.25 years (by 2009) at which time $53146.6 would have been deducted from his pay at $1881.3 a year.
His life expectancy then was for another 13.28 years and he would continue to pay a further $24983.664 in excess, without a further advance of his future pay deductions.
A GRPCAPT retired in 1991 and received an advance of $185350.7. He was then expected to live to age 74.18 years (by 2010) at which time $185350.7 would have been deducted from his pay at $9663.75 a year.
His life expectancy then was for another 12.27 years and he would continue to pay a further $118574.2125 in excess, without a further advance of his future pay deductions.
SUMMARY:
This SGT would continue to pay a further $4,773.62 in excess, without a further advance of his future pay deductions.
This WOFF would continue to pay a further $8,094.46 in excess, without a further advance of his future pay deductions.
This MAJ would continue to pay a further $20,245.50 in excess, without a further advance of his future pay deductions.
This WGCDR would continue to pay a further $24,983.66 in excess, without a further advance of his future pay deductions.
This GRPCAPT would continue to pay a further $118,574.21 in excess, without a further advance of his future pay deductions.
CONCLUSION:
If ‘permanent’ deductions for a lump sum advance of pay are to be assumed then an equivalent lump sum advance of future pay should also be assumed for continued deductions. To commute is to change one KIND of payment for another (COD) it is not an exchange of one AMOUNT for another. Consistency in interpreting the DFRDB Act would imply that once the Advance (commutation) has been absorbed (note the careful terminology!), another advance should be made to cover the future deductions to a new life expectancy calculated against current life tables, in accordance with the 2007 High Court ruling (see my earlier posting 3 July).
COMMENT:
I note the DFRDB Authority includes three Service representatives at Colonel (and equivalent) rank level. Maybe they should note the above figures for their rank and it may encourage them to take a more personal interest in having the Act amended to express a just ruling for all.
ACCUMULATION (DEFINED CONTRIBUTION) VERSUS DEFINED BENEFITS SUPERANNUATION SCHEMES
I would like to expand on Win Fowles’s comments in regard to Accumulation and Defined Benefits Superannuation Schemes.
Many people in positions of responsibility feel that we, who have defined benefits superannuation schemes, have gold plated schemes as they are not affected by global economic issues. There have been many articles in the press expressing how good the schemes are compared with the accumulation schemes and how much they cost the government. The latest was Darryl Dixon’s article; Bureaucrats Smooth Ride Through the Storm, Public Sector Informant (Canberra Times) Aug 09.
The problem is that people have short memories. They focus on the bad times of the past 18 months but forget the good times of the five years previously where investment returns in some super funds have exceeded 20% per annum.
If we want improvements to our defined benefits schemes: ie; better indexation, we will not get them if the perception that they are superior is allowed to prevail (Why improve an already superior scheme when people getting the age pension have it so hard?)
The belief is that over the long term, with the same amount of employee and employer contributions, the schemes come out about equal with a possible bias to the accumulation schemes especially when one considers the tax advantages of an accumulation scheme when in the pension phase.
The perception that Defined Benefits schemes are gold plated must be turned around. The points that must to be brought home and reinforced to anyone who tells us that we have gold plated schemes are:
WE HAD NO CHOICE, WE HAD TO PAY INTO OUR SCHEME
• Those on the same wage in the wider society, who chose not to contribute to their own superannuation effectively had 5 -10% more disposable income when compared to us.
GOVERNMENT CHOSE NOT TO FUND OUR SUPERANNUATION SCHEMES SO WHY SHOULD WE BE DISADVANTAGED?
SUPERANNUATION IS A LONG TERM INVESTMENT
• Some accumulation funds have experienced double digit returns over the past five years, despite a 20 – 30% negative growth in the last year.
• The actual DFRDB CPI increase for the period Jun 04 to Jun 09, was 16.1%, an average annual increase of 3.22%.
• At a Canberra Luncheon 2 December 2008, Senator the Honourable Nick Sherry said that over the past 35 years, on average Australian superannuation has an excellent return of about 5% over the CPI. In the pension phase our pensions only go up by CPI!
IN THE ACCUMULATION PHASE DEFINED BENEFITS SCHEMES PENSIONS ARE LINKED TO WAGES, IN THE PENSION PHASE DEFINED BENEFITS SCHEMES ONLY INCREASE AT THE RATE OF THE CPI.
• Insulated from variance
• Don’t get the same long term growth
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX
• The ABS, on its own website, states the CPI measures inflation, it is NOT a cost of living index
ACCUMULATION FUNDS IN THE PENSION PHASE HAVE SIGNIFICANT TAX BENEFITS WHEN COMPARED TO DEFINED BENEFIT FUNDS
• Pension tax free
• Earnings in the fund are tax free
• Not included as income against other earnings
ACCUMULATION FUNDS CAN BE PART OF AN INHERITANCE AND CAN BE BEQUEATHED.
• Not so with Military superannuation funds
Rob Shortridge
Convenor
DFWA Retirement Benefits Team
When will we wake-up to ourselves and realise that through our greed and continual leap-frogging among the innumerable sectors of our populace in effort to each obtain the most beneficial ‘Superannuation’ outcome, we see ONLY envy and dissatisfaction.
“It is Time” — to coin a phrase, to legislate for a ‘Compulsory National Superannuation Scheme (CNSS)’ to replace ALL current superanuation schemes Private, Public et al.
In doing so I suggest the original Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefit (DFRDB) system should be the National Template as it was an eminently fair and equitable system and could be easily modified for a CNSS.
All of those who fall outside this contributory scheme should/would be generously accounted for in provision for their best quality of life outcomes.
In adopting such a scheme ALL funds currently tied to extant schemes would be absorbed by the Commonwealth Government (this would be in the trillions of dollars) with a Statutory Reserve Deposit (SRD) being held aside by the Reserve Bank to administer legitimate outgoing commitments during the transition period.
Contributions to the CNSS shoul be 5% for all employees, 7% for all employers (Government included). The Commonwealth would top-up this fund with 3% GDP annually.
This enormous pool would then provide the means for well considered planned apid implementation of vital National and State Projects in water, rail, electricity (From many and varied sources) and any other requirements that may present. A few such Projects could involve pipelines and other equally effective re-routing of Northern waterways to Southern destinations to flush-out/improve water flow in the Darling/Murray river basins and likewise the Diamantina in South Australia. In WA a pipeline(s) from Ord and/or Fitzroy through central WA could well make that area the National food bowl and also provide for export.
Railways across Australia through Alice Springs terminating at Port Hedland could encourage a thriving steel industry, including heavy equipment manufacture.
Doubtless there would be much sensitive negotiation to be undertaken with the indigenous population, but this should not prove insurmountable.
The possibilities are endless — but we need the guts and gumption to promote and produce these outcomes.
What party is prepared to – HAVE A GO!!
I would just like to comment/ask a question of Bill Arden regarding his post on Commutations and Deductions. Bill, I left the RAAF as a SGT in 1989 with a commutation of $42,000.00. However, I am not paying anything back through the DFRDB. In all the examples you have given of these ranks, all are repaying money. Does this mean I should be repaying, or am I getting it wrong somewhere? It’s just that I have never heard of this before, and I would welcome your response.
Adrian…
Adrian, thank you for asking, and for taking the time to read my posting. Your question illustrates how many recipients of DFRDB are unaware of what is happening (or has happened) to them! When you retired and elected to commute part of your future retired pay the DFRDB Authority would have sent you a letter outlining the details of your retirement pay and the deduction, as a result of commutation, to reduce your entitled retirement pay. The resultant ‘pay’ is sometimes referred to as ‘Residual Retired Pay’. This is what you see in your pay advice from then on. It is not immediately apparent that you are ‘paying back’ your commutation if you forgot and it is never mentioned again – you are having money deducted from your retirement pay every fortnight (actually annually) to compensate for the advance of your commuted amount. You can also ask ComSuper for your original information.
If you can find your original letter you will get the details. I don’t know what age you were when you retired but if you were (say) 42 you were expected to live another 30.03 years (then). Dividing your commutation amount of $42000 by 30.03 gives the annual deduction amount from your pay – $1398.60 a year. Under the present interpretation of the DFRDB Act you will continue to pay this back until you turn 72.03 years of age and forever after!
I wonder how many more don’t realise this, just like Adrian?
Average weekly earnings near $1200
August 13, 2009 – 11:59AM
Average weekly ordinary time earnings for adult full-time employees rose by 1.2 per cent in the three months to May for an annual rate of 6.1 per cent, seasonally adjusted, the Australian Bureau of Statistics said today.
The quarterly survey also showed AWOTE for the private and public sectors combined was $1196.50.
Private sector AWOTE was up 1 per cent in the quarter at $1174.50, seasonally adjusted, for an annual rise of 6.1 per cent.
Public sector AWOTE rose by 0.9 per cent to $1269.30, seasonally adjusted, in the same period for an annual rise of 5.7 per cent.
There was no market forecast for this series.
This is why we need DFRB/DFRDB indexation via CPI or % MTAWE, whichever is the higher!
Bernie (4157)
Thank you for your prompt reply Bill it is most interesting to say the least. I have sent an email to ComSuper requesting documentation which would include my original letter. I don’t have any documentation from that period, and I can’t remember as it was over 20 years ago. Actually you were nearly spot on with my age. I was 41 years and 9 months when I left the RAAF. Anyway if you are correct in what you say, and I believe you are, it seems to me that this is just one big rip off, and I’m saying this mildly.
In response to Ron Ingham August 12 2009, You have my vote of support. I would like to add the provocative suggestion that the vote of anyone who has served their country should have a higher value than someone who only serves themselves and/or their families. e.g. We currently give the vote to anyone over 18 with citizenship: politicians are suggesting reducing that to 16 years! Please contemplate that the reduction to 18 years age, to mark adulthood, was based on the premise that we, as a country, were asking our young people to put their lives on the line at a time when they could neither vote nor, legally, have a beer in a pub. If 16 year-olds have the vote will the government be able to conscript them for military service? Will they be able to buy a beer in a pub?
How about working towards granting voting rights to people only when they prove their patriotism and concern for Australian and their fellow Australians?
How about we say that, LENGTH OF SERVICE FOR THE COUNTRY ACCUMULATES POINTS TOWARDS FULL VOTING RIGHTS? e.g. Any service person who serves an operational tour gains full voting rights on completion of tour; non operational time requires three times as long to get the vote. (Public servants, teachers, doctors, nurses, police etc, about the same.)
Self-serving people can earn their millions, and a lifetime of pleasure but, why should they have the same voting rights to influence Australia’s future when the only future they are interested in is their own. (Lawyers, politicians etc. would full under some suspicion regarding exactly for whom they are working, ie. are they working for the country or themselves? They need to provide written evidence to support their bid to have full (voting) rights.
Would such a system give a higher influence to the power of our votes? I strongly suspect so. I know I would be damned well proud of being one of the select number of people recognised as having done my damndest for my nation.
It is human nature to devalue anything that comes too easily, as evidenced by the fact the government has to make it a crime not to vote otherwise few would make the effort.
Now, I must admit to a certain personal bias in favour of military service getting greater recognition. From 1962 I had around twenty-seven years service with the RAN. The period included operational flying during the ‘Confrontasi’ period (Wessex helicopters armed with depth charges against possible attacks by Komar missile boats), and combat missions in Vietnam, 1970-71.
I retired as a Lieutenant Commander, on flying pay, in 1988 after paying varying amounts from 5-10% of salary to DFRB and then to DFRDB. (I remember that my salary, at times, was roughly equivalent to that of a government backbencher). On retirement, in 1989, I received a commutation payment, representing five years of pension entitlement, and had to pay tax on it. The net sum was around $64,000. i.e. Less than $15,000 annual. My current annual DFRDB pension nets around $25,915.
I suspect that any backbencher’s superannuation and privileged entitlements, after surviving three terms (up to nine years political service) will be doing considerably better than a combat veteran with 27 years service to the country. I shudder to think how service personnel on lower salaries than mine are surviving – it puts me in mind of the deplorable condition of married quarters in HMAS HARMAN around 1978. Petty Officers with families were paying rent for hovels while their salary was assessed as below so-called ‘poverty level’.
Mr Rudd! Are you listening? Without some huge changes in policy, aimed at equity for service personnel, you will never get my vote again – for what little my vote is really worth when you can demand payments of $110,000 to wealthy businessmen so they can gain privileged access to your ears and those of your political compatriots!
James Buchanan DFC
Dear Kate
While it is commendable to be building comments from us all about the commonwealth super schemes and the application of CPI as the only index to adjust our pensions, not all of those in receipt of payments will be able to continue to afford the equipment and ongoing costs to access the interenet at the current rate at which pensions are being eroded. Is this a subtle way of reducing the clamour out there to a trickle?
I support nearly all of the discussion on this site and wonder what good it does when it seems to me that doing the right thing for the comsuper recipients is not politically comfortable for whatever party is in power.
So whether these schemes are seen as gold plated or not is not the issue, being treated in the same way as those who did not or could not save for their retirement is the issue. Not too much to ask.
Rhonda Daniell
Hear,hear James.
The Commonwealth Government has an obligation to its employees to act on the recommendations of successive inquiries and its own Matthew’s report.
Indexation of CSS,PSS and Defence pensions in line with the Age pension and the pensions of members of parliament is simply a matter of equity. The same rationale, costing and politics applies to this issue as it did to the application of the revised indexation method for the age pension and the method of indexation applied to MPs pensions.
It is now time for the Government to act.
I supported my husband for over thirty years while he served our country in the foreign service.
I only had a short career of 10 years myself and as a consequence did not retire with much in the way of a (PSS superannuation) pension. My meager pension is being quickly eroded by the method of indexation. It was particularly distressing recently for CSS, PSS and Defence pensioners to get nothing when aged pensioners received increases to help them meet rising costs.
I don’t want an age pension (even though my husband and I have paid taxes all our lives…even now we pay taxes on our pensions) I would just like to have a fair and equitable indexation system applied to superannuation pension.
Proper indexation is long over due.
Mr Rudd please do the right thing now.
I am a Commonwealth superannuant. For years I have been treated like a third class citizen with a lower level of entitlement to pension increases than either politicians or Aged Pensioners. I do not grudge other people their benefits but see no reason why mine should be treated differently to everyone else, particularly politicians, who have had the luxury of voting for their own benefits.
Three inquiries have identified this injustice and recommended remedies. Neither this government or the previous one has acted to address the inequity. You are both responsible and, if I can assist in embarrassing you into acting decently and fairly to your own ex-employees, believe me I will. I am disgusted. How much evidence does it take to produce evidence based policy?
I would like to look at this situation from a different tack. Having closely read the responses and noted that there are tens of thousands of Veterans and Public servants involved in this miscarriage the time is ripe. Blowing hot air does nothing. Unions organize to protest so lets all turn up at Parliament House and silently protest. The RSL is a useless voice but hats off to Defense Welfare Association for backing the cause and could well head a rally. Over the top I don’t think so. This will probably not be posted!! Geoff
I am definitely not a maths whiz nor a wordsmith and can not add anything which has not already been said on this site. However, I tried to explain the indexation issue to a relative a few hours ago and their eyes glazed over but when I produced the three line graph ( see Win Fowles link above 8Aug ) the eyes grew wider – instantly. To make it even more relevant I gave him the following:
10 years ago Today Increase
Petrol cost 87.5c litre $1.26 69.4% (Fueltrac)
1 KG Rice cost $1.52 $3.21 47.4% (ABS)
House insurance $270 $507 87% (Suncorp)
DFRDB increase for this period 23%
Puts things into perspective rather quickly.
SCOA’s latest newsletter refers readers to this site, and this should result in further informed comment, particularly from the Commonwealth Public Service perspective. We appreciate the messages of support from those who understand the aim of this website — i.e. to attempt a new way of promoting a campaign which Senator Lundy has long supported.
I refer contributors also to today’s excellent letter in the Australian Financial Review (page 51) from John Coleman, SCOA Vice-President and Indexation Manager. What about posting that here too John?
John Coleman’s letters have now been posted in the Campaign Background section of this website. Thanks John.
Senator Lundy – I would like to add my concerns at the Labour Governments lack of commitment to Commonwealth Superannuants. As a voter in Eden Monaro I took this matter up with Mike Kelly during his election campaign. He verbally promised he would have this injustice fixed as a matter of priority if elected. Since his election he has come up with nothing but excuses for not having the indexation of CSS/PSS/DFRB pensions raised to the same level as is applied to Federal politicians. When he asked for my vote he advised that he could offer savings from identifiable waste in the Defence portfolio to cover any additional cost of varying the indexation method. He is now sounding and acting very much like his predecessor, Gary Nairn who also promised to have the injustice rectified but failed his constituants. All we seem to get from the Rudd Government on this matter, and most other matters, is let’s have another review. Well I can assure you and your colleagues that we are getting sick and tired of Mr Rudd and his continuing hollow rhetoric on this and many other matters. The Superannuation matter has been reviewed to death. As a Commonwealth retiree this was the single most important issue that convinced me to vote labour. I am now regretting my decision and unless a positive change is forthcoming I can see myself not voting for either major party ever again in the future. I know many other Superannuant, particularly in Eden Monaro who feel the same.
I implore you to lobby your Federal Parliamentary colleagues to have this matter addressed urgently. My past representations have been passed onto both Lindsay Tanner and Chris Bowen but typically have not had any response – another sign of arrogance from the Rudd Government??????
Consie/Pia
Any idea when the Dorothy Dixer will be put in the Senate?
Question on Notice No 2052 appears in the Senate Notice Paper of Wednesday 12 August (Notice given 6 August). See my comments posted above on 7 August. The full text of the question appears in the comments on the Matthews Report.
Thanks Consie. I had read your posting on 7 August. If the question has already been put, what was Government’s response?
Just came across the following suggestion from Nicola Roxon re the Government’s move to do away with the health fund rebate for the wealthy: “I suggest that people call their local senator and explain that these measures could actually pay for the entire e-health agenda”.
We should all be ringing her to ask for her support for our cause!!
I am a Commonwealth superannuant, retired from a Public Service career, 1956 to 1992. Since retirement I have watched the real value of my super (CSS) pension steadily decline.
Prompted by the SCOA, I began writing letters to MPs (including PMs) and Senators about this early in 2003 and have kept it up since. For my pains, while I received supportive responses from Senator Humphries, I received a succession of replies from Senator Minchin (actually, his minder) while the Libs were in Government which wilfully avoided the issues and snowed me with irrelevant material, making it clear (between the lines) that that government would never provide fairness and justice. These replies were an insult to my intelligence.
Replies from Labor politicians (during the Liberal Government) were noncomittal and, giving the party line, spoke mostly of further intended review and occasionally hinted at watered-down indexation. Hardly very encouraging. I wrote to Mr Rudd just before the election, then in May 2008 and then a follow-up a month later. No reply was forthcoming to any of these three letters. (A different form of insult?) I wrote again to Mr Rudd just the other day – I wonder if that letter will receive a reply?
At the last election, there were several considerations affecting my voting decision. A major one was pension indexation. I could see nothing coming from a Howard government. I had hopes that a Labor government might act to provide fairness and justice. But no – more review and more disappointment.
The facts of this matter are well known and have been rehearsed and reviewed over and over again (which is why I don’t do it again here). It is time for action. No more letters. No more reviews. No more dodging. Just do the right thing by Commonwealth and Defence superannuants. Introduce, without delay, indexation of super pensions by the better of AWOTE and CPI.
Gidday Oliver Raymond
Mate all Commonwealth superannuation schemes (DFRB/DFRDB/PSS/CSS to name a few) need to be indexed via CPI, 27.5% or 27.7 % of MTAWE or PBLCI, whichever is the greater!That way we should keep level with cost of living increases, one would hope?
The pollies use increases in a backbencher’s current salary for their indexation of superannuation schemes, which is even HIGHER again!
Persevere
Bernie McGurgan (A Vietnam Veteran)
I note that today is the last day of the August Parliamentary sittings with the next sittings commencing on 7 September.
I can only assume that Senator Lundy has not had the opportunity to put her question to Lindsay Tanner’s representative in the Senate.
I just rang Mr Tanner’s office and the person at the other end of the line said that Government will be making an announcement FAIRLY soon.
I guess if it is good news we will hear shortly before the elections next year. If it is bad news we won’t hear at all, or straight after the next elections, assuming Labor is re-elected.
Dear Senator Lundy
Comment posted by Trevor Rackley (15445)
Having read the many comments etc on this blog it is very apparent that ALL Governments will procrastinate for ever more and when all us old DFRDB recipients are dead and gone then something will finally be done by the Government of the day thereby saving them billions of dollars in not having to give us our daily bread, it’s about time the politians remembered who keep this country free for them to feather their own nest. when will the penny drop that we are fed up with being 3rd class citizens. I might add my last pension increase was a whooping 11 yes ELEVEN CENTS a fortnight. WHOOPEE
Gentlemen,
Have your read todays Hansard and comments in the house on our revised pensions? Worth a look!
Ernie
What’s the website/link? Thanks
Links to what has been said on the Matthews Report in Parliament can be found here:
http://www.openaustralia.org/search/?s=matthews+report
Open Australia is good for searching on Hansard data for everyone’s reference.
We’ll post more information as it becomes available.
Cheers,
Pia Waugh
Office of Senator Lundy
Thanks for the link, pity it was just a member of the government whipping the opposition about their lack of action when they were in power! I really am not sure whose side you guys in Senator Lundy’s office are on? I almost burst a blood vessel reading that unmitigated Drivel. He was talking about some very minor adjustments to the act regarding overseas deposit of pensions, dependants pensions etc.. When is someone going to discuss the thing that most of us care about??? The fair and equitable indexation of our pensions!!
Ernie
Found the website but can’t locate what you are referring to – on which day of the sittings were the comments made? Thanks Ernie
Thanks Pia. Much appreciated.
Go to http://www.contact@openaustralia.org and follow the prompts.
There is provision for anyone to “Sign up to be emailed when something relevant happens in Parliament”.
I signed up for the key words TPI and Service Pensions and, if either of these gets a mention in parliament, the details of the speech/question is onforwarded to me automatically.
Yesterday, there were very lengthy discussions about both.
Open Australia is a great service, and I recommend everyone interested in what is happening in Parliament sign up to it for specific topics of interest. It helps improve transparency of access to the political process. I’m glad you found it useful Ernie.
Cheers,
Pia
Office of Senator Lundy
This afternoon the report of the Matthews Review of Pension Indexation Arrangements in Australian Government Civilian and Military Superannuation Schemes was released by the office of the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Hon. Lindsay Tanner, MP. [See Senator Lundy’s comment on her webpage]
The full report and Government response are available at http://www.finance.gov.au/superannuation/pension-indexation-review.html
Our initial comment and summary of the recommendations and conclusions of the report appear in the Martthews Report section of this website.
It is par for the course that a government takes 8 months to consider a report that says nothing.
Even if Matthews considers that we retirees should not be sharing in the community’s productivity improvements how about the maintenance of what we received on retirement instead of the continual erosion of the value of our pensions?
The least the Government can do now is to deem our pensions tax free or as non-taxable income so that if we receive any earned income that it is not layered on top of the pension for tax purposes.
What a complete waste of everyone’s time and tax payers’ money. Matthews, or anyone else, could have come up with the conclusions that he did without any of the submissions and hearings. A cursory study of the situation would have sufficed. The facts have been canvassed ad nauseum!!!! You do not need to be an expert.
Is it another case of yet another consultant engaged to provide the RIGHT answer for he who pays the piper????!!!!
I am furious!!!! especially when the Government strings us along!!!! In the meantime they give themselves a hefty increase in their allowances.
Just had another read of Alan Griffin’s comments in Parliament on 12 August about the Matthews Report, indexation and the Howard Government’s indifference to the plight of Commonwealth/Defence superannuants.
Mr Griffin – how could you have said the things you did about the previous Government when you already knew that your Government was about to show us the same degree of indifference.
Everyone knows that politicians lack integrity, but did you have to be that blatant??? in effect showing us the finger?????
Hi Mathews Report!! Just goes to show that the longer Veterans are prepared to be duped the weaker we get. The runs were on the board before Kate Lundy started the smoke and mirrors campaign. When a rally is warranted it should be done. What a waste of time and effort for those that collected and promulgated the facts so that others could be apprised. RUDD AND HIS MINISTERS ARE A DISGRACE. Stop using Veterans and serving personnel to make you look better. Hippocrates. You should be rated with Nixon and Kissinger. Geoff
I made a comment on this site late July. I said all politicians were the same. Full of piss and wind. Kate Lundy desperately tried to make herself look good and like all politicians – failed. This always was an exercise in futility. Despite all their promises Rudd and his cronies are nothings. We will hear all about how we should be looked after before the next election and the same “Piss and wind”will follow. I have voted labour my entire adult life. I won’t do it again. Bastards
Neil Layton
I’m not going down the road of calling this report and those who initiated and conducted it a plethora of abusive names. I will leave that to others, there will be plenty of them.
Suffice it to say that I am really disappointed that the Rudd government have ignored this blatant injustice to ComSuper & DFRDB recipients, and treated them with contempt, in addition to insulting their intelligence.
I really thought that given all the changes for the good that have occurred since the appointment of the Labor Government, there was no way this glaring inequity could/would be left unattended by them.
At the risk of stirring the ire of some, it peeves me that we hand out hundreds and hundreds and hundreds!! of millions of dollars to assist other countries, when only 6m was required to initially right the wrong that is the indexation criterion of ComSuper & DFRDB pensions. I would have thought in this time of global economic crisis where 10 billion plus is thrown around in “stimulus” payments, that fixing this relatively “small” problem for those who served this country in either the Public Service or Military wouldn’t have been too much of a problem?
I thank Ms Lundy for setting up this forum, and I look forward with some anticipation to her comments to us all on this un-Australian decision before it is closed down and we all wander off into oblivion!! Until the next election that is!!!
What can you say about a government (both parties) who are more interested in assisting other countries than there own country men and women, no wonder there are revolutions.
Oh well what more could we expect,used. abused and only good for a photo session.No more refuse to be used,abused and have no photos taken with all pollies of all political partys! sorry Kate
So, The Mathews Report, reports there is nothing to report.
Proves the old theory correct. You get what you pay for. What a snow job! You treat us like idiots. Which is my biggest problem. Life is often unfair, and us military people are quite used to ‘unfairness’ and come to expect it as part of the job. But what really sticks up my nose is that you think we are all morons.
I have, since reading the report, refrained from posting. I wanted to put some really heavy thought into what I want to say.
I want to insult them, hurt them and make them feel ashamed of themselves. But just how do you insult, hurt or shame an Australian Politician? Even when they are caught red handed, blatantly lying, cheating and rorting the public purse, nothing happens.
I hate the bastards, all of them. None of you have any honour whatsoever. NONE.
One day you bastards will give a war, and noone will come.
253 Comments on this issue since the first post in June this year. Many of those being multiple posts by the same user.
Not hard to figure out why they brush us off, post election.
Here is a thought. What if all DFRDB Recipients turned ‘Gay’. Then we would really have some power!
You always were a trend setter Russ. You start it mate and maybe we will follow. At the end of the day the only way we will ever get a result is if we make enough noise about it to attract the main stream media to our cause. Maybe a naked protest outside parliament (in summer of course)
I may have been stupid enough to have given 20 years of my youth in service to my country, but I am not so stupid that I will swallow this spin thank you very much. How dare you!!
The statement made by Mr Mathews in his report covering statement:
“The most consistent argument made in support of change to the indexation methodology was that fairness and equity required a change from CPI indexation to wage based indexation. Notwithstanding the strength of feeling amongst those who
made submissions to the review, I have not found that there is a case for change. A change to wage indexation is not supported by any of the matters listed in my terms of reference. Accordingly, my recommendations are for no change from CPI indexation for civilian and military pensions.”
His terms of reference were (Page 1 of the report):
“The Terms of Reference for the review required me to consider and report on whether the indexation methodology should be changed, having regard to the nature of the schemes, the form and value of their benefits, indexation in similar Australian schemes, interaction with government safety net benefits and the full cost to the Commonwealth”
How can he say “the form and value of their benefits, indexation in similar Australian Schemes” and keep a straight face?? I note he continually refers to his “Terms of Reference” in telling us why nothing will change. I suspect the only thing he really looked at (or was TOLD to look at) was the last bit ie. “the full cost to the Commonwealth”. Little wonder the country has significant trouble recruiting people into, and keeping them in our Defence Force. Serving members are no dunces either and sit back and look at this stuff and shake their heads and look outside the military for a decent set of conditions. Thanks for nothing Senator Sherry, a complete waste of taxpayers money (yet again).
Gents, may I suggest that everyone sends an e-mail to their federal representative with their comments on this subject, along with a copy of the article in the Canberra Times 22AUG09 “Tanner has betrayed PS workers”. A good website to visit and use is
http://www.militarysuperannuation.for-our.info/
Phil
Sent “TANNER HAS BETRAYED RETIRED PS WORKERS” to all MPs last week, TWICE even!
Persevere
Bernie mcGurgan (A Vietnam veteran)
ALP BETRAYS ANZAC RETIREES AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!
disgusting,m if we were a “block’ of crucial voters we would be treated with the respect we as veterans deserve, however we have no electoral “clout” so we are treated with contempt once again, politicians are the all time time arch-hypocits and bull shit artists, an that includes all politicians of all persuasions.
Kate,
You really need to talk to your party. The timing of this release is just putting salt in the wounds of the veterans and retired public servants. After Matthews telling us last Friday that the CPI was adequate now this press release comes out advising of another indexation factor for three million age, disability, carer, wife, widow and Veteran service pensioners so pension rates keep in line with community standards. Another acknowledgement by the government that the CPI does not keep pace with community standards.
It is almost as if the Government is trying to intentionally alienate the veteran and public service community.
Media Statement – 24th August 2009 Jenny Macklin
A new Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index (PBLCI), released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, will better reflect price increases in goods commonly purchased by pensioners.
From 20 September 2009, this new index will be another tool used in the calculation of the base rate of the pension for nearly three million age, disability, carer, wife, widow and Veteran service pensioners.
The new index provides another layer of protection for Australia’s pensioners to help their pension keep pace with increases in the prices of the goods they buy.
This delivers on the Australian Government’s election commitment to index pensions by a measure that best reflects pensioners’ living costs.
Pensioner households can face cost of living changes which are different to those measured by the mainstream Consumer Price Index (CPI).
For example, age pensioner households are estimated to spend 21.1 per cent of their household budgets on food, compared with 15.4 per cent for other households.
The PBLCI takes into account the basket of goods pensioners buy and will help maintain pensioners’ purchasing power.
As part of the Australian Government’s Secure and Sustainable Pension Reform, the base pension rate will be adjusted twice each year, in March and September, by whichever is the greater of the CPI or the PBLCI in the preceding six months.
To keep pension rates in line with community living standards, they will also be benchmarked against wages as measured by Male Total Average Weekly Earnings (MTAWE).
As part of these reforms, the effective benchmark for single pensioners will increase from 25 to 27.7 per cent of MTAWE.
These new indexation arrangements will help provide a more liveable pension for Australia’s pensioners.
These changes are enshrined in legislation and will help to deliver a stronger and fairer pension system that is secure and sustainable into the future.
The new pension rates will be released soon, and will reflect the improved indexation process and the specific pension increases announced in the May Budget.
Rob
Must agree with your comments whole heartedly!
Rudd via Jenny Macklin is simply making further acknowledgement, by the Rudd Labor Government, that the CPI does not keep pace with community standards of “cost of living Increases” for self funded retires and pensioners!
What blatant “hypocrasy” by this one-man Band of Rudd Laborites!
I thought whitlam was bad enough and have been proven rong,rong!
Come on the next election!
Bernie (4157) .
Thanks Rob.
As I’ve said, I will continue to make the case to my colleagues, particularly Mr Tanner. Reading the blog, the anger is palpable. But it wasn’t a con job. We all, me included, were hoping and anticipating the Matthews report to reflect more accurately on the insufficiency of the CPI indexation, as per previous inquiries. The next obvious step would have been to convince the government of the merits of this position, hence the campaign. So where to now? Your post articulates the case for indexation change -using the government’s own methodologies-, a point not lost on a single contributor to this blog. I think this is a constructive argument and urge you and others to keep bringing it to the attention of my colleagues.
Gidday Kate
The unfair, unequal and discriminatory indexation of Commonwealth superannuation entitlements would be a joke, if it were not so serious,and which has occured during the watch of all Federal Governments in that place called Canberra!
I have a simple question in regards to consistency Kate? Your own Jenny Macklin said last week that CPI is not a satisfactory method of indexation for “pensioners” cost of living increases, I detest that word “pensioner” in relation to ex ADF members, and a more suitable instrument may be the new PBLCI, also introduced this month amongst much fanfare by your Government!
At the same time as Macklin’s proclamation actuary Matthews said that CPI is a satisfactory indexation instrument, a statement which Lindsay Tanner immediately leapt onto to say the Rudd Government supports Matthews’s recommendations! He forgot to mention the previous SIX reviews, into superannuation/indexation which said exactly the opposite to Matthews!
So on the one hand CPI is not suitable for “pensioner” familes and on the other it is suitable for PSS/CSS/DFRB and DBRDB superannuates, who have paid a compulsory 5.5% of their fortnightly salary for over 20 years plus of service to Australia, and had no choice as to which scheme they should belong to!
Enough is enough Kate and unless your Government comes up with an equal, fair and just treatment of indexation for Commonwealth superannuates there will be many suprises at the next election, particularly in regards to the many “marginal” seats of Labor Federal MPs, of which there are 24 with a majority of less than 4%!
Persevere
Bernie McGurgan ( A Vietnam Veteran & DFRDB superannuate)
This latest statement has a sinister smell to it, will the price of cat food be used in the “pensioner’s basket?”.
And as for Mr Mathews’ report: You guys will say it all, nothing I can add except that my Dr. assured me the feeling I had in my anus was not from any medical problem. I’m still looking for the 2 bob under my pillow.
Alan
Kate
Couldn’t agree with Rob more.
Matthews might argue that Commonwealth superannuants should not be advantaged. But why should we be disadvantaged by the ABS changing its methodology for calculating the CPI which makes it not the same now as it was when a good number of us started receiving our pensions.
I agree with those who say let’s march on Parliament House during one of the sittings. We should tackle Rudd, Tanner and Gillard head on. So much for their platitudes about ‘a fair go’ and other useless drivel!!!
Shame on Rudd, Gillard and Tanner!!!!!
P/S
The Matthews Report smacks of a total CON job!!!
Interesting Reading:
Mr Ian Campbell – Secretary, Department of Veterans’ Affairs
On 22 September 2008 Ian was appointed the Secretary of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. Prior to this appointment, Ian had an extensive career in the Commonwealth Public Service over a range of portfolios since the early 1970’s. From July 2005 to September 2008 Ian was the Australian Electoral Commissioner and from late 1999 to June 2005 he was the Deputy President of the Repatriation Commission. For eight years prior to that, Ian was in the Commonwealth Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Prior to that, Ian’s career spanned the Departments of the Treasury, Finance, Transport and Communications and Health, Housing and Community Services.
The Hon James Peake MD – Secretary of Veterans Affairs United States of America
James Peake, M.D., was confirmed by the US Senate to the position of Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) in December 2007. Dr. Peake is the principal advocate for veterans in the U.S. government and directs the nation’s second largest Cabinet Department, responsible for a nationwide system of health care services, benefits programs, and national cemeteries for America’s veterans and dependents. VA employs more than 250,000 people at hundreds of medical centres, nursing homes, benefits offices, and national cemeteries throughout the country. VA’s budget for fiscal year 2007 is $77.3 billion. Dr Peake received his Bachelor of Science degree from U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1966 and was commissioned a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army Infantry. Following service in Vietnam with the 101st Airborne Division where he was awarded the Silver Star, a Bronze Star with “V” device and the Purple Heart with oak leaf cluster. Dr Peake graduated from Cornell University medical school in New York and was awarded a medical doctorate in 1972. He began his Army medical career as a general surgery resident at Brooke Army Medical Centre, Fort Sam Houston, Texas. He retired from the Army in 2004, following service as a cardiac surgeon and commander in several medical posts culminating in his appointment as U.S. Army Surgeon General from 2000 to 2004. As Army Surgeon General, Peake commanded 50,000 medical personnel and 187 army medical facilities worldwide. Prior to that, he served as Commanding General of the U.S. Army Medical Department Centre and School, the largest medical training facility in the world with more than 30,000 students annually. After retiring as a Lieutenant General, Peake served as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Project Hope, a non-profit international health foundation operating in more than 30 countries. Prior to his nomination as Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Peake served as a member of the Board of Directors for QTC, one of the largest private providers of government-outsourced occupational health and disability examination services in the nation. Dr. Peake is a Fellow of the American College of Surgeons, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the American College of Cardiology. He has been honoured with the Order of Military Merit; the “A” Professional Designator; and the Medallion, Surgeon General of the United States.
Thanks for posting that Steve, I think I get the gist of what you are trying to say mate, Putting this guy in charge is akin to putting the fox in charge of the henhouse! A lifelong member of the PS with no exposure to the military except in the rarefied legal area of the repatriation commission. It is paradoxical really when you think that those that sit in the highest positions did not need to provide a CV to get the job. I am often amazed at the arrogance of ministers who have little or no experience in the Defence arena being charged with making decisions about defence that will have implications for decades to come, (you could use any portfolio really, as over the years there have been many unqualified people sitting in the ministers chair). At the end of the day we only have ourselves to blame because we elect the idiots!
Senator Lundy,
I was working on this last night and a severe electrical storm passed through and although I thought my comments got through it appears they did not. I will try again.
The Matthews report is out and as expected it went in favour of the government,(Government 1 Comsuper recipients 0) one could hardly have expected anything else as the government wrote the terms of reference and selected and imported Mr Matthews a Guru of superannuation but maybe not a guru of superannuation for small Defence Forces/ Public Servants. Those with a military background well know that to lose a battle is not to lose the war, we now need to regroup, plan and implement the next phase of an operation designed to ensure fairness and equity.
All of the Labor party pre-election hype about fairness should be viewed for what it was and that is a con job. It has been suggested by other contributors to this site that at the next opportunity we should vote against Labor. I do not support that view I suggest we organise our resources and vote against the sitting member in our electorates, that way those in marginal seats of any political party will be concerned and may well do something for our cause. Don’t believe we do not have some political clout, I believe there are up to 50000 Comsuper recipients in Canberra and many of those would influence the votes of their partners, now that is a reasonable voting block. It is not only Canberra but many other areas of the country where retirees tend to settle. State politics flows into Federal politics and I suggest we take the same approach when we next cast a State vote.
I made a written request to Comsuper for the distribution by Post Code of all Comsuper superannuation recipients. (note I use the term superannuation and not pension, we contributed to our retirement and our contributions went into consolidated revenue) Comsuper, and I am not convinced they are on our side, advised me that the information I requested was covered by Privacy provisions and could not be released. Can you believe that a statement like post code 2000 has 10000 recipients could breach privacy.
The Deputy Prime Minister was prepared to sit down with disgruntled students and it appears that changes will be made to that budget item. Maybe Mr Tanner should convene a meeting and learn from Comsuper recipients the basis of their problems, he may even learn a lot about the Unique Nature of Military Service, particularly in a small Defence Force where posting turbulance has a major impact on the member and their family. He may also gain a few thoughts on fairness and the Australian way. I would like to see that but I will not hold my breathe. If anything ever happens it will be another review before an important election.
I firmly believe we have been insulted by both Mr Tanner and Mr Matthews, as politicians are Commonwealth employees why was there not some simple comparison on their superannuation conditions and ours. Sorry, Mr Matthews did state the Politicians do not have long term job tenure, he must have overlooked the fact that service men and women can be killed on duty and not only during operations. That they can receive an injury that restricts their career opportunities or may be discharged for some minor incident that would not warrant a record in a civilian court.
I have seen many photo’s of our present and past PM’s with service men and women attending parades and other sad events. Well Prime Minister you could over rule Mr Tanner and sort out this situation that would show that there is some fairness when dealing with ex Commonwealth employees. Again I will not hold my breathe.
Finally to those that have contributed to this site we need to convince those who have not contributed and are prepared to leave it to others to make a representation on this site.
In a previous comment (8 Jul 09)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. Looks like more of the same again.
Only by placing Rudd, Kelly, Lundy and others at risk of loosing their meal ticket will we ever be able to get anywhere near a meaningful hearing. A coordinated vote against sitting government Members abnd Senators may help to sharpen their interest. I appreciate our numbers are probably too small to make a significant difference but we should not believe that the current very strong polling in favour of Rudd will remain once the next election is called so the few hundreds of thounands may impact some seats. To me it is a more positive step that continuing to plead our case. I will vote aganst the sitting government member and I am sure my family will support my case so my one vote may be multiplied ten fold; intersting thought.