The Matthews Report and the initial Government response to the report were released at 2 p.m. today by Minister Lindsay Tanner’s office. Of course, like SCOA and the Defence Welfare organisations, I am devastated that, contrary to our hopes and expectations, Mr Matthews concluded that he had “not found that there is a case for change”. His report says that:
“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”.
The full report and Government response are available at www.finance.gov.au/superannuation/pension-indexation-review.html
I do not expect this campaign to go away. Our challenge now is how best to help SCOA and the retiree and Defence organisations to continue or to refocus the campaign. To start with we will put the text of the recommendations and some comments on the report on this website, we will be working through the report in detail and we will link the information to the ‘Matthews Report’ blogpost. Please direct your comments about the Matthews Report and its recommendations on the ‘Matthews Report’ post so we can aggregate your responses for the Minister.
Please let me know your thoughts on possible future directions of this campaign below.
26 Comments
Reply | Subscribe
The Matthews Report must have been the cushiest job yet. I wonder how much Matthews and cohorts were paid for doing zilch!. I could have lived with it if he had also said in the report that all other government pensioners, including politicians, should revert to CPI only indexation. If CPI is the best method of indexation for military and PSS/CSS retirees, then surely it must also be the best method for other government retirees. No wonder they sat on the report for so long. Maybe the politicians were living in hope that we would have all lost interest after such a long drawn out procrastination fest.
We need to regroup and keep hammering away at the politicians and also approach the media for coverage. Let the b……s know that we mean business.
MATTHEWS REPORT EXTRACT.“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”.
How on earth can this first-sentence observation result from an inquiry that I and most everyone assumed was specifically required to examine the fairness of CPI versus wage based indexation?
Mr Matthew’s credibility will be viewed as non-existent if his statement means to imply that the arguments put forward under the terms of reference do not, in his opinion, support a change to the indexation method. The mere fact that CPI indexation of the aged pension was axed over a decade ago as being unfair demands that support.
If, however,he means that “the matters listed in his terms of reference” did not allow him to examine the fairness of the extant system, then, in my opinion, the Matthews report smells of terms of reference “fixing”. Perhaps what is now needed is, dare I say it, another inquiry with terms of reference that specifically require examination of all relevant factors for and against a change to wage-based indexation, such that the eventual conclusion is a logical deduction arising from proper examination of those factors.
We should live in hope that this could even remotely be seen as the outcome of a Federal Government inquiry!
This Rudd governmnet is the most disappointing that we have ever had in my life. It came in with the express approval of the Australian elactorate to undo all the things that Howard had done, and to do thye things that Howard refused to do.
Proper indexation was one of them, which Howard refused to address despite all the evidence.
Mr Rudd, you have failed once again to live up to the hype and hopes of so many of us who either voted you in, or voted Howard out.
I struggle now to tell the difference between the two of you.
I fully concur with Les Edis’ post. Whatever happened to the ‘fair go’ our PM so often talks about? It’s high time he stopped this offensive merry go-round and took decisive action – overriding Tanner and dismissing specious argument about how costly it would be. It is un-Australian to continue to treat some of us so patently unfairly. Just look at the facts in the Table on Page 8 of the submission by the Returned and Services League (RSL), the Defence Force Welfare Association (DFWA), the Naval Association of Australia (NAA) and the Royal Australian Air Force Association (RAAFA)
[http://www.dfwa.org.au/CMS/uploadedfiles/Submissions/rsl_dfwa_naa_raafa_-_indexation_review_submission_16jul08.pdf]
Senator,
As a Veteran, I thank you for your opposition to the Matthews Report.
I have posted a negative report on our website to the Matthews Report, their will be a lot of Veterans’ that feel let down by the Rudd Government, it is easy to make promises in Opposition or during election campaigns.
ACT Vietnam Veterans’ and Veterans Federation has over 600 Members.
I would like to offer an invitation to address the Federation, on how we can support your campaign, in regards to the Matthews Report.
Each Tuesday, apart from the Third, we have a BBQ for Members, if you could attend one of the BBQ’s and discuss support for your campaign, the Federation would be grateful.
Regards,
Vic Robertson
Contact details:
Office Manager: Karen Toscan, 02 6255 1599.
email: karent@vvfact.org.au
Ok Kate, enough of the hypocrisy!
I look forward to your legislation changing pollies super indexation to the fairer CPI rather than the present AWE.
Call me a cynic but as we are only a small part of the population and therefore could in no way shape the outcome of an election our voice will never be heard or if heard it will be ignored. As a recipient of a DFRDB pension I was not even aware that the review was on. It was by chance that I saw a grab on the news last night saying “no change”. I would of expected the courtesy of being notified that the review was taking place.
The Matthews review was announced on 26 June last year and the report was finalised in December. The organisations representing you — including the RSL, the Defence Force Welfare Association, the Australian Veterans and Defence Services Council Inc., the Association of Independent Retirees, the Australian Council of Public Sector Retiree Organisations, the Vietnam Veterans Federation, and others — all made submissions to the Review and have been active in publicising their case through their newsletters, media etc. They have done a great job, and we are assured that, like Senator Lundy, they are still very much “on the case”.
Consie,
Thank you for your reply. It still does not excuse the fact that I as a recipient of a DFRDB pension I was not notified of the review. This is some thing that has a direct effect on me.
I may be wrong but my recollection is that the pollies pensions were indexed directly to moves in sitting pollies salaries.
I am disgusted that I was conned into wasting my time on a substantial submission that was (now) outside the terms of reference.
Maybe the real terms of reference were “lure them down a dark alley and beat them over the head again”. A little like the illusion created by John Howard that we would all get tax free pensions.
Alex Williams
Kate,
Just exactly when did the “indexing” (or any amendments) of Parliamentarians change?
Sorry – I mean’t “change or amendment to indexing of Parliamentarians’ superannuation”.
And Kate – can you also post the Terms of Reference for the Matthews Review? If you could detail each of the TOR and align the response to the appropraite Term, that would be even better? Quite often it’s what is NOT asked to be reviewd, or what is NOT included in the Report that might be very interesting.
We have outlined the terms of reference for the Matthews review in the website section on the Matthews report. Appendix A of the Report: Terms of Reference on page 48 lists the superannuation schemes to be reviewed, and some background to the review, as well as the matters to be considered. Section 6.1 on pp. 28-29 considers the point of equity with other Australian Government pensions including parliamentary pensions. The Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme applied,I think, from 1973 to 2004.
You can access the full text of the report at http://www.finance.gov.au/superannuation/pension-indexation-review.html
Unfortunately the PM and Minister for Finance are the two people who are big on symbolism and little on action. As a Veteran, I am considered ‘past my prime’ but let the PM and Minsiter be aware that there are some really angry Veterans and PSS/CSS recipients out there, who are sick of being used by Governments of all persuasions. We are the one that have served the government, have been loyal and demanded less than the norm and now we are collectively kicked aside by those who know little of the pain and anguish that we have and do experience. It is time that we collectively provide the appropriate answer to the PM, Minister Tanner and Mr Matthews – for once, thewy must listen, learn and hear the hurt in the Veterans and the PSS/CSS community and respond accordingly.
The self-aggrandisement of elected officials to a tier well above the proletariat has become the Australian way of life. Developments of this nature have been the matter of revolution in other countries through the ages, but Australia’s ‘democratic’ system precludes such developments in this new but great nation.
I assume the Rudd Government believes that the relatively small number of people impacted by this current denial of equity will obviate any danger to the ruling elite. I also assume that politicians believe that they work harder and make grander decisions than do military personnel and other public servants. They therefore deserve better treatment in retirement. Since politicians of all persuasions suffer from the same delusion of grandeur, the masses should attempt to avoid disappointment by taking election-time promises with a grain of salt.
APS Retiree
Politians are always happy to send our troops off to war and cry for them when they come wounded or die but when it comes to compensating them for their loyalty they don’t want know about it.
Let us see some genuine compassion
I need to qualify my earlier posting: Senator, show us that you’re an exception to the rule, which I suspect you could be!
APS Retiree
@%#$!*&^%))_+%$#!!!!
We roughed it years ago for this nation and I think we can rough it again!
I for one would forgo the Queensland weather and move into a suitable venue in Canberra and “squat” thus bringing attention to our cause. Unions do it! The Aboriginal Nation has done it! Why can’t we?
Who of you has also got the “intestinal fortitude” to show up for one last ditched battle?
Kate,
Do you have the gumption to stand up to Rudd and Tanner over this issue. It stinks. If it is good enough for polies to have pensions linked to parlamentry saleries,surely it is only right that retired military and public servant’s have pensions indexed to male average weekly earnings, the same as old age and service pensions.
Maybe Maurie Young is right. We should all go occupy the lawns of Parliament House. Then the pollies may just get the message that we are not going to take it any more. Probably only way of making them keep their election promises.
Recently 2 letters to the editor have appeared in the Adelaide Advertiser critizing the outcome. One said that the pensions did not increase in July this year or July last year. An uninformed reader would assume that no increase had been awarded for over a year. The increase in January was conveniently forgotten. Telling half truths does not help our case.
Likewise the other letter said that we were forced to contribute to Superannuation. Correct, but we got all our money plus interest back and did not have to use any of it to buy a pension. Again the reader would get the impression that we used our money to buy the CPI linked pension.
If we keep to the full truth and avoid half truths we will get better respect from all concerned.
The CPI indexation that Public Servants receive on their super pensions is the envy of other superannuants. The most objectionable offence here is the special treatment that pollies grant themselves.
APS Retiree
Of course, our politicians are aware that the CPI index is a blatantly unreliable indicator of cost of living for the average person. But who can enter the psyche of the average politician? No wonder there’s so much dishonesty and crime in our society, when our elected leaders set these examples!
APS Retiree
I am flabbegasted at the recommendation made by the Matthews review onto the indexing of Commonwealth pension payments. If it was, as others have stated, that the current Labor Government was elected to address the sins of omission committed by the previous Coalition government, then Mr Rudd you have failed the electorate in general and in particular those in Canberra who are dependent on ComSuper and Defence service payments.
I recall in an address given by Chris Bowen to the Sydney Institute in November 2008 he spoke eloquently and at length, about the commitment he and the Labor Party had to the principals of social justice. He claimed social justice was the governing philosophy at the forefront in determining Labor Party policy as was evidenced by the actions of previous Labor governments.
Mr Bowen’s idea was that the Labor Party was the only party in Australian politics that could approach social justice with the necessary vigour. What vigour is there in the recommendation of the Matthews review? All I see is political expediency.
Perhaps Messrs Bowen, Tanner, Rudd and others in the Labor Party would like to explain where the social justice is in a system which discriminates between those receiving pension payments.
“Forward with Fairness” was the catch slogan used to discredit the previous Coalition government on work choices. I need to know and see the evidence where the fairness is now with Mr Rudd and others in the current Labor.
Peter L.