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.
36 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.
What more could we expect from Senator Lundy.. with this inept and incompetant band of oafs running the current government who have stuffed up every thing they have touched so far..
Senator Lundy had a chance to do something right for the veterans of this country but she failed, but then again perhaps the real leaders of the government, Bob Brown and his communist greens did not give her permission to vote yes..
Sname on you !!!!
Well, we know where we stand with Kate Lundy now. The hypocracy of the woman is astounding and ranks second to her leader’s statement before the last election that there would be no carbon tax under her government. Given the opportunity to put things right with the Defence retirement community, who killed the bill by voting against it? I’ll tell you, the hyporcite Kate Lundy thats who. The bill went down by one vote and that vote was cast by Kate Lundy, the woman who campaigned at the last election on this issue. Just goes to show, you simply cannot trust anything said by any member of the ALP, not just the prime minister.
LJT REMEMBER WE VOTE and the military family is a very large. THOSE OF US WHO DONE OUR 20years or more in some shithole and have never been looked after since.THANK YOU LADY JANE WHO VOTED AGAINST THIS BILL GLAD SHE DID NOT SERVE IN STH VIETNAN WOULD HAVE CHANGAD SIDES DURING A BATTLE
Kate, I received this in the email today…. I have to say I am stunned and disappointed at your turn around.
Peter Doré
—-
SENATOR GARY HUMPHRIES
Liberal Senator for the Australian Capital Territory
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney-General
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel
***MEDIA RELEASE***
LUNDY SINKS DEFENCE RETIREMENT BILL
Commonwealth superannuants in Canberra were dealt a blow today by Senator Lundy’s rank hypocrisy on Commonwealth pension indexation when she voted against a bill to give fair indexation to DFRDB recipients.
The Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Amendment (Fair Indexation) Bill 2010 would have indexed DFRDB pensions against either the Consumer Price Index (CPI), Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index (PBLCI) or Male Total Average Weekly Earnings (MTAWE). This is in line with the Coalition’s commitment at last year’s Federal election.
Senator Lundy, who supposedly supports fair indexation (see http://www.katelundy.com.au/2009/08/21/disappointing-announcement-on-the-matthews-report/), voted against the bill today. Given that the bill was lost by one vote, Senator Lundy’s decision has cost the Defence retirees of Canberra and Australia dearly.
“I am stunned at Senator Lundy’s hypocrisy,” Senator Humphries said today.
“It is just not good enough to campaign on an issue at an election, and then vote against that position in Parliament.
“The Coalition made a very strong commitment to the veterans’ community at the last election and we voted to see that through,” Senator Humphries said today.
“We should not forget that the Labor Government broke its 2007 election commitment to ‘fix’ the issue of military superannuation indexation. Since then it has spent more time and energy criticising the Coalition’s plan than coming up with one of its own. It continues to have no plan to reform military superannuation.
“There are thousands of DFRDB superannuants in the ACT. Voting for this bill was a very important first step towards eventual fair indexation for all Commonwealth superannuants.
“Commonwealth superannuants now know where they truly stand with Labor,” Senator Humphries concluded.
16 June 2011
Why does this not surprise me Senator, whilst your government has increased foreign aid by over two billion dollars you can’t give a digger a fair go in his superannuation, many of which have fallen for this Nation. The double standards beggar belief a Prime Minister that cries at a soldiers funeral but couldn’t care what happens to them in retirement. A refugee sues for $800,000 but last I checked a fallen diggers wife gets nothing like that.
Maurie you name the time and place and I’ll be there with a whole lot of other young veterans that are feed up with how Defence Personnel are treated. Lest We forget our fallen because the Prime Minister forgets as soon as the TV camera is switched off.
It seems that outright lying through the teeth is prevalent amongst our politicians, especially the female variety. Maybe it is contagious. It was bad enough that Gillard lied through her teeth on the Carbon Tax debacle, but it is absolutely disgusting and mean spirited for Lundy to betray the retired Defence community, especially when she blatantly promised to fight for justice on our behalf. Hang your head in shame Lundy. I hope you sleep at night. And when you do sleep, I hope that you have nightmares and pangs of guilt, at abandoning the promises you made to those of us who served Australia. It is unprincipled lying traitors like you that sometimes shake my faith in our great nation.
Understandably people are annoyed by the failure of the Senate to pass the Coalition’s proposed DFRDB Indexation Bill, but the attacks on Senator Lundy’s motives in voting against the Bill are unwarranted. The Bill applied to one section only of military superannuants and excluded the rest, as well as those on civilian pensions. It was extremely divisive. In pre-election meetings held in Canberra when proposals for this Bill were being aired, Senator Lundy pointed to the problems it would cause, and Senator Humphries admitted that the Coalition had no plans to extend the indexation provisions to other similarly disadvantaged groups (such as over 7200 Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme (MSBS) members, or those in the CSS or PSS schemes. Senator Lundy has been promoting proposals for the development of a targeted Analytical Living Cost Index to apply to the indexation of Commonwealth Defence and civilian superannuants.
Please see http://www.katelundy.com.au/2011/06/17/parliamentary-speech-on-the-defence-force-retirement-and-death-benefits-amendment-fair-indexation-bill/
Consie Larmour
Office of Senator Lundy
John Sainsbury
Posted August 28, 2009 at 12:03 pm | Permalink | Reply
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.
Further to my comments in August 2009 above, nothing has changed and the following is made.
Dear Senator
After your vote in the Senate last week in relation to the Indexation of DFRDB/DFRB which killed the passing of the bill, I can only hold you in the utmost contempt after all the posturing you and others in the Labor Party carried out in support of indexation before the last election.
This was just another ploy to get elected.
It is about time you and others in the Labor Party in the ACT and elsewhere in Australia, stopped taking ex and current members of the ADF for granted.
I hope you felt a glow after your vote.
John Sainsbury
Latham ACT.
I find it hard to understand, that when it comes to passing a bill or motion that improves the pensions or allowances that are received by our countries politicians, there is very little opposition or debate. Yet when it comes to increasing the pensions or pay for those people who chose to spend their life serving their country, our elected officials seem to have lost the ability to follow through on their promises.
I was a member of defence, when after a 10 year wage freeze, it was requested that a pay rise of 10% with 1 years back pay at 5% would be fair. The decision was made that the economy could only afford to increase the wages of defence personnel by 5%, incremented over 3 years with no back pay. Immediately after that decision, all politicians voted on a 30% pay raise, for themselves.
While I do not begrudge our politicians receiving a reasonable wage for the job that they are supposed to do, I hope they keep it in mind that they are the ones who also make the decision to send our defence force to risk their lives.
As a result of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Amendment (Fair Indexation) Bill not passing in the Senate, I understand many people are frustrated.
Throughout my advocacy on this issue I have made it clear that I am bound to vote with the Labor Caucus decision. Asserting that I personally held a deciding vote for this bill is incorrect and misleading.
For those interested, I explain Labor’s opposition to the bill in my Parliamentary Speech. In summary, this bill did not provide a sustainable, fair and funded solution to the inadequacy of CPI indexation. http://www.katelundy.com.au/2011/06/17/parliamentary-speech-on-the-defence-force-retirement-and-death-benefits-amendment-fair-indexation-bill/
I will write another blog post on this issue in the future, but due to recent inappropriate and threatening comments (which unfairly reflect on many passionate and constructive advocates for fair indexation) I am closing comments for the time being. Please read the code of conduct for my website if you are interested in what we are trying to achieve through the blog http://www.katelundy.com.au/website/
You can continue to contact me about this issue through my email address senator.lundy@aph.gov.au or write to me at 11 London Cct Canberra 2601 ACT.
I would like to thank those individuals and organisations who have worked with me on this issue to date. I will continue to campaign for an indexation system that reflects the cost of living, as I have for many years.