Following public comments expressing my disappointment and reflecting on the depth of your anger and frustration, I have been reading up on the Matthews review and like many of you, thinking about where to next with the campaign. I will be posting my thoughts on this in the next few days. At that point I think it might be useful to close of the the “Have Your Say” blog and begin a new one: particularly now that the Matthews Review is public as many of the comments critique the review and its terms of reference, not to mention Labor’s response to the recommendations!
83 Comments
Reply | Subscribe
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Dear Kate,
I believe there are distinct issues surrounding ComSuper and Defence Pensions (Benefits!) that should be separated.
The Indexation issue affects all of us, and has now become a new issue. One objective should be to now encourage input of detailed (expert) analysis of the Matthews Report (based on fact, not emotions). There is an excellent paper prepared in PDF format by Peter Thornton titled “A Response To The Mathew’s Report And The Government’s Subsequent Endorsement” which was mailed to The Honourable Lindsay Tanner on 4 September 2009. I believe this is exactly the approach needed and a good example of one tactic in the campaign. Peter Thornton was one of the individual respondents who made a submission to the Matthew’s Review,
Another objective could be to compile a list of questions (based on careful research) that we think Parliamentary members should be asking in the Houses on our behalf – then make judgments based on the responses and results.
Other separate issues, which do not affect the majority, are the DFRDB anomalies – commutation (principle, calculation, overpayment and indexation), CPI deduction restoration, retired pay adequacy etc. These are issues that require revision of the rules in a just and legal way (The DFRDB Act and its implementation) and are not dependant upon persuading parliamentarians with new arguments for justification.
How one keeps the common interest but separates the topics in one forum I don’t know but I would not like to see the many valuable contributors syphoned off to just one issue.
Peter Thornton’s paper is also available via the DFWA website site at:
http://www.dfwa.org.au/CMS/uploadedfiles/Other%20items/thornton_response_to_mathews_report_-_dated_4_september_2009.pdf
Thanks Bill.
I appreciate your encouragement of detailed analysis. I will have a look at the paper you have referenced.
On the issue of asking questions, Mike Kelly asked Minister Tanner today about why Government made the decision to accept all the recommendations of the Matthews review and why the new PBLCI did not appear to have been considered as an, albeit imperfect, alternative indexation formula.
The Minister responded in terms of the familiar references to the financial liability that may arise if the indexation method were to improve the outcomes for recipients. Mike pressed the point about the belief that the Government’s response to the Matthew’s Review constituted a broken promise and referenced the PM’s letter to constituents to make the point. While this was not conceded by the Minister, who maintained the commitment was for an independent review, it is our (mine and Mike’s) view that the position Labor took to the 2007 election described a review for the purpose of creating a fairer indexation system!
I followed up Mike by asking a question relating to the timing of the receipt of the report by the Govt (Dec 2008) and the announcement about the PBLCI only one working day after the Report and Govt response was made public, and why hadn’t the PBLCI been considered as an immediate step to improve the outcomes for Comsuper/Defence pension recipients, given that Recommendation 4 seemed to open the door if an indexation formula “…better than the CPI…” becomes available in the future.
The Minister’s response indicated that the process for development and application of the PBLCI to other pensions had not intersected with the Government’s response to the Matthew’s Review, fuelling my hope that this may be a useful direction to push for in the immediate future. Let me know what you think about this.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
I read the PBLCI reference as a line of ‘saving grace (or face!)’. It will mean further postponement while in development, and may just be another ‘red herring’ but any opening has to be better than none.
While other similar pension schemes and wages measures such as AWOTE or MTAWE and the Federal Basic Wage are increasing at a greater rate than ours (as they are), whether by indexation of wage cases, greater pressure on costs in the Australian community are being applied – subsidies and compensation generally provide retailers and providers with an opportunity to increase their margins. Consider health services, health insurance and pharmaceuticals as examples. The flow-on then affects those on fixed (or controlled) incomes especially when increased costs are not contained in measuring devices such as CPI (or the proposed PBLCI).
Maybe forums such as this can contribute to inclusions in compiling a PBLCI – ask the people what they see as erosion of their essential income, especially those costs that are not fairly represented in the CPI. I am not learned on the discipline of cost-of–living research (I do mine in the marketplace) but someone needs to back up complaints with factual data! If we don’t, the assumption will be that we are making hollow complaints. Of course, we don’t have the resources of government to pursue this research very effectively. Maybe government can commission an ‘independent’ enquiry into cost-of-living research (even by researchers chosen by outside interests).
Win Fowles has made many valid points here as well, especially his last two.
The Defence Force Welfare Association is working on a considered response to Matthews. Being a volunteer outfit DFWA cannot react with the same speed as do taxpayer-funded ministerial PR people.
But have no doubt about the level of frustration and raw anger at the cavalier treatment of military superannuation pensioners by this government. The fact that its predecessor did no better is no excuse.
Labor, unlike the coalition, raised expectations. Labor then not only left the expectations unfulfilled but chose to rub our noses in it by sneaking Matthews out on a Friday afternoon as parliament rose for recess, too late for the news cycle.
And then chose to rub our noses in it even deeper by releasing the PBLCI news a few days later with great fanfare but without any mention at all of DFRDB etc recipients – despite Matthews’ recommendation #4!
And now we are meant to swallow that “…the process for development and application of the PBLCI to other pensions had not intersected with the Government’s response to the Matthew’s (sic) Review…”
If true, it means that Minister Tanner sat on Matthews for nearly nine months while Minister Macklin developed PBLCI in splendid isolation from Minister Tanner.
The only alternative explanation is that Minister Tanner knew about PBLCI but thought so little of the military and other commonwealth superannuation pensioners anxiously awaiting Matthews that he did not have the wit or the political nous to connect the dots.
Just how dumb does Labor think we all are? Or is it merely the case that Labor, like the coalition, simply does not give a damn? Given its actions, I lean to the latter.
And it is not that PBLCI is a panacea. If PBLCI was introduced tomorrow it still would not result in fair indexation. PBLCI may (or may not) be better than CPI but the only fair indexation method is the same one that applies to age pensions – indexation to MTAWE.
And if indexation to MTAWE is unaffordable for military/ commonwealth super pensioners then how the hell is it affordable for so many age etc pensioners? Not to mention the vastly better wage-based indexation for pre-2004 MP pensioners?
Using the government’s own arguments, why aren’t ALL Australian pensioners on CPI?
Or, more sensibly, why aren’t all Australian pensioners on MTAWE?
The comment by Win Fowles (8 Sep 09)is closer to the real feeling of all Comsuper/Defence pension recipients I know. The anger and frustration expressed in many blogs on the previous site should no fade away. While I have no doubt that Lundy and Kelly might make some noise they are still playing on the same labor team that has let us down. I hope the response by the Defence Force Welfare Association inculdes some call for positive action by coordination a plan to give an early retirement to sitting labor members and senators. The alternative might be no better but at least will have satisfaction of showing that we can be a force in Australian politics, particularly in marginal seats or seats where there is a significant military or retired Comsuper/Defence pension recipient presence.
Has this issue died?. Kate did you get a responce from Minister Tanner re, the letter you and others wrote to him?.
Hi Steve, there was this article in the Canberra Times. I’ll ask Consie to followup and post where this is up to apart from that. http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/labor-mps-lashout-over-ps-super/1633983.aspx
Cheers,
Pia Waugh
Office of Senator Lundy
Thank you Pia, that newspaper artical has appeared on just about every military website in the country.
The thoughtful and supportive comments are encouraging. It is clear that this campaign for fairer indexation will not go away until our aims are achieved. Bill Arden makes some very good points in questioning how we should proceed at this stage. It is true that there are many related issues, some of which apply to some types of Government superannuation pensions but not to others. This is why, in setting up this website, we chose (after consulting SCOA and DFWA) to first work on the indexation issue, which affects all of the ComSuper and Defence pensions listed in the Matthews report. However, many of these other issues are relevant to the indexation issue and can strengthen the argument and the case studies which show that indexation to the CPI does not maintain the purchasing power of these pensions which, according to the Matthews Report is the sole purpose of indexation for these pensions.
So we need to make the case (and it is a strong case) that the CPI has not maintained, and does not maintain the purchasing power of the pensions. SCOA has done good work on this and we have had some excellent letters. The more case studies we can put together, the better.
And to what extent can we challenge the assumptions and submission of the Department of Finance which the Matthews report relied on so heavily? Certainly Finance seems to have vastly underestimated the “clawback factor”. Peter Thornton’s Response to the Matthews Report gives us excellent material. Can we build on this?
The quick response by Senator Kate Lundy, Mike Kelly, Bob McMullan and Annette Ellis in their letter to Minister Tanner achieved one excellent outcome in that it issued an initial challenge to the acceptance of the Matthews report and heralded the continuation of the campaign for fairer indexation. And as you can see from Senator’s comment above, follow-up action is happening.
As Win Fowles comments, the PBLCI will not be the total answer, but it may be one way to initiate progress to a fairer indexation method. Ron Dean, National President of ACPSRO (Australian Council of Public Sector Retiree Organisations) has expressed the position well:
“ACPSRO continues to seek indexation that is in line with wage movements reflecting improvements in community living standards, as recommended by three Senate inquiries… However, should the Federal Government, due to our representations, or representations made by Senators or other Members of Parliament, make any improvements that are less than what we seek, we would appreciate them and celebrate them as mileposts on the road towards our ultimate goal”.
Senator Lundy has been invited to ACSPRO’s AGM in Canberra on Friday 9 October.
This morning Senator Lundy attended the AGM of ACPSRO (Australian Council of Public Sector Retiree Organisations)and was able to renew many contacts as well as gaining a perspective also from State member representatives. Speaking on the issue of indexation and the disappointing Matthews report recommendations, Senator sought views of the meeting on the best way now to forward the campaign for fairer indexation. In summary, she proposed to the meeting that our strategies can include:
1. As a first step, pressure to have the PBLCI included as an indexation factor.
2. Reasoned challenges such as the response by DFWA to the assumptions and conclusions of the Matthews Report, including
• Terms of reference — What should they have been?
• The reliance on Pollard and neglect of other reviews
• The failure of the CPI factor alone to maintain the intended level of pensions (case studies)
• Costings by the Department of Finance, and the overlooking of “clawback” factors
3. Continued collection of ideas, strategies and case studies through our interlinked websites.
4. A united front by organizations including ACPSRO, SCOA, DFWA, supported actively by local parliamentarians.
Senator Lundy was able to cite some cost of livings rises and case studies provided by contributors to this web page, and thanks you for them. We are collecting these to make an unarguable case against use of the CPI alone. So please help us with these and with your comments on the strategy proposals.
Why do we continue to waste time and effort in trying to get any form of reasonable outcome from any form of Government. The only way is move enough ex-servicemen/women into a single electorate so that the outcome of an election for that seat can be influenced. We make no difference to either side of politics as long as we are dispersed throughout the electorate with no effective vote in individual seats. Just as it was when we were in the services, we didn’t matter then and don’t matter now.
Dear Kate,
Commonwealth and Milirary superannuants should be grateful for the efforts you and your three colleagues are making to ensure we get a fairer superannuation indexation system. I note the push for a PBLCI alternative. Given that Mr Tanner has rejected that formula as unsuitable, it may be time to pursue the MTAWE formula. The DFWA has always pushed for the MTAWE option, and not the one included in your joint letter to Tanner.
After a submission to the Shadow Minister for Veterans Affairs and the Shadow Minister on this subject the former respondsed to me by phone. I asked her what the opposition position was. She replied that she was working on policy for the next election. My reponse was that the lomger we waited, the further behind we got. I pointed out that the last coalition Government had the chance to fix this prior to the last election. Any further delay puts us further behind. I also stated that given the current state of the coalition, their prospect of winning the next election looks impossible. That would mean another 7 years to wait. She then advised me that she would pass on the Matter to the Shadow Defence Minister for a response to me. That was two weeks ago and I don’t expect any answer at this time.
The DFWA has taken the lead for military superannuants and the RSL does not appear to be doing much at all. Unfortunately the DFWA will need adequate funding to take this to conclusion. Privacy Act provisions continue to be used to prevent the DFWA or any other body or person, from obtaining current superannation contact details. This would allow bodies likw SCOA and DFWA to solicit membership from those who have not joined, or those that do not know the organistions exist.
The majority or Commonwealth and military superannuants will be happy to see a few do the work for them. This attitude is the same in all communities within Australia. But the work cannot be done unless there is sufficient funding.
The longer the superannuation indexation question remains unresolved, the further we fall behind. And there will certainly be no backdating. If we are to have success, then it has to be in the current term of the existing Government.
I was also disappointed to note the latest action by the current Government to reduce age and service part pensions(for those with separate super or other income)from 40 cents to 50 cents in the dollar. Although a transitionary provsion applies until the full 50 cents is deducted, it means that part pensioners will see a gradual reduction in that pension ( when compared to full pensioners) until such time as our pensions are 20% permanently behind in real terms. And so now we have another legislated reduction to our standard of living.
Maybe military and commonwealth employees would have been better off if we had no super and spent all our money before retirement. Cetainly, many of us would be no worse off.
I read with interest the speech made by Senator Steve Fielding (Family First)in the Senate on the evening of Wednesday 18 November about the indexation of Service Pensions. It covered everything that I wished to hear; the total lack of support by this and previous governments, the broken promises made to ex-servicemen, the unique requirements of Service life and a system that is blatantly wrong. This is what I would expect to hear from the so-called supporters of our struggle for fairness, but do we hear it. No. As a DFRDB recipient all I read is waffle and more promises about meetings with ministers and “please be patient”. We have been patient for nearly a decade and where has it got us? If others are interested in reading Senator Fielding’s speech it is on http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2009-11-18.105.1&s=DFRDB#g105.2 I only hope that this debate is allowed to continue in the Senate.
Kate,
Just out of interest, could you please give an indication of how many Senators were in the Senate when Senator Fielding made the above speech and from which parties they represented? I appreciate that his speech was made after 7 pm but I just wonder how many Senators were interested in what he had to say.
Senator Fielding spoke in the Adjournment debate at 7.11 p.m. and at
that time many Senators are often not in the Chamber. That said, all parties are always represented in the Chamber, Senators do monitor the proceedings from their rooms, and all receive the Hansards within a day of the debates. So I would judge that all Senators and Members would be aware of Senator Fielding’s address, although it was headed “Australian Defence Force” rather than drawing attention to the indexation content. Thank you for posting the link to this address on the website.
Dear Kate
I have read the transcipt ftom the Senates Estimates Committee held on Tuesday 20 Oct 09. The relevant parts were pages 43-47imclusive, where Senator Humphries questioned Senator Sherry regarding the Matthews Report. I note the responses you received from Departmental Officers. The responses during the Committee hearings and the subsequent advice from the Department seem to raise more questions than answers.
I would like to raise the following points:
Senator Sherry requested Matthews to conduct the review during a visit to England where the latter lives and works. He stated he only knew him( Matthews) reasonably well.
Is it normal for a senator/minister to appoint a consultant and not the Department? Given that Matthews did the consultancy for no charge, this indicates that the relationship may have been closer than explained. Given that there was a relationship between Sherry and Matthews, the appointment of Matthews ( and not someone from Australia), could be construed to be a potential conflict of interest. This is compounded by the difficulty of some people/organisations trying to get access to Matthews during the course of his interviews, on the two days they were held in Canberra.Apparently he only landed a day or two before the hearings and left a few days after that. What preparatory work or documentation would he have had access to before the hearings, to ensure that he was up to speed and adequately prepared to undertake the consultancy?
Why did Matthews draw on the Pollard Report (1976), when the there were much more recent and relevant reports available (eg; Clarke Review)? Why did Matthews fail to refer to or mention the Senate Committee hearings where fairer indexation methods had been recommended time after time?
I am sure that many of you will have your own questions and perceptions about this matter.
What costs did the Department actually incur for the Matthews Report?
Matthews expertise was in the Insurance Industry. Why not someone from a more relevant background?
Sherry claimed that the Government had fulfilled its election commitment by arranging the Matthews report and aggreeing to the recommendations from it.I don’t think there are many who would agree with that statement! What about their commitment to finalise the outstanding recommendations from the Clarke Review left over from the last Government?
Sherry denies having knowledge of the representations made by Senators Lundy and McMullin. Ms Ellis and Dr Kelly to the Minister for Finance, about this matter?
Whilst the Government continues to ignore the plight of Commonwealth and Military superannuants we continue to fall further behind the real costs of living.
Matthews fourth report recomendation wa that if a more specific and accurate index become avilable, then the Government should adopt it. Parliamentarians have their super payments aligned with current rates of parliamentary salaries. Obviously the Government thinks this method is suitable. Why not us? Obviously we won’t get the same treatment. Nor will we get any catch up for losses in real income over the last 20 years. But surely the MTAWE is a reliable and relevant index for self funded Commonwealth and Military Superannuants.
Both sides of politics need to realise the we are getting both frustrated and angry, waiting for a fair deal. That is all we ask for.
These are very good points, some of which have been used by SCOA and DFWA in their meeting with the Minister. Thank you for these. They are very useful.
I just read the news and see that the Prime Minister has cost the Australian Taxpayers $100,000 per month, over the last 12 months travelling abroad. No wonder the Labour Government can’t afford better indexation for our super.
Hi
I wish to re-ignite the marginal seats debate
see http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sunday-telegraph/marginal-seats-in-the-front-line/story-e6frewt0-1225761893159
The marginal seats debate is the only way forward in the milsuper debate
My milsuper website http://www.qmig.net/milsuper/ seeks to harness the marginal seats debate as a means of resolving the milsuper debate once and for all
Bob would kindly you send me your email address and I will endevour to keep you “in the loop” and well informed on all Defence super matters!
Persevere
Bernie mcGurgan (Hill55@vtown.com.au)
Brisbane
Kate, you probably know that the appalling situation re MBLs for those who are unfortunate enough to be contributing to the MSBS scheme is in the mainstream news at long last. See http://www.news.com.au/national/military-personnel-losing-20000-a-year-in-benefits/comments-e6frfkvr-1225815476178 and elsewhere.
While some of the numbers in the original article are over the top, as is normal from many journalists these days, thus painting an incomplete and slanted picture, the issue is yet another example of discrimination against ADF people.
That MBL limits were removed for APS contributors in their scheme and retained for ADF contributors in MSBS is simply scandalous.
Mr Combet is doubtless well-intentioned but, as with the DFR(D)B etc indexation issue affecting retired ADF people, the ongoing MBL discrimination against serving ADF people is indefensible. You know it’s wrong, Mr Combet would know it’s wrong, Minister Tanner could know it’s wrong, and Mr Rudd should know it’s wrong.
As we have discussed, many ex-ADF people like me expected that your party once in government would make a positive difference on these and other military superannuation issues within a reasonable time. You all promised as much.
Two+ years is reasonable.
But nothing has happened.
Posters to Sen Lundy’s site have understandably asked about the outcome of the meeting she arranged with Minister Lindsay Tanner on 25 November last year, which was attended by SCOA, DFWA and ACPSRO and of course Sen Lundy. As I attended that meeting I provide the following.
The Minister’s advice was that the Government would not provide the indexation we are seeking. He said that he and his Labor colleagues could not treat Age Pensioners and Commonwealth superannunats equally because the former receive a safety net welfare payment whereas C’wlth superannuants receive a defined benefit superannuation pension.
Of course SCOA, DFWA and ACPSRO strongly disagree with this flawed argument which ignores the fact that many broken rate Age Pensioners possess greater levels of income/assets than many C’wlth superannuants, whose pensions average less than the combined married rate of Age Pension.
To demonstrate this point we are asking the Minister to get information from the relevant Department that shows the income and asset levels of Age Pensioners.
The Minsiter was told of the strenght of feeling by C’wlth superannuants who rightly say thay have been betrayed because of the great expectations Mr Rudd and many of his colleagues created in letters to C’wlth superannuants prior to the last election. He was also shown a copy of the ALP web site where the principles of fairness appear frequently throughout the Party’s policy statements.
We reminded the Minister that the Government has ignored the collective wisdom and sense of fairness of three Senate Inquiries involving 29 Senators and instead unreservedly accepted all the rcommendations of a lone actuary, Trevor Matthews, who flew to Australia at no cost to the Government to conduct his “independent” reveiew – well they got what they paid for didn’t they!
Mr Tanner said that he agreed with Trevor Matthews that it would be unfair to those who took a lump sum instead of a pension if indexation was improved. We disputed this by telling the Minister that those who took a lump sum made their decision because they thought they could do better financially than if they took a pension. In addition, returns from private super for a 30 year period ending immediately prior to the GEC have averaged 5% better than the CPI so how could they be disadvantaged?
We reminded the Minister that many of those affeced by unfair indexation had modestly paid jobs either in the public service or the Defence Force, which is why their pensions are relatively low.
The Minsiter was told that the Matthews’ report is fundamentally flawed because it relies almost entirely on the opinion of a Professor Pollard who gave advice to the then Government in 1973 and since that time the CPI has been discarded as a tool for setting wages and indexing pensions.
The Minsiter has agreed to have his Department re-examine the costs of a change after the DFWA’s President expressed strong concerns about the ever increasing cost estimates his Department produces. We will be arranging a meeting soon to discuss that matter.
Have no doubts, SCOA, DFWA and ACPSRO are not walking away from this fight and we will persevere until we achive the indexation justice you all deserve. You will no doubt have noticed that retired Federal MPs received a 3% incresae late last year whereas we received no increase in July 2007 and 2009 due to so called negative movements in the CPI.
In the last 20 Years retired MPs’ pensions have increased by 140%, the Age Pension rightlly increased by 130% but C’wlth pensions by only 70%. Where’s the fairness in that Mr Rudd?
Our thanks go to Senator Lundy for organising the meeting and for her continued interest and active support in our campaign.
John Coleman
Indexation Campaign Manager
Superannuated Commonwealth Officers’ Association
Canberra
An excellent article by John Coleman. I also read the comments on the meeting from DFWA. My biggest concern is Tanner’s comment on “slices of the pie and not everyone will be happy in how it is to be divided. I recently received a call from Alan Griffin (Min for Vet Affairs) in response I sent to him on military super indexation.. He used the same argument(sharing of the pie) as Tanner, as the reason why it is difficult to afford changes to our indexation arrangements.
I am also concerned about the current review of pay and allowances/perks for federal politicians being conducted by four selected officers. If it is true that their allowances /perks(say $60K plus), may be sacrificed for an increase in salary by a compensating amount, does that mean that their super payments will increase proportionally when they retire. Of course, this increase would then apply to all current retired politicians. I would venture that they will have no problems finding a “piece of the pie” to pay for such increases.
Hopefully the terms of reference will include a requirement to include and report upon any impact on increased super payments to retirees and cost to the Australian taxpayer. I would also imagine that we could expect to see verifiable cost benefit analysis conducted for the various options they will be considering.
With an election coming up this year it is time for both sides of politics to declare their hand, in regards to indexation of both commonwealth and military super indexation.
I don’t believe that the impact is just applicable to those already retired or, about to retire. It should apply to all those current Commonwealth employees/service people as well. Our families also have a vested interest in this matter. This would take the potential voting numbers well past the 300,000 we currently use.Our campaign this year clearly needs to encompass both retired and currently employed officers/military personnel.
Commonwealth and military superannuants have been ignored by successive Governments for many years. Unless we get vocal enough, things will never change and we will continue to be ignored.
Congratulations to all of the SCOA and DFWA personnel involved in re-energising the campaign so constructively. A lot of publicity has been generated by Peter Thornton’s question on the ABC’s Q and A program on 15th February (http://www.qanda.abc.net.au). Basically, Minister Tanner’s reply was that (1) a change in the method of indexation would be unfair to people who had elected to take a lump sum as part of their entitlement and (2) the cost “would be, over the long haul, billions and billions of dollars” Although Peter was denied a supplementary question, I believe that SCOA and DFWA intend to challenge both points.
In the Parliament, Senator David Johnston, Shadow Minister for Defence, on 3rd February spoke on the topic of Veterans Affairs (http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2010-02-03), and sought leave (which was granted) to table, in support of his argument, the letter to Minister Tanner from Senator Lundy, Mike Kelly, Bob McMullan and Annette Ellis. The text of this letter is on this website. This Wednesday, on 24 February, Senator Fielding questioned Senator Sherry about his choice of the person to conduct the review into pension indexation. [I will post this link as soon as it is available].
As well as the continuing reports in SCOA and DFWA newsletters, front page stories have appeared in the most recent PSnews (http://www.psnews.com.au) and Citynews. The PSnews article, “ Pensioners show cards on index” quotes Dr Annette Barbetti, Federal President of SCOA, who pointed out that the Government had accepted a lone actuary’s advice not to change the existing pension indexation arrangement, despite the recommendations of 29 Senators involved in three separate inquiries.
Citynews, February 25—March 3, 2010, heads its article “Pension pain starts to bite” and quotes Senator Lundy, who “has been campaigning for different indexation since 2004”, as not impressed with the Matthews Review and not happy that the Government has supported the recommendations. You can access this article at (http://www.citynews.com.au).
Gidday Consie & Sen Lundy
Have a good read of the detailed DFWA response of 25 FEB 10 and also the late entrance response of the Nat RSL in regards to Matthews and Tanner, both on their websites!
Everybody is forgetting the establishment and purpose of the Costello initiative of the FUTURE FUND in 2007!
It is designed to meet ALL future Commonwealth employees superannuation liabilities and at present has around $60 billion plus and growing all the time! What does Tanner intend to do with this windfall? Probably pay back some of the HUMONGUS DEBT Labor has foisted on the taxpayers of Australia!It could also fund an EQUAL, JUST and FAIR indexation of Defence superannuation, could it not?
Bernie (A Vietnam Veteran & DFRDB superannuant)
All
At the risk of identifying myself, it is timely to inject myself into the superannuation debate once more
I returned to Australia from deployment last week and what I thought were the usual tummy problems one has on deployment or the side effects of the usual medication one takes when one is deployed… turns out to be a terminal malignancy
I’m comfortable in a Defence hospital and will see out what little time I have left there…
The powers that be can swiftly identify me from this and no doubt will be aghast that I entered the debate – but I’d argue that a (previous) Minister of Defence endorses DFWA and the Chief of the Defence Force supports the work of the DFWA
In broad terms, my input has reflected much of the DFWA concerns and whilst perhaps could be deemed to be overtly political, I have clearly stated that I am apolitical and have merely striven to push viewers to enter the marginal seats campaign through DFWA
I’m also happy to admit that I have been in contact with DFWA for the life of my website and that the genesis of my website http://www.qmig.net/milsuper was what I consider to be a poor reply from the echelons of Defence…
You’ll know my focus has been on the proposed new military superannuation accumulation plan and I urge you not to drop the ball on this. Myself and others have grave fears that Dept of Finance will try and sneak this in with little or no consultation with the military or DFWA while many’s thoughts are focused on the indexation issue
It’s subtle how the world works… but my thoughts are turning somewhat to the indexation issue particularly how this will affect my wife and children
Please remember there are a host of other problems with milsuper – from taxation issues to problems with DFRDB and many others and that you should be contacting DFWA to understand the breadth of the issues involved
The priority at the moment is the indexation issue – unless of course Dept of Finance seeks to ram through the proposed new military superannuation accumulation plan without adequate consultation with the military and DFWA – but perhaps not in the sense that this is a federal election year and there is much lost ground for the government to clawback without offending more large segments of the voting population
The federal election year and the marginal seats campaign makes the indexation issue winnable
It’s your last opportunity to make this happen and I take the view that there is only a final push needed
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again that DFWA provides the vanguard with this issue. Historically they (DFWA) are best placed to further the issue. You may not be aware that at the last federal election, DFWA targeted 16 marginal seats of which 15 changed hands and one hung on by the slimmest of margins
I urge you to join DFWA and volunteer your time and effort to help with the final push. I urge you to write to your federal MPs to tell them the depth of feeling that exists in the service and ex-service community
You will be aware that many of the veteran forums are asking you to vote last for the sitting member and his “opposition” counterpart second-last, but this does not help the debate and can only return the current government to power
I need you to be a part of the broad DFWA campaign by joining and volunteering your time and effort
I honestly take the view that this year is a watershed year where the debate can be resolved once and for all through either political lobbying and the marginal seats campaign – I would point out that many other federal seats can be deemed marginal by virtue of their demographics ie DVA pensioners, retirees, serving members etc
Those of you that read the veteran forums will know the political parties fear our lobby potential, you’ll know that there is a mini revolt within the political parties and that many politicians are wavering towards us
I’d remind you that whilst there is a party allegiance – many politicians are moving to the view that their first allegiance is to safeguard their seat which means a shift to us coming first !
Politicians are well aware of the DFWA input into the marginal seats campaign at the last federal election and are well aware of the potential of DFWA to cause a political upset at the upcoming federal election – indeed there is some pressure to resolve issues now
Again – this year is a watershed year – milsuper is a bellwether issue that can herald the downfall of the government or push them to resolve the issues prior to an election
There’s little else for me to say – it’s really up to youse – but I urge that you board the bus at DFWA and drive all the way to the end of the line
I think it is time to concentrate on the “Marginal Seats Campaign” again to reinforce the frustration and anger felt by a betrayed group of once loyal people.
If politicians of both major parties can continually act parochially in their own self-interests to our detriment, maybe it is about time we did the same to them on the single issue of a fair and just indexation of our superannuation.
Paul good timing old mate! Tomorrow God willing I will transmit No 23 of “MPs Cabs Off the Rank” for Patterson (Lib) NSW where the encumbenent Bob Baldwin MP is on a very, very, very slim margin!
According to the Mackerras Pendulum it will only require a 0.5%, I say again 0.5%, swing to throw the Sitting Member out!
There a lots of Age pensioners and DVA recipoients living in Patterson, so it it quite an easy matter!
Persevere
Bernie
All
My continued presence in this debate is likely to drop off the map
More on my website http://www.qmig.net/milsuper
I’d use what little time I have to urge youse to flock to the DFWA banner and volunteer your ttime and effort to bask in the warm glow of contributing to our long sought for success
This year is mission critical and a win on the indexation issue is well within our grasp unless we ourselves and the peak and other exservice organisations paddle their own canoe
I need youse to maintain the rage – I need youse to write to your MPs although you will likely receive the usual form replies
More importantly – I need you to spread the message that the most pragmatic solution is for the Government to extend an olive branch of PBLCI indexation now right now to save this turning into a festering political sore in an election year
And – Bernie – congratulations for mentioning the Future Fund – there has been little if any mention of this in the debate and it is a important moving part of the equation – a better administrated Future Fund could well afford the PBLCI indexation costs – I could write letters all day on the poor performance of PSS and MSBS to name but a few…. It’s timely to slant the debate in this direction too
And Consie and Kate are well overdue to comment on any and all that I have posted but I hope their absence is not deliberate
Sorry. We are not giving up, and neither are SCOA and DFWA. I agree certainly that a first step of the PBLCI could be an olive branch. If Matthews was correct then it would not be a cost to the Government anyway.
Peter Thornton has done more work, and has agreed that I can put this on the website for comment. Thanks. Consie Larmour.
Consie what is so wrong with using the Future Fund for FAIR JUST & EQUAL indexation of Defence super = the reason Costello set the thing up in the first place?
Perhaps MEA CULPA Rudd has other ideas for such a large amount of money? He may do a whitlam on our Future Fund?
It now has many billions of dallars and growing much stronger and faster than CPI indexation for Veterans!
So simple for all concerned!
Persevere
Bernie
There has been a number of great submissions to the Goverment. My suggestion is that it be taken to the general public via talkback-radio and current affairs TV. Most civilians have no idea of how the Goverment treats it`s ex servicemen/women and in particular our superanuation scheme.
(Re-posted to bottom of comments)
To follow is a letter from Peter Thornton headed “An Alternative for Defence Force and Commonwealth Superannuants and their dependants”. This is posted here with Peter’s permission, and we would be interested in your comments.
Dear Kate, Mike, Bob and Annette,
I am sure you can all well appreciate that there are many Defence Force and Commonwealth retirees (and those who are yet to retire) who are becoming extremely agitated by the lack of a “fair go” as was promised by the Rudd Government before the last election. The recent Q & A program was just a small testament of this growing resentment.
As you would have seen recently, I emailed Mr. Tanner in regards to a possible solution to reduce the cost impact of improved indexation (i.e. utilising excess profit from the Future Fund together with other offsets to reduce the increased liability of “doing the right thing”). Whilst I believe this suggestion has considerable merit, I would like to offer another possible alternative that MAY help to placate the 600,000 affected members (not including dependents) whilst helping the Government maintain the moral high ground.
My suggestion (which I have not discussed with Representative Organisations, but is certainly not new) is that the Government seriously consider removing all tax on Retirement benefits received for all members over the age of 60 years; and also provide a 50% tax offset for all those in receipt of retirement/death/disability benefits who are below age 60. The obvious affect of this reduction / offset is that it would allow members greater access and increases to other Government benefits such as the Old Age Pension, Disability Support Pension, War Widow’s/Widower’s Pensions, Family Tax Benefit(s) and other benefits that I may not have considered.
This suggestion would allow the Government to:
1. Move the emphasis away from the flawed Matthews Review/Report whilst maintaining tacit adherence to its recommendations;
2. Show that the Government recognises that the Super treatment of former employees over the age of 60 (as implemented by the former government) is “unfair” by comparison to the rest of the community (i.e. it would eliminate the “Triple dipping” that is now occurring *); and
3. Extends additional benefits for all those who are below age 60 (e.g. a small number of military retirees, war widows and widowers alike and those who are disabled (with or without families) and who are finding it tough to manage).
Whilst I can’t say for certain what affect this would have on the 600,000 that are or will be affected by current policies, I believe they would see this as a major positive move, which is a defensible and feasible alternative to address their concerns in the spirit of “fairness”, which the Government promised it would apply. I believe that this solution could be implemented as a Budget 2010 announcement/strategy (WEF Budget Night), thereby pre-empting any Opposition attempt to regain the electoral initiative, which would undoubtedly result in a guaranteed backlash for the Government at election time.
Given the current and prospective campaign agendas that are on the table, I would respectively request that you and/or the Government provide a response to this suggestion and/or indeed a response to my previous suggestion by NLT 5 March 2010 (i.e. a formal letter please to me, DFWA, RSL, SCOA and ACSPRO) otherwise the committed campaign for justice will continue in earnest in the March Sitting and beyond.
Yours sincerely
Peter Thornton
Independent Campaigner
PS As you would be aware from my letter to Mr. Tanner of 4 SEP 2009 (here: http://www.dfwa.org.au/images/other/thornton-response.pdf ), this suggestion actually grates with me personally, because I consider my retirement pay to be something other than welfare, but I am trying to be the good corporate citizen in finding and suggesting a middle ground for all concerned.
* Nobody in the community paid super contributions tax before 1988, yet the previous Government considered it appropriate to discriminate against its former employees by only offering a 10% tax offset after age 60. Despicable!!
In fighting this campaign we old(er) service people should not forget the present generation of Defence personnel, who are doing so well at a high level of intensity in current operations, particularly in Afghanistan. Like us, they are putting their lives on the line for Australia, at the behest of the Government – the same Government that refuses to agree to fair indexation for their military superannuation pensions. This current generation of warriors, as much as those of us already out of the Defence Force, deserve to have the comfort of the knowledge that their superannuation pensions will maintain their purchasing power in retirement. It remains a continuing blight on our way of the fair go and Labor’s platform of fairness for all Australians that this is not yet the case.
I am concerned that anyone would accept PLBCI as an olive branch. If they gave us that, you could say goodbye to any chance of getting MTAWE adjustments in the future. Surely the least we should expect is a relevant index.
The Labor Government has clearly shown its intention on this matter, in light of the Matthews report and subsequent comments from Tanner and lack of comment from the PM. Clearly they hasve written us off.
As far as I am concerned unless the current Government provides a solution in this years budget announcement in May, then they have lost my vote forever.
Where does that leave us?
The Coalition have failed us in the past as well and we are yet to see any commitment from them in regard to fixing the indexation formula for our super payments. If they want our vote then we need a firm commitment prior to this years election. At least a commitment from the Coalition would be enough to get my vote. Rudd made promises to look after us. prior to the 07 Election. He then promptly and conveniently forgot them.If you need any further proof, look at the DFWA website.
We all need to write to our elected members of both houses and keep up the pressure. Ask them will they support our cause and how will they achieve a favourable result. Ask them to raise the matter on the floor of both houses. Let them know how many votes are at stake, particularly if your area is a marginal seat.Ask for a written response to your request.
If we leave it to a few, then nothing will change.
The Future Fund provides the funding. That is what it was created for. Let’s not get discouraged and accept any compromise. All we want is a fair go and some justice. Remember that those of us that have been on super payments for the past 20 years have alreadt lost 30% of our super paymewnt value, when related to cost of living increases. We will never get a catch up or back payment and that remains a permamnent loss. Thats why we should be demanding nothing less than a suitable and fair super indexation formula. The MTAWE added to the current formula is the minimum change we should accept.
With an election pending this year, there is no better time to flex our voting muscle.
John Griffiths
A Vietnam Veteran
John
I have always said indexation of Superannuation via CPI, 27.7% MTAWE or PBLCI, WHICHEVER IS THE HIGHER!
We are not asking for anything special just equality, fairness and justice a la the Centrelink customers, whom Howard treated so well to get a few more votes!
The Future Fund would cover all financial costings, and that was what it was designed for, or have people forgotten?
We are already attacking the MPs in marginal seats in all electorates around Australia for the upcoming election!
Persevere
Bernie McGurgan (A Vietnam Veteran & DFRDB superannuant)
PS I resigned my commission in 1987!!!
A Real Case of Indexation Injustice.
A graph widely circulated via the DFWA illustrates clearly the comparable rates of indexation between Parliamentarians, Aged Pensioners and Military and Public Service superannuates. What it doesn’t show is the comparative effect on INCOME for each of these groups.
I have prepared a graph, from publicly available data, to show the comparative effect of poor indexation on the superannuation of a RAAF Flight Sergeant (equivalent WO1 Army and CPO Navy) who retired in 1973 after 20 years service. I have chosen this rank because 80% (or more) of the Defence Force are below this rank level and not as ‘well off’ in retirement as this FSGT!
Upon retirement from the RAAF his ‘pension’ (after commutation of part of it) was nearly the same as the combined aged pension ($2122 against $2106) – in 2009 his annual ‘pension’ was $7822 less than the combined age pension, and diminishing at a great rate! Where is the indexation justice here?
Comparison with the combined age pension is used because the DFRDB does not make a distinction between single, married, or supportive retirees – one size fits all to support a family or couple. All his ‘subordinate’ ranked retirees are even worse off, and all together they may represent more than 80% of Defence retirees.
If you can see the graph here (I hope), in 2009 AWOTE was $60805, and the Federal Minimum Wage was $28374, the age pension couple was $24746 and the FSGT $16924. I don’t have a figure but I bet the Parliamentary equivalent would be off the scale. The FGT’s data is a ‘real-world’ case, based on actual data of the member (from DFRDB) and who is prepared to identify himself, and make his records available.
One odd feature of the DFRDB Scheme is that the older you are when you retire the worse of you will be under the same qualifications as a younger retiree. This is because you will have to pay back your commutation at a higher rate (more reduced pay); just at the time you need it most! Commutation was intended to help a retired Defence member re-settle in civilian life after twenty or more years Service – in the early days commutation wasn’t a certainty, it was only approved upon certain conditions of need etc!
Bill please send your graph to me on hill55@vtown.com.au
Bernie
Hi Bill, if you want to email me the graph, I can also upload it to the website for others to download and view if you like.
pia.waugh at aph.gov.au
Cheers,
Pia Waugh
Office of Senator Kate Lundy
Hi all,
Bill emailed me the graph he spoke of in the comment above and I have uploaded it to the website here:
http://www.katelundy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/FSGT-2.jpg
Many thanks to Bill and everyone for your constructive contributions to this discussion.
Cheers,
Pia
Office of Senator Lundy
AN ALPHABETICAL SUMMARY SHOWING THE NEGLECT OF MILITARY SUPER INDEXATION BY THE RUDD GOVERNMENT
A-Anger at being let down again for all Military Superannuants
B-Bloody minded attitude by the Rudd Government to accept that CPI does not reflect cost of living increases
C-Costs of the same formula index used for aged pensions (in particular MTAWE), does not cost billions and billions of dollars as Tanner said on recent ABC Q&A program. Dept of Finance provided total realistic costings to Matthews of $367(mill)between 2009/10 to 2019/20 inclusive.And this didn’t include clawback due to taxation revenue and reduced service pensions of between 37-58%.
D-The DFWA’s continued fight to gain acceptance of a fair go for military superannuation. The continued lack of response from Kevin Rudd and Lindsay Tanner to letters from the President of DFWA, requesting details have yet to be answered.
E-Economic Global Downturn. This didn’t stop the Rudd Government providing $25(mill) to rehabilitate Taliban soldiers who have killed or continue to try and kill our soldiers in Afghanistan. Mismanagement of the Insulation program has cost millions and millions, as has the School building program. And according to the Government, we are now out of economic trouble.Expections created by Rudd in his pre election speeches in 2007,promising to honour and loof after veterans and all those who served in our military forces, was obviously just to win our votes and nothing more.
F- The Futures Fund now worth more than $60(bill) and growing fast is designed to cater for the types of costs that military superasnnuants seek. The PM has said a fair go to all Australians. Obviously retired career soldiers with 20 or more years of service, don’t qualify in his eyes.
G- The Good bad and ugly. Good- The DFWA, senator Lundy and her colleagues in Canberra, who have tried to get their Labor leaders to reconsider the Matthews Report and bring justice to military superannuants. The Bad- Despite military super losing 30% of it’s value when compared to costs of living, the Rudd Government is doing everything it can to ignore our plight. If CPI is so good why dont our federal politicians relinquish their pre 2004 super indexation linked to current wages and adopt CPI for themselves? The RSL who should be doing more and using their access to written and electronic media, to help push our claim. After all, a primary focus of the RSL has always been to look after the welfare of veterans and their families. The Ugly- Tanner’s disdain for our plight. The lies abour true costs to change our indexation formula. Kevin Rudd’s falire to deliver on his promises post election. The flawed Matthews Report. Despite two and a half years in Office, the PM and Alan Griffin have not finalised the recommendations of the Clarke Review and can’t say when it will be completed.
H-The health of military superannuants continues to decline as they age. All those effected by the current indexation system are between 60 and 80 years old. As we die off the burden on Government funding will decrease. For some politicians that can’t come quick enough.
I-We idiots from the Ex Service community who voted for Labor at the last election, based on lies and deception from the PM. We certainly won’t trust him again.
J-Justice and a fair go, That is all military superannuants want. We know there will be no backdating to make up for our past losses. Just don’t make us wait any longer.
K- Knowledge.It’s time that politicians from all parties made themselves aware of the facts of this issue and are appraised of the “TRUE COSTS” of changing our super indexation formula.
L- Lies and deception. The Rudd Government has seemingly gone out of it’s way to deny military superannuants a fair go.The DFWA and it’s members wait in anticipation on the offchance that Rudd or Tanner will reply to the President of the DFWA letter to them both relating to the Matthews Consultancy. Then again don’t be surprised if they do not respond. all, why should our Government be accountable to it’s electors and the public at large.
M- Money. The Rudd Government has been spending like mad since they came into power. Read long term debt. It’s a pity that they did not include our military super indexation at the same time. Lets face it. at our age we are not into saving money (and for many that would be impossible as some get less than aged pensioners). No, we pour our super payments back into the economy.
N-Narcism. A trait that seems to manifest itself among a number of senior members of Labor’s cabunet.
O-Obligation. Given Rudd’s pre election promises to veterans, it is time he looked after those who survived wars and returned home. We see him honouring the dead. What about those of us who are still alive?
P- Probity and transparency. Surely we have a right to expect that from our Government?
Q- Questions from the ex service community to our politicians which either remain unanswered or are replied to without answering the question.
P- Politicians from both sides of the house have failed military superannuants for many years. It is time they acknowledged our contribution to this country’s wealth and security.
R-We sign away our human rights when we join the services,without question. We place our lives in danger without complaint. We endure living and working conditions, that the average man in the street would never accept. We move our families around Austrakia and uproot our children from friend and schools. We need to be able to trust a Government who decides to send our soldiers into wars and conflicts. Is it not too much to ask that we be treated fairly and given the same consideration when it comes to superannuation and taxation?
S- Superannuation. We believed that our super would make up for service conditions and give us the chance to live in reasonable comfort,for a job well done. That is no longer the case.
T- Taxation. Unlike the majority of the community, we have to pay tax on our super income, based on the Government’s contention that our super is unfunded.That was the choice of the Whitlam Goverment to use the finds we paid into our super. Not ours. But now we pay the penalty.
U- Uniformity in the treatment of all Australian retirees is a reasonable request. Why havent successive Governments provided a fair and consistent solution for all retirees.
V- Voting. I was pleassd to see Bernie MC Guigans comment on the targeting of all marginal seats. This could also effect Senate places.Military superannuants represent 66,000 votes and their wives/partners another 66,000. Add an average two children who will want to see their parents live in reasonable comfort. That is a further 132,00 voters.A lot of servicemen/women yet to retire need to be assured that the Government of the day will provide some surety when their time comes to retire. Thats a lot of votes, many of which would have gone to Labor at the last election, following Kevin Rudd’s promises, which created expectations – but now not delivered.
W- Wars. Military services reason for being is to train for war, in defence of Australia. Far reaching foreign plocies have seen that role expanded over the last 40 years, to include conflicts on the other side of the world.Servicemen and women have no choice but to go where their country sends them. This places strains on ther families and relationships. Long periods of separation are the norm.
X- Military superannuants paid exorbitant taxation (read triple dipping by the Tax Office). They paid tax on their their super contribution. They paid tax on any commutation they took out from their super at retirement and, they now pay tax at their marginal rate on their super payments from the Government. And for the majority on part service pensioners, they see their pension reduced for any super increase rate , which has now been changed from 40 cents in the dollar, to 50 cents in the dollar (a 20%increase).
Y- You and only you are responsible to correct this situation. It is no good letting a few do the work for many. At the very least, join the DFWA as they rely on your subsciption and any donations to tirelessly work on behalf of all serving and retired military servicemen and women.When the military superannuant dies his/her spouse/partner receives only 62% of their pension (compared to 82% for politicians). In the case that they do not have a recognised spouse/partner, the remaining family gets nothing.
Z- 2010 is the year of the federal election. We are entering the Election Zone. Will Labor fix our super indexation in the May budget ( unlikely given their current record? Will the Coalition provide a commitment to fix super indexation as a priority if elected? History tells us, that generally we have done better from Coalition Governments, when compared to Labor. Currently, in my case,my voting decision is a no brainer.
“Mr Tanner said that he agreed with Trevor Matthews that it would be unfair to those who took a lump sum instead of a pension if indexation was improved.” (Coleman’s posting)
What an absolutely lame and pathetic excuse that Tanner trotted out. He knows what is happening with the indexation of Commonwealth super pensions is wrong. However he is not going to fix it because those who took lump sums might get upset.
If you took that approach with all Government decisions Mr Tanner, you would be in total paralysis. Mind blowing!!! Incomprehensible!!!
I agree that now is the time for us to target marginal seats!!!
Well spoken by Bill Denny at the Dawn Service in South Australia yesterday. See http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/national/7106206/thousands-cheer-adelaide-anzac-parade/
It wasn.t enough for the Labor Government to deny military superannuants a fair indexation for their super scheme, aided by the flawed Matthews Report. Now they have just pushed a new bill through the House of Representatives which will combine all Australian Government super funds/schemes under the one Board. Despite strong justification by the DFWA (and support from the coalition), this has the potential to adversely impact on all current and future military superannuants. Composition of the Board will include two service representatives and three nominated ACTU representatives.
It is sad that after so many promises by Labor politicians to look after those people who had served their country in the Military, the Rudd Government has treated military superannuants with comtempt.
No doubt Labor has lost the vote of most military superannuants at the this year’s election. Bur fortunately for the Coalition, they will now lose the vote of most serving military personnel, who will have just cause to be worried about their future super nest eggs.
John
Your optimism about better treatnment from the (now) opposition, and your implied belief that the Coalition may now get our votes, could be misplaced. I say this on the basis of a most equivocal letter on our issue that I received from Tony Abbott. This letter almost mirrors the political double speak that Kevin Rudd sent me on the subject before the LAST election. In fact the Abbott letter was a disgraceful and intellectually offensive attempt by someone in his office to respond to my direct question. I am certain Tony cannot have read either my letter, or the response prepared on his behalf.
I despair at the totally un-Australian display of heartlessness shown to us by the majority of our elected representatives, who continue to send our people into harm’s way, proclaim loudly from the front ranks at ceremonial events how much valued we are, and yet refuse to correct a patent and obvious wrong.
I still hope that a ‘csst iron’ guarantee may yet be given during the election period. Better still would be a sympathetic initiative by the current Government to resolve the issue once and for all, before the elction, thus perhaps retaining some of its goodwill from service and ex=service people.
PUT THE SITTING MEMBER LAST AND THE OPPOSING MEMBER 2ND LAST. INCLUDE THE SENATE.
WHY GIVE THEM THEIR OBSCENE SUPER AND PERKS WHEN ALL THEY GIVE US IS THE LOUSY CPI?
If Independents get the “balance of Power” = Wacko, eh?
Persevere
Bernie
Bert
I didn’t make my comment lightly. I have been researching this issue for over six months now. You need to check the DFWA site, the Open Government site and Hansard.
The Defence Force has traditionally done better from the Liberals and not so well under Labor. It was Whitlams’s Government that took our super contributions, which made our super unfunded, and on which we now pay tax. Rudd and Griffin made many promises prior to the election in 2007, which gave many military superannuants enough hope to vote Labor. Their actions post election have shown they couldn’t care less about us and lied to get oue votes.
The Liberals on the other hand have at least indicated they they will readdress military superannuation indexations, but will not be able to deliver until they get the budget back into surplus.
In terms of the Labor Bill going through parliament to put all Commonwealth and military super schemes under the one board, consider this:
1. Defence representation on the Board is limited to two, whereas the ACTU has three nominated representatives.
2.A Board which does not fully understand or acknowledge the unique nature of military service, which is vastly different to other Commonwealth employment streams, is unlikely to ensure that the specific needs and interests of military superannuants are properly taken into account.
3. War Widows to be eligible must have applied for a War Widows,Widowers Pension,and be granted a War Widows Pension, prior to any future marriage, or they miss out altogether when they remarry in the future.
The Labor Governments display of contempt for military superannuants and their dependents, is a National disgrace.
I don’t know what you wrote to Tony Abbott or what was in his reply. I also don’t know the timeframes in which they occurred. Certainly it is normal for staffers to prepare responses to questions from people like us. But at least you got a reply. Individuals like us plus the DFWA have been sending letters and Emails to Rudd, Sherry (who commissioned the Matthews Report), Griffin and Tanner, and you are lucky to receive a reply off any of them. When the above Labor politicians fail to respond to the DFWA, who not only represent their own members mationally, but also other ESO’s such as the RAR Association, RAAF and NavalAssociations representing tens of thousand of veterans, then what hope does an indivifual have of getting a response from them.
I hope my previous comment and this reponse explains why i will be voting Liberal at this and all future elections
John Griffiths
There is a new comment on the post “Developing a new direction for the campaign “.
http://www.katelundy.com.au/2009/09/07/developing-a-new-direction-for-the-campaign/
Author: John Griffiths
Comment:
Bert
I didn’t make my comment lightly. I have been researching this issue for over six months now (Bernie since 1987!). You need to check the DFWA site, the Open Government site and Hansard.(what about John Grahams site, SCOA site, RAR Assoc site, DFRDB site, )
The Defence Force has traditionally done better from the Liberals and not so well under Labor. It was Whitlams’s Government that took our super contributions, which made our super (UNFUNDED AND UNTAXED), and on which we now pay tax(for the fourth time). Rudd and Griffin made many promises prior to the election in 2007, which gave many military superannuants enough hope to vote Labor. Their actions post election have shown they couldn’t care less about us and lied to get oue votes.
The Liberals on the other hand have at least indicated they they will readdress military superannuation indexations (? when), but will not be able to deliver until they get the budget back into surplus. (They did bugger all in 11 and one half years and what is the Role/Reason of the Future Fund my friend? It now has assets of SIXTY ONE BILLION DOLLARS which is there to meet all future Commonwealth superannuation commitments/LIABILITIES????)
In terms of the Labor Bill going through parliament to put all Commonwealth and military super schemes under the one board, consider this:
1. Defence representation on the Board is limited to two, whereas the ACTU has three nominated representatives. (DFRB & DFRDB have no funds whatsoever to invest = stolen by whitlam = why include them?)
2.A Board which does not fully understand or acknowledge the unique nature of military service, which is vastly different to other Commonwealth employment streams, is unlikely to ensure that the specific needs and interests of military superannuants are properly taken into account.(Correct)
3. War Widows to be eligible must have applied for a War Widows,Widowers Pension,and be granted a War Widows Pension, prior to any future marriage, or they miss out altogether when they remarry in the future.(Rong)
The Labor Governments display of contempt for military superannuants and their dependents, is a National disgrace.(Always been the case)
I don’t know what you wrote to Tony Abbott or what was in his reply. I also don’t know the timeframes in which they occurred. Certainly it is normal for staffers to prepare responses to questions from people like us. But at least you got a reply. Individuals like us plus the DFWA have been sending letters and Emails to Rudd, Sherry (who commissioned the Matthews Report), Griffin and Tanner, and you are lucky to receive a reply off any of them (Tanner does reply!). When the above Labor politicians fail to respond to the DFWA, who not only represent their own members mationally, but also other ESO’s such as the RAR Association, RAAF and NavalAssociations representing tens of thousand of veterans, then what hope does an indivifual have of getting a response from them.
I hope my previous comment and this reponse explains why i will be voting Liberal at this and all future elections (Vote for anybody other than Lab or Coalition)
John Griffiths
John here are the numbers which both sides care little about:
TPI 29,499 (as at DEC 09)
DFRB/DFRDB = 57,164 (JUN 09)
War Service recipoients = 102,053 (JAN 09)
War Widows = 88,972 (JUN 09)
John send me your email addr and I will forward some interesting Tanner letters over last 12 months or so!
I am on hill55@vtown.com.au
Persevere
Bernie
I welcome the massive support to our campaign for fair indexation for ComSuper and Defence pensions. This will give great strength to my representations to the Minister and to my colleagues.
I hope that the letters will also help to influence the Department of Finance to rethink its narrow approach.
I had expected that the tax treatment of Commonwealth civilian and military superannuation pensions would be dealt with as part of the Henry tax review, as this was not covered in the Matthews Review. I hope that, in the context of the tax plan announced recently by the Government, there could be scope for improvement in the standard of living for those on ComSuper and Defence pensions.
There has been some good news. As Dr Annette Barbetti, President of SCOA, has reported in the June edition of Senior News: “SCOA welcomes the increase in the low income tax offset, the increase in the tax-free thresholds for low income earners and the 50 percent tax discount on interest on savings and deposits of up to $1000”.
In addition, all Australians will benefit from this Government’s achievement in getting the Budget back into surplus a full three years ahead of schedule, and ahead of other advanced economies.
However, as Dr Barbetti says, “these measures will in most cases not make up for losses due to CPI indexation, and do not go far enough to help struggling Commonwealth superannuants whose pensions average less than the combined married rate of age pension, and often support both members of a couple.”
And so, while recognizing the latest tax reforms, I am determined to continue the fight to gain parity with other pensions in the method of indexation.
Gidday Kate
All we DFRB/DFRDB superannuants (57,164 of us as at JUN 09) require is indexation of our paid for schemes and over 20 years of service, via CPI, % of MTAWE or PBLCI, whichever is the HIGHER!
This is exactly what Age pensioners recieve via indexation from Centrelink!Some of these Age pensioners have never worked in their entire lives?????
There is plenty of money available and it is called “THE FUTURE FUND” which now has in exces of $63BILLION!!!!!!!!Well done PC!
Imagine if your very own Parliamentarian scheme/schemes was indexed solely via the CPI index, which is not a cost of living index??????
Persevere
Bernie (A DFRDB superannuant since 1987)
All
Today’s political events make an update mandatory
In hindsight – I should have updated this same viewpoint a fortnight ago but it is indeed more relevant today
Please visit my website http://www.qmig.net/milsuper for an important update on the fair indexation debate and the marginal seats campaign
Best
Kate
Tony Abbott has of course had the courage to step up to the mark to address the issue of fair indexation for DFRB/DFRDB
And he has further addressed a broader commitment to real action to support our veterans
You and I both know this is a moral cancer which has not been adequately addressed by the Labor Party irrespective of your stance on this matter. Your bold and impassioned stance is not enough in terms of a broader Labor perspective
It’s time now for the Labor party to formally commit one way or another in answer to the Liberal Party commitments
Failure to address this quickly and formally as an election platform policy matter can only have savage repercussions as the marginal seats campaign heats up
Implementation now can only defuse the ambush awaiting youse in the marginal seats campaign and being pragmatic enough to resolve this now is the only elegant way forward
Well done at last by the Liberal Party, but why have they ignored the serving ADF by not also including their current MSBS scheme?
There is room here for the Labor Party to produce a better and fairer policy by including MSBS in improved indexation arrangements (in addition to DFRB/DFRDB).
Kate
Your failure to reply on the Labor Party action following the Abbott offer on the indexation of DFRB/DFRDB is especially damning
At the very least I and no doubt all readers expect you to offer bipartisan support
At most… I and no doubt all readers can no longer doubt that the Labor party must address this either now right now or in their election policy platform media releases
Kate – your lack of reply is disappointing – can you remedy this please
Kate
Your silence on a bipartisan reply to the Liberal Party commitments to fair indexation of DFRB/DFRDB is deafening
You may not be aware that this has forced the Veteran community to reassess their vote in the marginal seats campaign
If you or your advisors were aware of both the depth of raw emotion on this issue and understood just how much comment on the Abbott commitments have been made through the usual Veteran forums and the effect that this has had to polarise voting opinion in the Veteran community against the labor party…
You’d be well advised to make some comment soon
You’d be well advised to lobby for an immediate commitment by the labor Party lest this has an unpleasant backlash to you in the marginal seats
Dear Kate.
It’s sad that many veterans are picking on you, when you have gone out of your way to support us and provided a forum for us to express our views. I see you as one of the good guys, in a Labor Govt that has no concerns for military superannuants indexation woes. I viewed a Hansard comment from Minister Griffin the other day in which he stated that Labor would be announcing an election proposal about indexation in the next two weeks. Given the track record of Labor’s cabinet and the broken promises Rudd and Griffin made to us before the last election, no military superannuant will be gullible enough to accept more promises again. If Labor wants to gain election credibility from the ex service group, they will need to put something in place now,and not after the election.
The DFWA has advised it’s members that the Greens have released a policy statement supporting fair indexation for us. That together with the Coalition written comittment means our vote will logically flow away from Labor.
Should the Labor Govt wish to do something positive for us prior to the election, I’m sure that both the Coalition and the Greens (and independants that support our cause), would ensure that it passes easily through both houses.
Thank you for your personal support of our cause.
Well said John. I could not agree more!!
I also encourage the Labor Party to emulate the Greens and Coalition.
However, there has been little comment upon the fact that the Coalition’s recently announced approach intends not to index MSBS superannuation pensions in the saame way that it plans for DFRDB. That is just not acceptable, and would perpetuate the unfairness and inequity that exists at the moment, at least for those people. Importantly, the greatest majority of currently serving military people are on MSBS and could therefore look forward to the purchasing power of their future super pensions continue to erode. That would be just plain wrong.
I am sure that when [I too hope very soon] the Government makes its announcement about indexation it will also include MSBS. Not to do so would add insult to long standing injury, and would be toitally contrary to the spirit of Labor policy.
I too thank you Kate for your support!
Whilst I don’t normally comment on specific political websites, the time has come to say somthing in this forum because I believe I proven beyond any doubt that the Matthew’s Review and his Report is just not credible.
I have provided clear evidence that Matthews grossly misrepresented Professor Pollards 1973 report … where Pollard clearly recommends that we should have a “Share in National Productivity Increases” and that our retirement pay should be indexed at 1.4 x CPI ….. but Labor just continues to put its head in the sand …. suggesting that it is acceptable for our retirement pay to erode because we have welfare to fall back on.
I acknowledge the effort by a number of local labor politicians but the truth of the matter is that they have not been effective in influencing the Cabinet to make a change …. even when the evidence is compelling.
Labor has precious little time left now to screw about with this issue. The Liberals have given a part commitment and the Greens too … tick tock … Roll on the election!!
important milsuper and Federal election update/s at http://www.qmig.net/milsuper
please read… pass the message on… any questions queries comments constructive criticism to me please at admin@bobnoxious.org or bobnoxious@bobnoxious.org
I trust and pray that youse will do the right thing by the veteran community come federal election day as the solution is overtly political
Dear Senator Lundy,
I have just now read Wayne Swan’s letter to a military retiree at BobNOXIOUS’ website which is here:
http://www.qmig.net/milsuper/swan.pdf
There’s an old saying in the military “that it is better for one to keep his mouth shut and be thought a fool … than to open it and then prove it”
Swan and Labor more generally have to be bloody joking!!!??? All your msgs on your website about campaigns and representation remains all talk because the Labor Ministry has taken no notice or action … even when your party has been presented with clear evidence by ESOs and individuals alike that the Matthews’ Report was and remains a falsity!
Given Swan’s letter … unless there is an immediate retraction in the form of an unequivocal election policy fixing both the indexation and taxation of our retirement pay then you blokes will definitely lose my vote and I suspect you will lose (if you haven’t already) all the other 600,000+ affected members also.
Why did we ever bother trusting Labor in the first place?
Peter
I understand your frustration but I will keep trying. There are still avenues that can be pursued and I am not the sort of person that will just give up.
Kate
AT LAST – a sensible, and non-partisan approach to exposing the unfair and unreasonable attitude by Commonwealth governments to Defence Service pension indexation. Views on the issue by ALL candidates should be publicly exposed, before the election, and their follow-up actions in Parliament should be monitored. There is little to be gained by trying to ‘kick out’ incumbents just because they are the non-flavour of the day; many support our case. It is better to oblige them to publicly expose their view, require them to raise the issues in parliament, and then relentlessly and actively remind them! Congratulations DFWA.
DFWA MONTHY UPDATE #252 – 20 July 2010
“…the Association will be working with a series of Local Action Groups in 49 marginal electorates and asking candidates to state what their position is on this issue, then letting the voting public know so they can make an informed choice at the ballot box.”
But why only 49 seats? There are 57 official marginal seats. But why stop at that? Do the whole Federal Electorate.
I suggest to the DFWA that they create a Web page to publicly display the essence of each candidate’s response to constituents. ‘Format’ letters of reply will soon become evident. Let the voting constituents be the judges. Cut out all the parsimonious partisan advertising and platitudes in the replies and just get to the meat. Here are some examples:
Fran Bailey – Liberal – Federal Member for McEwan VIC – 1 April 2010
“Above all, the Coalition will be honest and open with veterans on what we can and cannot commit to in the lead-up to the forthcoming federal election.
The Coalition will determinedly pursue the case for these reforms when in government and when we have control over the nation’s accounts …
I want to assure you that the Coalition remains committed to introducing a fair, equitable and financially responsible military superannuation system.”
Lindsay Tanner – Labour – Federal Member for Melbourne VIC – 22 October 2009
“The Government has no plans to move away from the CPI for indexing the pensions of Commonwealth superannuants.”
Warren Truss – National – Federal Member for Wide Bay QLD – June/July 2010
“I am writing to inform you that the Liberal and National parties have announced that we will take action in our first Budget to index DFRDB pensions by the greater of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), Male Total Average Weekly Earnings (MTAWE) or the Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index (PBLCI).
The new indexation arrangements will apply from the 1st July next year for DFRDB members aged 55 years or older including DFRB Scheme members who were compusorily transferred to the Scheme at its inception. Widows of DFRDB superannuates will also benefit from the announced changes.”
Bill Arden
Hi all,
I thought you might be interested in a SCOA/DFWA meeting Senator Lundy will be speaking at on the 16th August:
http://www.katelundy.com.au/2010/07/30/speaking-at-scoa-dfwa-meeting-on-16th-august/
Warmest regards,
Pia
Office of Senator Kate Lundy
Check the DFWA website. Under; Whats New, 2010 Fair Go Federal Election Campaign there is a fact sheet that rubutts critics of our position. The power in this document is that it takes figures from the discredited Matthews Report and shows it is feasable, reasonable and affordable to grant the ADF fair indexation to protect the purchasing power of the military superannuation pension. The cost will be about $12M per year <.00004% of 2010/2011 Budget outlays. Compare this to some of the other budget outlays!!!
Cheers,
Rob
Promises, promises!
Despite the obvious and understandably reaction to the ALP stance I am inclined to caution those who are grabbing at the Coalition straw promises.
My (todays) Coalition platform brochure titled ‘Our Action Contract’ signed by Tony Abbot, despite opening with ‘It is about a fair go for Australians struggling with cost of living pressures’, nowhere mentions anything about superannuation indexation in the 12 outlined commitments! Senator Bob Brown made no mention in his TV address and the National Party leader’s address to the National Press Club yesterday also did not include any reference to it.
So who do you believe? I don’t trust anything less than a PUBLIC commitment by any of them. That’s why I have suggested public exposure of ALL candidates ‘promises’ on restoring fair indexation to retired Defence member’s superannuation.
Bill Arden
Bill, your are right to be sceptical about such promises made in the heat of an election. Despite the Coalition “promise” on indexation being possibly a straw one, it still has to be better than the current attitude of the ALP which is zero.
I don’t understand why the ALP cannot simply produce a better and fairer policy by including MSBS in improved indexation arrangements (in addition to DFRB/DFRDB).
I think this would be a good area for discussion at Senator Lundy’s meeting with DFWA and SCOA in Canberra on 16 August. See http://www.katelundy.com.au/2010/07/30/speaking-at-scoa-dfwa-meeting-on-16th-august/
Both Labor and the Coalition have form on the matter of fair and equitable indexation of Defence superannuation pensions.
There already exists a fair index to ensure that the purchasing power of Defence super pensions will be preserved into the future, as intended by Parliament when these schemes were established. Applying it would be nothing more than Defence and ex-Defence people deserve and nothing more than other Australians receive.
It is the one used now for other recipients of Commonwealth benefits, and simply means indexing by the better of movements in the CPI, MTAWE or the PBLCI.
The Coalition has recognised the merit of doing away with the un-Australian and discriminatory method of indexation by CPI only, and has finally adopted it – though not for all Defence superannuants.
Meanwhile, and despite overwhelming evidence in support of moving forward from Parliamentary enquiries and the like, as well as the Coalition’s and the Greens’ example, Labor intends nothing more than further delay, review, analysis and consultation to create yet another index – sometime after the election.
Given Kevin Rudd’s acknowledgement before the last election that Defence superannuants will continue to endure rising prices without any increase in their pension, and his implied promise to address the method of indexation before that election, can Labor be trusted this time to actually fix the problem? Many are saying “No”.
There is a simple proven way to do it now – and announce it before the election – to restore the trust of the Defence and related community voters on this issue.
If another index, which does not perpetuate disadvantage and a two class system, is really needed then that can be looked at as a separate issue in the fullness of time.
Meanwhile let Labor “Do the Right Thing” and now also stand up for Defence people and veterans, especially those now on the front line, to give them a “Fair Go”.
Dear Kate,
It seems highly hypocritical of Julia Gillard to condemn Tony Abbott for not accompanying her to visit the troops in Afghanistan last week.She claims it would have shown a bi-partisan approach to support of our troops. Pity that Tony Abbott had already booked a trip to see them at a later date ( confirmed by Defence sources).
In the election campaign, the Coalition made a written pledge to change military super indexation to the same formula applying to aged pensioners to take effect from 1 July 2010. This is something the DFWA has been pressing for years. The Greens also pledged to support the same indexation changes. Then of course, there are pollies within Labor like yourself who have been fighting for our cause.
If the PM wants to show true bi-partisan support for troops and long serving retired veterans, surely the support of her and her party to change military super indexation to the same formula proposed by the Coalition would be a step in the right direction.
I think that there has been enough discussion on the flawed Matthews Report to prove it should be thrown out.
Kate, could you please advise us what you and your party are currently doing about this issue.
John Griffiths
Dear Kate
Lack of any new information or response to our situation, indicates that you have lost interest in this matter, now that the election has past and you have been re-elected. I hope thay I am wrong. If you intend to keep pursuing our cause, we would appreciate an update on any any progress you have made, or specific directions you are taking to help our cause.
John Griffiths
Dear Kate
On 18 November 2010, the Coalition introduced a Bill in the Senate to change military super indexation, to the same formula applying to aged pensions for the past ten years. The Bill proposes that the change will come into effect from1 July 2011.
Given the support of you and several of your Labor colleagues for this issue in the past, military superannuants are hopeful that you will give your support to this Bill.
Please advise your intentions
Kind regards
John Griffiths
I agree with John Griffiths, and would be interested in the approach you intend taking. However, I humbly submit that the response to the Coalition’s bill could include strong agreement for the planned indexation (despite their belated recognition of the issue, about which they did nothing while in power), but importantly to decry the omission of indexation of MSBS super for Defence personnel currently serving on operations, and superannuants under that scheme. It would be good if there were a proposal for an amendment to the bill to sort this out – dare I say it in a bi-partisan way which honours the service of our forces (and their families) and which acknowledges the uniqueness of that service. We live in hope.
I too agree with both John and Bert, and particularly Bert’s point about including MSBS which is the current super scheme for today’s serving Defence Force.
If MSBS is not included, there is the danger that the campaign for a fairer indexation regime will be wrongly perceived to be all about only DFRDB and yesterday’s soldiers, sailors and airmen.
(I know some of today’s ADF members are also still in DFRDB, but they are few compared to the bulk now in MSBS).
I agree with the comments above, however, changing the proposed legislation to include MSBS would be a good reason to delay the introduction of the bill. I believe that if we can get the DFRDB bill through, including Royal assent, before the 1 July 2011 will make it very hard for the Labor party to then reject a later amendment to include MSBS.
Getting DFRDB through initially gives us a foot in the door which would benefit the current MSBS members. If the bill is delayed to include MSBS, that means we would be facing a new Senate in which the Coalition does not have the majority vote, and this could be a whole new ball game. If Kate Lundy is forced to toe the Labor Party line, we may lose everything we have fought for, so let the bill go through for DFRDB recipients initially.
Yep well said Kerry!
We need to “get a foot inside the door” in regards to JUST, FAIR and EQUAL indexation of DFRB/DFRDB superannuation as Phase 1 of our Battles!
Once obtained we then need to push for the same for MSBS as Phase 2, plus a few other discriminastory matters regards ADF superannuation!
Time is not on our side and we need positive, fruitful action now, before the new Senators take up positions in that “Unrepresentative Swill” place as keating so aptly put it!
Bernie
Hi all,
Just to let you know the Senator has done a short update post at:
http://www.katelundy.com.au/2010/11/25/comsuper-and-defence-pension-update/
Many thanks for the new feedback about the bill.
Pia Waugh
Office of Senator Lundy
Dear Kate
Well, the Labor Government has clearly shown that it has no intention of looking after military superannuants , in the form of fair super indexation formulas.
The Senate debate of the Bill on 24 March 2011,introduced by Senator Ronaldson in November 2010 ( DFRDB Fair Indexation Bill), showed a complete lack of understanding of this issue and of the unique nature of military service by Labor Senators. To many veterans, some comments by Senators Wong and Feeney were found to be both insulting and demeaning.
The Bill failed to get up by one vote and was referred to the Senate Finance and Public Adminiistration Committee, which is to report back to the Senate on 10 May 2011. Fourteen submissions were received by the due date (15 March 2011), with further late submissions being received from Dept of Finance and the Depatment of Defence. The Defence Alliance Association has provided a supplementary submission in response to the Dept of Finance Report, but not one on the Dept of Defence submission, given the time restraints.
Both Departmental Reports rely heavily on the Matthews Report and Dept of Finance estimates only. Enough has been written about Matthews by numerous people and organisations to show it was flawed, incomplete and inaccurate. The Department of Defence report has seriously disappointed all veterans who have seen it. Surely, it is not just a matter of looking after current serving people, but all those who have served in the military when they leave.
In spite of Senators Feeney and Wong stating the Bill is a stunt, it has been made clear by the Coalition, that they intend to see this through.
I suggest that anyone interested in seeing the submissions for and against this proposed Bill, search the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee Website as a matter of urgency.
Kate, Labor has clearly failed all military superanuants once again and not just after the 2007 election, given K Rudds election promises to us. In fact the Gillard ministry seems to care even less.
We will all look forward to the Senate Debate on 10 May 2011 and any decisions taken at that time. The current Government submissions seem to be clutching at straws to defeat the proposed Bill. All the Government submissions do is make the Labor Government appear to lack credibilty, decency, fairness and transparency. Clearly Labor is prepared to lie and deceive as much as it takes in this matter to get it’s way, and deny our legitimate and reasonable claim.
One this is for sure. Regardless of the outcome of this Bill we won’t be going away. Veterans are in this fight for as long as it takes to get a fair go and see many past Governments promises to us kept.
John Griffiths
Kate
Arguably, the most egregious comment among many in the Department of Finance & Deregulation’s late submission re the Fair Indexation Bill now before the Senate is that fair indexation would confer a new benefit upon DFRDB retirees.
This is so breathtakingly wrong that even the most blinkered observer from either side of politics or from the wider community should see through it instantly. And put Finance back in its box.
But, just in case I’m mistaken, I ask that you advise your Senate colleagues that fair indexation will merely restore a lost benefit, not confer a new one.
If you have given this advice to your colleagues before, then please do so again. Do not let Finance get away with its ongoing disinformation campaign. Please.
You know we just want an indexation method that again protects military super pension purchasing power.
Yesterday’s CPI indexation protected pension purchasing power. Today’s does not. CPI has changed, as you and DoFD well know, which is why Government discarded CPI as the sole indexation benchmark for Age etc pensions in 1997.
When will this simple message get through? Why do you and your colleagues accept advice from Finance that even Blind Freddy can see is wrong?
Well said Win. Is it really too simple for our policians to understand? Or, are they being bamboozled by idle public servants who write atrocious advice and Senate Comnmittee submissions, such as the appalling Defence one to the current enquiry. Does Defence not recognise its duty to look after its people?
Check out my post http://www.katelundy.com.au/2011/02/09/comsuper-and-defence-pension-update-february-2011/
The DFRDB Annual Report to Government page 48 gives actual costs of DFRDB/DFRB over 09/10. Also says that members contributed some $22m, more than enough to pay for Fair Indexation but wait as it is paid into consolidated revenue it is probably ear marked for other purposes.
Sorry is my cynicism showing!!
Dear Kate,
I’ve just read the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee Report on the Proposed DFRDB Fair Indexation Bill 2010, submitted to the Senate on 10 May 2011. No surprises there. Labor continues to block any moves by the Coalition to create fairness for military superannuants. With their Green Senate support, they have come up with a recommendation that the Bill not be passed. The Coalition have come up with their own dissenting recommendation, that the Bill be supported and passed by the Senate.
With Labor Senators hanging their hat on the fully discerdited Matthews Report (Matthews provided the Report to his friend Senator Sherry at no cost- I guess you get what you pay for). And of course they say that based on (the conflicting and questionable- see Coalition comments) financial estimates from Department and Finance and Dept of Defence, it will cost too much.
Where will you and your Canberra based Labor colleagues stand when this Bill comes up for the Vote Kate? I think we would all like to know.
John Griffiths
Dear Senator Lundy
Given your interest and supportive concern for fair indexation of military superannuation pensions, I would be interested to know of your intentions when the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits
Amendment (Fair Indexation) Bill 2010 next comes up for consideration in the Senate. I understand that this may occur later this month.
I have looked on your web site: “Developing a new direction for the campaign”, but aside from your 25 November update about Senator Ronaldson’s Private Member’s Bill, cannot find any information on how you have got on with your suggestion that the existing PBLCI which applies to the Age pension could be included as a short-term indexation measure for all of the relevant Defence and ComSuper schemes. It would seem that you have not been able to influence those Labor Senators on the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee who made the appalling recommendation that “…the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Amendment (Fair Indexation) Bill 2010, and the amendments on sheet 7027, not be passed. ”
You have not yet answered John Griffith’s post of 11 May, which also asks what position you and your ACT Labor colleagues will adopt.