Here is the joint letter from myself, Mike Kelly, Annette Ellis and Bob McMullan to Minister Tanner regarding our concerns about the Government’s decision to accept the Matthews Review recommendations.
This letter to the Minister is based on lots of discussions and having had the opportunity to absorb many views raised in the blog. As you will see, we believe that Recommendation 4 of the Matthews Review leaves the door open for consideration of a suitable alternative indexation methodology and we have raised the PBLCI in this context.
Whilst there are still serious concerns relating to the terms of reference used and lack of consultation, I think it is important to move forward where we can. I am still keen to support the articulation of case studies that illustrate the hardship experienced by many comsuper and defence pension recipients, as this will help my colleagues better understand the problem.
I look forward to your feedback about this approach and any new suggestions.
Please click through for a pdf of the letter:
21 Comments
Reply | Subscribe
Thank you for your letter. As a serviceman who spent 21 years in the military, including a 12 month tour in Vietnam, and contributed to my superannuation throughout my service, I welcome any help in trying to obtain fairness for us in the way our superannuation is indexed.
Fairly well stated, but a little skeptical of the indexation proposed. However a step in the right direction. If this does not bring results soon I for one am endorsing the introduction our own political party to contest the Senate.
20 years RAAF, discharged in 1988, and now my pension has been reduced to half its value.
It appears that Kevin from Queensland is little better than Johnny from Sydney when it comes to keeping promises. I for one am tired of being a political pawn, being promised one thing and getting another. Together with a number of colleagues we plan to run campaigns in marginal Labor seats in an effort to unseat the incumbents and thereby reduce Kevin from Queensland’s margin in the House. We might not cause a change of government but we will draw attention to our plight and perhaps a few more thinking politicians like Kate, to our cause; especially those in shaky seats.
Thanks Kate for the interest you show in this issue.
However, as I advised the Prime Minister by letter today, that is one less vote for the ALP at the next election. There is only one thing that I think will move this issue forward, change my vote to a party which I believe will bring fairness and dignity to retired public servants. And, yes, I do live in a marginal seat.
Do not be swayed by this latest piece of drivel. This is another of Labors ploys to move away from the indexation to CPI or MTAWE whichever is the greater. The PBLCI wil be rarely used, this has been admitted to by Labor.
If it is good enough for politicians and the majority of other benefits being indexed to CPI or MTAWE whichever is the greater, then it is good enough for those of us on military superannuation payments to be treated the same.
This is a smoke and mirrors job, if ever I saw one. Do you really believe that the politicians who put this letter out did not do so at the behest of the PM and company to try and quell the fires.
I suggest that those of you that are affected look very thoroughly and the PBLCI before you accept it.
Vietnam veteran with over 25 years service ARMY.
Kevin promised all good things in a letter to me before the last election. Now he has conveniently forgotten. What happens to politicians once they are in government? It’s all a bit sad really. All this action over stimulus packages – surely more money in the pockets of Comsuper recipients would help the government out. We would all like to help them out, wouldn’t we? Fairness is all we want. Come on Kevin, get real!
I am assuming you are genuine in your concern however your Govt. will have to do some clever spin if the ridiculous conclusions of the Matthew’s report are to be reversed. Govt’s don’t like to do “backflips”. Here are some things you and your cohorts can do to attempt to claw back some credibility (and votes)which don’t require reference to the Matthew’s report. a. give us back the 2% that Keating took when we had the recession we had to have – after all, as Matthew’s says, we should not share the productivity gains so how come we had to share the community pain. Must cut both ways don’t you think. b. Pay us back for the 2% lower base we have been paid from that time. We have continued to “share the pain” during the productivity gain. c. Adjust the pay point so we don’t have a 6 months lag for receipt of our CPI adjustment. d. Stop extracting the repayments for commutation after it has been paid back. None of these aspects would cause the Govt. any embarassment, don’t cause a forward estimates blow out, and some are just administrative strokes of the pen. Writing letters strikes me as “show pony” stuff. Let’s see something happen. All of these points are examples of my Govt. stealing from me. If a private fund did this they would have their pants sued off.
Another 20 plus year Army/Vietnam Vet
Dear Kate,
At last a positive reaction – congratulations. The letter is as diplomatic as one would expect in your situation. The objective should now be to press for a quick response (not nine months!) – an election looms and the troops are gathering. I recall Billy McMahon, in 1972, blowing hard about not adopting the Jess recommendations and look what happened then!
With regard to your third last paragraph of the letter to Minister Tanner where you say
“The organizations representing more than 300,000 ComSuper and Defence pensioners…”, you might refer to the statistics quoted by the ComSuper Scheme Statistics – 30 June 2009 at http://www.comsuper.gov.au/the_schemes/schemes_stats.html where the figures are more like 663,124 (I am not sure if all schemes payments are dependant on CPI indexation).
Some questions you may like to ask Minister Tanner when you meet, in view of the government’s statement:
“The Rudd Government is satisfied, after considering Mr Matthews’ report, the purpose of indexation of civilian and military superannuation pensions should continue to maintain the purchasing power of the pension.”
“We are aware that this will disappoint many superannuants and their representatives, but we are satisfied that the CPI is the most suitable index to protect Australian Government superannuation pensions against inflationary price increases available at this time. “
Will the government now align all Commonwealth pensions with this new policy?
If CPI is the most suitable index, why is it not paid quarterly, as it is calculated, especially in view of the delay factor in applying payments after ABS notification, which is already based on retrospective data?
Does the government realise that Commonwealth superannuates’ pensions are a single rate payment but are required to support a couple (in general) and cannot be compared to a single age-pension rate?
I recommend everyone click on Rick Ryan’s name for the link that will enlighten any doubters as to what ‘Military Service’ means.
21 yrs Army with Vietnam Service and what did it get me? a bit deeper in the trench, re:Bruce Read’s comments especially (D) would be a step in the right direction to restore Faith ??? in our Government, if this is not forthcoming before the next election(B…S…)promices, included, I know of at least 100 plus Family and Friends who will not vote for the ALP ever again, even little Johnny failed us,bring on the independant ministers,maybe they will have a bit more guts to support us old burnt out Diggers in our final years.
Kate,
Your letter is a good start and I look forward to a timely response from the Minister but I won’t hold my breath. Indexation is only one of the issues. Are you prepared to also take up the issues of out dated “life expectancy tables” that result in lower superannuation payments that go beyond life expectancy and remain with us until Death Do Us Part. The return to full rates once life expectancy has been achieved for those DRFRB/DFRDB recipients who were misled by servants of the government at resettlement seminars and Comsuper brochures (prior to about 1992). Finally when we die and no longer have to suffer the burden of repaying commutation why are our spouses only entitled to 62.5% of an uncommuted pension when others receive 67%.
You did mention to the Minister the anger in the Comsuper recipients community over his acceptance of the Matthews report, in my opinion you could have used a number of adjectives to better discribe the feeling of the Government going back on its pre election promises.
A big plus for Labor is the silence of the opposition on these issues.
Thanks for your response Jim, and everyone else! I know there is a lot of scepticism (reading the blog shows that!) about where we go next but I think that many people understand the direction outlined in the letter may offer the best opportunity to move forward in the short term.
I just hope your combined letter with the other MPs is just not smoke and mirrors again,and I might add your Boss is on thin ice!
Once again more platitudes from Government – but, like Nirelle above, I also would like to help the Government out, but I just can’t remember which door they came in!
Your letter is a step forward. Congratulations and thanks for that. However, we need you and your colleagues to get really serious about the final sentence in the penultimate para of your letter where you say to Minister Tanner that you want him to open the way for consultation and further progress towards fairness in the future.
We cannot wait too long for that “future”
For me the damage has been done. 40 years in the publc service – 20 of those at Senior Executive level – and after 15 years of inadequate indexing my pension fell to the level where I became an age pensioner.
Thank you for these comments and assistance. There are a number of related issues which we will need to follow up, as mentioned by Bruce Read, Jim Hislop and others, and questions raised by these contributors, Bill Arden and others.
In our work to support the campaign for fairer indexation of ComSuper and Defence pensions, we need sound evidence to challenge some of the assumptions and conclusions of the Matthews report. We have been receiving some thoughtful critiques/analyses of this report, which are very helpful. SCOA, DFWA, ACPSRO and affected organisations (I could say disaffected organisations!) have been working on this. To challenge the Department of Finance costings (which we can probably do by reason of the clawback factor alone) we need solid research and case studies, which are being collected. The letter to Minister Tanner urging timely action in terms of Recommendation 4 is a first step.
If you really support your constituents on the matter cross the floor!
Voting along party lines simply demonstrates how ineffective you are in championing the interests and causes of your constituents.
As a vietnam veteran with 20 years service I gave up beleiving politicians when I stopped wearing short pants
Kate,
You have said you are interested in following up on points previously raised by myself. How about a second letter to Mr Tanner covering non Matthews terms of reference issues. I think it will be a long fight to have the Finance Dept. admit their figures to Matthews are wrong and a longer one to have Minister Tanner admit he make an error in accepting the Matthews Report, in part based on rubbery figures provided by his Dept. By all means pursue the indexation issue-it MUST be redressed, However, can we go after all of the other anomalies as a separate issue? That way positive steps by the Govt. won’t be seen as an immediate back flip on Matthews recommendations. This way we might get something, anything to alleviate the unfairness, unreasonableness and breach of promise we have been subjected to.
22yrs Army, Vietnam Vet, Lt. Col (Ret)
Kate,
Thanks so much for your persistence in this matter. I never had any faith that the Government intended to change the indexation methodology. Appointing Matthews was nothing more than a transparently cynical ploy to give credibility to the intention to do nothing. I note too, that current Defence Force ‘leaders’ are silent on the issue, but I guess your chances of appointment to a nice Government sinecure on retirement are not so good if you publicly rock the boat. I look forward to a Government announcement that politicians’ pension indexation will now also be restricted to CPI adjustments only but’ so far as I know nobody has managed to get that pig to fly yet.
Dear Kate,
Thanks for your support. I attended a SCOA meeting last week and I have never been so disgusted with the Labour Party that I have supported in the past. No more. I have written to MPs, Ministers and the PM asking this one simple question, “Why are Federal Parliamentary pensions not indexed to CPI as is mine?” To date no one has had the decency or the guts to answer.
I will accept being indexed to CPI when Parliamentary pensions are indexed to CPI as well.
Time for a follow up letter me thinks,here we are keep in the dark as usual,it make’s one think that the Minister has very little regard for his fellow member’s or of course Retired Public Servants and Retired Defence Force Retiree’s.Come on Kate if your fair dinkum time for some non answerable questions during question time