Please find below a link to a scan of the letter I received from Minister Tanner in response to the letter I sent in September along with my colleagues Mike Kelly, Annette Ellis and Bob McMullan.
Letter from Minister Tanner – 26th Oct 2009
Obviously we are disappointed with the response however the Minister has agreed to meet with a delegation from SCOA and DFWA in the next sitting fortnight so they present their point of view. I reported this to the public meeting held today at Ainslie Football Club. I will be posting the notes from my address first thing tomorrow.
The public meeting was incredibly well attended and representatives from the offices of my colleagues who weren’t able to attend were all present including one of Minister tanner’s advisors. Ewen Hazell chaired an orderly and heartfelt meeting and myself, Senator Humphries, Annette Barbetti, Les Bienkiewicz and John Coleman formed a panel and responded to questions from the audience.
I noticed that John Coleman’s point that the recommendations of the Matthews Review which were immediately accepted by the Government were contrary to the recommendations of no less than three parliamentary inquiries, was picked up strongly in the ABC television news this evening.
A strong resolution was carried at the meeting and I will post a link to it as soon as I can. I have also been asked to present to the Prime Minister a framed copy of the email sent to a constituent during the election campaign.
8 Comments
Reply | Subscribe
Kate
I’ve just read Minister Tanner’s 22 October response to your letter of 14 September. It is breathtaking in its dismissiveness of ADF/APS men and women, and in its hypocrisy.
Some initial observations:
* “…the Government response MAY have caused disappointment for SOME recipients…” (my emphasis).
He’s joking, isn’t he? Given the immediate reaction to his Friday afternoon sneak release of a seriously flawed review, together with the ongoing approbrium he and his colleagues have attracted, even Minister Tanner and his staffers must realise that his government’s response HAS caused ‘disappointment’ (how’s that for a euphemism?) to ALL recipients – with the possible exception of any recipients living on Mars.
* PBLCI.
Minister Tanner spends four paragraphs (of nine) telling us through you that PBLCI is a dead duck for military super pensioners but says nothing about taking action to develop a “robust index” per Matthews’ Recommendation #4. Minister Tanner and his government are clearly happy to leave military superannuants swinging in the indexation breeze. Appalling.
* “…not…inequitable or unfair…”
But even Blind Freddy knows that the extant CPI indexation method for military super pensions IS inequitable and unfair. Military super pension purchasing power continues to erode at an increasing rate. Look at the percentages on the widely-circulated graph. I’m sure that even Minister Tanner, in a part of him deep down and now well concealed from public view, knows this. But he has painted himself into a corner and is now required to defend the indefensible, while trusting that the media and the Opposition will remain apathetic and that these pesky ex-service and ex-APS people will give up and go away, which they won’t.
* “…no plans to move away from the CPI for indexing the pensions of Commonwealth superannuants.”
Given this statement, together with his statement that his Government “continues to fully support Mr Matthews’ findings”, one of which (Matthews page 46) asserts that retired members of Commonwealth schemes should not benefit from productivity increases – that is, not be indexed to salary increases – when can we expect Minister Tanner to cut the very generous salary-based indexation of pre-2004 MP pensions to CPI alone? Is Minister Tanner, surely not wanting to wear the ‘hypocrite’ label, implementing CPI indexation for MPs at this very moment? The cut can be done administratively in exactly the same way as a previous government did to military and APS super pension indexation some 20 years ago. No legislation is required.
Kate, I note your post (above) that “the Minister has agreed to meet with a delegation from SCOA and DFWA in the next sitting fortnight so they present their point of view.” That’s all well and good but it indicates that Minister Tanner and his staffers are yet to read or consider DFWA’s 30 Sep 2009 response to Matthews. DFWA’s view has already been presented. While I’m sure that DFWA will be happy to do so again, despite the additional direct cost to a volunteer organisation that pays its own travel bills, as an individual I wonder what will be achieved by talking with a minister who is clearly being fed a line by his intransigent department and possibly by his staffers? But hope springs eternal so I trust that something positive emerges from a very sorry situation.
Thank you for continuing to pursue the indexation issue.
Win,
It is my hope that the meeting will enable SCOA/DFWA to clearly present their case relating to the inadequacies of the Matthews review, and hence the innappropriateness of Government relying on it to form a definitive view regarding indexation methodology. It will of course be helpful if the comprehensive submissions by both to date are read and understood beforehand!
Thanks again for your input.
Kate
Without having to repeat what Win Flow has said, I agree entiley with his comments.
I would add it is painfully obvious that this governments attitude towards retired members of the defence community is one off we don’t care, as they aren’t a union and therefore don’t count in the scheme of things as they won’t hurt us with any threat of strike or monitory blackmail. They basically don’t care and continue to play the blame game.
They hide behind a Report which given the terms of reference was always going to support the governments requirements/view, as the terms of reference were limited to what the government wanted in the outcome. So when challenged as they can respond, “BUT we had an independent review and we are now adopting that policy”!
This policy of using CPI to index my pension is totally wrong and goes against the governments fair go catch cry.
IN closing could Mr Tanner explain to me if the method of using CPI is equitable why in the same period where my pension has only moved .5%, because there is no movement in the CPI, the pollies have had an 11% pay rise and a 25% increase in allowances, because of the pressure of the cost of living? I am confused to say the less.
If the governments continues to ignore the CPI matter in relation to my pension after trying to resolve the matter by a logical and commonsense approach. I will have no alternative but to express my DISAPPOINTMENT at the ballard box.
Kel’s comments are so well put and written: well done Kel…. what more can one say !
The DFWA looks forward to joining with Kate and SCOA in meeting with Minister Tanner on 25 November.
Any news on the DFWA/SCOA discussions with Minister Tanner on 25 November?
I should have pointed you to the Developing a new Direction section for updates, and hopefully more from SCOA, DFWA and us soon.
Kate
Is there any chance of us having a report on your meeting with Minister Tanner on the 25 November 2009? Many of us are very keen to have some idea of why this Government refuses to provide the men and women who were willing to fight for this great country, Australia, with fair and equitable indexation of their military superannuation pensions.
Richard
As the Government seems now to be completely ignoring this matter I have made the following decisions.
My first decion is that, in the Federal elections this year I will definitely be putting Kate Lundy as No 1 on my ballot paper. I believe that to do otherwise would not be in the national interest as it is essential that Labor gains control of the Senate. This has been my opinion throughout my life and I will continue to vote for it.
However, Labor has adequate control of the House of Representatives and obviously will not lose this control at the 2010 elections. Hence, we voters have freedom to give a strong message by voting against Labor in selected electorates. I believe that the two electorates in the ACT should be so targeted.
So my second decision is that I will be placing Annette Ellis (or her replacement, if she decides to retire) as the last selection on my ballot paper.
I will be encouraging others to follow this pattern.
Joe Clark