I am pleased to have been invited by SCOA and DFWA to a meeting on the issue of indexation of Commonwealth superannuants pensions, on Monday 16 August at 10.30 am at the Southern Cross Club in Woden. I look forward to our discussions there on how to best achieve our goals.
Together with the organisations representing you, I have worked to develop a new proposal to achieve a fairer outcome. Our proposals include the development of a new Analytical Living Cost Index (ALCI) tailored to a realistic cost of living assessment for this group of retirees, and reform of the tax treatment of ComSuper and Defence pensions.
We completely reject the cynical attempt by the Opposition to inject chaos and disunity into the campaign by offering a change in indexation to one section only of the Defence superannuants.
I look forward to working with the new Prime Minister and the new Finance Minister in a re-elected Labor Government to achieve the equity we seek.
Thank you for continuing with us the campaign for fairer indexation for Defence and ComSuper pensions.
31 Comments
Reply | Subscribe
Thanks, Kate, for trying to do the right thing but I fear that no-one with senior influence within the ALP is listening now or will listen after the election.
Witness, for example, Minister Griffin’s repeated announcements in the four months or so since he was given responsibility for military super pensions that Labor would not reform the extant CPI indexation method.
Mr Griffin has in my view achieved some solid results for his department’s constituency. That’s good. But, noting that he was sympathetic to indexation reform before he was given the mil super hospital pass some four months ago, and that he now actively opposes reform, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that he is perhaps unwillingly toeing the party (i.e. Dept of Finance) line because he has insufficient influence to do otherwise.
I would like to be wrong about the prospects for indexation reform under Labor. But all the evidence points the other way.
I too fear, as Win, that the decades of treatment of our service personnel as very second class is beyond remediation.
1. The rot commenced in 1974 when our TPI pension began to lose it comparison with that awarded to our grandfathers at 100% AMWE, also a broken contract to many/any service man or woman who took their oath under those conditions of service before 1974.
2. Then our pension fund was stolen by Goof Witless and his cohort, so that all that has ensued since forces us into postulating what might have been given oversight our own superannuation funds.
I have just resigned myself to decades of telling young Australians, “Don’t have anything to do with me if you are stupid enough to to see what has happened to me and my mates and then wear a bloody uniform!”
Sad, but who cares who wins, as long as its pollies and their their sooper dooper annuation.
NO MORE PROPOSALS AND BLOODY ENQUIRIES, just let us fools who served slip into our dotage in peace and not so genteel penury, as you all shaft a new generation of uniforms and their kin. And on that note, I commend you to the conclusion on page 8, and ask, just who is going to compensate my family?:
http://tinyurl.com/32qftqd
But I do acknowledge and thank Kate for attempting at least some remediation for earned (and contracted by oath of allegiance) entitlements.
This in spite of the proposals of both the Labor Party in the large, and also of Tony Abbott in one of his ministries, to eliminate DVA and attach and subsume Veterans within the pauperistic social security system where if you are of criminal intent and devious it seems that you can get unearned funding.
Thanks for your efforts on our behalf Kate but I have no confidence at all that Labor either appreciates our situation or has a serious commitment to correct the injustice that has gone on for far too long.
One only has to look at the string of announcements by Ms Gillard promising billions to ‘working families’ in many forms of assistance to know that, firstly, there will be no funds available to correct the ex-ADF pension problem and, secondly, that your party does not appreciate what a ‘working family’ is.
I am approaching 68 years of age and I am still working full-time. Why? To ensure that we can live with dignity and cope with chronic illness as the DFRDB pensions of me and my wife (with a total of nearly 40 years combined service) are totally inadequate after over 20 years of CPI indexation treatment!
You and Mike Kelly are to be congratulated for your efforts, but your party has no conscience given that it was a Labor government that changed the basis on whech the CPI was calculated so many years ago.
Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard mouth words to the effect that ADF personnel makes great sacrifices. Well Kate, most of us are still making sacrifices many, many years after retiring on what we believed would be living retirement incomes.
Thanks Kate for at lest recognising there is a problem. For the life of me I dont know how some people sleep at night, they changed there own super arrangments and left ours as it is. The opposition are no better they had a chance to move on this issue and did nothing. Keep up the good work and best of luck.
It is refreshing to see a government politician register both an understanding of the indexation issue and to support the recommendations of the Mathews report i.e. provide a suitable index for all commonwealth superannuants to ensure the maintenance of reasonable living standards.
I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of the coalitions cynicism in agreeing to apply the MATWE to DFRDB pension recipients(the smallest military group) and find it strange that DFWA hailed this anouncement as a success.
As is it is with others my concern is ‘will it ever happen’.
I thank you for your support and certainly wish you good luck. I have written support for the SCOA/DFWA campaign from my own,independent representative,Tony Windsor,and will continue to keep him appraised of new developments.
Kate,
Sadly, Labor may have missed the boat (vote) on this issue if one is to accept the poor outcome of Alan Griffin’s MP visi t here to WA on the 3rd August which has left us in no doubt that Labor will not change their stance prior to the forthcoming election on this issue.
While your own personal attempts to get your government to change their minds must be applauded it would appear that all has been in vain. This will no doubt be reflected in the polling booths on the 21st of August.
I personally have lost all faith in your party and have been a staunch supporter on the military superannuant indexation issue. I find it vulgar to think that politicians are quite happy to accept their generous indexation arrangements while military superannuants continually fall behind with their indexation being on CPI figures only.
At least the Coalition and the Greens have the commonsense and decency to see that the current arrangements for military superannuants are unjust and unfair. The “Fair Go” Campaign will not go away and Labor needs to understand this or suffer the consequences.
In closing, it makes me sick in the stomach to listen to the billions of dollars that get thrown around during election campaigns but on a piddling cost effective remedy issue like ours you hear nothing but silence.
Good luck with your meeting on the 16th August because I believe you will need it when facing questions from DFWA, SCOA and other interested parties.
G’day Kate,
You and I have spoken before and, again, I thank you for trying to assist the greater Defence community. I agree that all previous Governments have treated our Nation’s veterans shabbily and that the Coalition’s offer only goes so far. However, Kate, it is a good start and much better than the current ALP offer of nothing. My biggest concern is for the surviving spouses and families of military superannuants. They receive only 62.5% of the deceased member’s super and that is indexed against the CPI. These spouses are seeing their very meagre income inexorably eroded each year. We must fix this.
Cheers,
Neil Weekes
Thanks Senator Lundy for at least trying to redress the long-term inequity of the superannuation issue. Good luck in your meeting on 16 August with the DFWA.
Given that “A week is a long time in politics,” there is still time for a change of heart from the ALP before 16 August and then 21 August, however the signs are not good.
I simply do not understand the apparent hypocrisy of politicians who can enjoy one standard superannuation standards for themselves and yet are able to impose a lower standard on the Australian Defence Force. These same politicians scramble for publicity on occasions such as ANZAC Day and on troop overseas deployments etc. They mouth public platitudes of support for the sacrifice and service of these troops but then show their insincerity and cynicism by ignoring the troops’ pleas for a fair go when indexing their superannuation.
This is not just a biased cheap shot at the ALP because even the new found but welcome policy of the Coalition ignores the current serving ADF’s superannuation scheme – the MSBS. How can any political party claim to support the great Australian military traditions and yet ignore the unfair superannuation indexation of the serving ADF. Who are the ALP and the Coalition kidding?
I do believe that you and some others in the Government are sincere in your efforts to redress the inherent unfairness but it appears that at this stage you lack the support of the majority of your party. If this is still evident on 21 August, then please don’t expect much in the way of electoral support from the victims of this unfair policy. Loyalty eventually becomes a two-way trait to the mistreated and ignored.
I wish I could be in Canberra on 16 August to listen to the discussions and I wish you well for them.
It is good to see that awareness of this gross injustice on the ex-service pensioner community is finally getting some traction. I was delighted to see a major story on the backpage of this week’s Mount Barker (SA) ‘Courier’ newspaper.
The article makes the point that Defence Force pensions are not ‘massive’ as many politicians and members of the public believe. The average pension is $22,000/year. Contrast that to the retiring Senator Minchin and MHR Lindsay Tanner. Both will leave parliament with plenty. The News Limited article of 20 July 2010 states:
“Outgoing Finance Minister and Member for Melbourne Lindsay Tanner, 54, will get $111,000 a year, while ACT Labor MP Bob McMullan hits the jackpot with nearly $130,000 a year.”
Contrast this to my wife who served 20 years and retired as a major in the Army. She was granted a retiring pension of about $9,000/year in the early 1990s. After the Labor imposed CPI indexation treatment (which wasn’t corrected by the Howard government) she earns today a whole $12,000/year.
There you have it Kate. Your government and party promised to fix this gross injustice, but you all chose to turn your back on those of us who only served our country in the services. I guess I agree with Paul Asbury who questions how such a political party can claim a social conscience under these circumstances.
Good Day Kate.
Unfortunately, as I’m interstate, I will not be able to attend the meeting in support of rectifying the many anomalies that currently exist in the legislation governing military superannuation.
It would be great if all parties could agree to protect military super pension purchasing power and also agree to fix the other Defence Family issues in a bipartisan manner.
Members of the ADF community deserve better; they were willing to put their lives on the line for their country – it is time that our Government recognised that it has a responsibility to make sure that those who have survived or are left behind do not have to live in poverty.
Please make it happen.
Kate,I applaud your efforts in wanting to do the right thing. Where yo from here, well should a certain party gain the balance of power that is where we should be directing our concerns at this present time..
Thanks for trying Kate. Unfortunately, like so many others, I don’t feel that your party is likely to change despite the efforts of individuals such as yourself. My local (Labor) member has ignored my questions and will only respond with platitudes such as “I have passed your letter to..” despite my having asked him for his position. Quite frankly, I doubt that he read my letters.
I am currently assisting a widow who is really struggling. It is bad enough to see how little she gets from her husband’s pension. It is even worse to see that small amount eroded every year. There are many such examples. Yet no one who can help seems to care.
Good luck with your efforts. What we are asking is only that fairness be shown. Surely someone will eventually recognise that?
Peter White
Kate, yesterday I found out that a former OC of mine many years ago is now in palliative care in a hospice. You can draw your own conclusions as to his prospects.
While the fact that he was and is a good bloke is irrelevant in the wider scheme of things, his prognosis and Peter White’s comment above recalled yet another injustice that neither your government nor its predecessors have chosen to address. This injustice is the reversionary spouse (widow/er) super pension entitlements for a Defence widow/er as opposed to a pre-2004 MP’s widow/er.
When my former OC passes on, his widow will receive 63% (rounded) of her late husband’s uncommuted DFRDB military super pension. Had my OC been a pre-2004 MP and not a soldier, his widow would receive 83% of his PCSS super pension.
To my knowledge, no-one from any party including yours has ever justified, or tried to justify, why an MP’s widow is ‘worth’ more than a Defence widow. But it is a fact that that is the case.
Please note I’m talking about percentages, not dollars. The fact that the average PCSS MP superannuant receives far more dollars than the average Defence superannuant is not the issue. The reversionary benefit percentage is the issue here.
You may want to ask yourself and your parliamentary colleagues on both sides why the reversionary benefit percentage for a pre-2004 PCSS MP’s widow is so much more – not just a little bit more – than that for a DFRDB member’s widow.
They also serve who only stand and wait. But those who stand and wait for their sailor or soldier or airman soulmate are serving in a sharply different way from those who stand and wait for their parliamentary loved one.
Why is the latter’s service valued more highly than the former’s?
Thank you Kate Lundy for your efforts on behalf of the DFRDB pension indexation issue.
This issue has reduced my opinion of most elected representatives to one of utter contempt! Not worthy of a cup full of petrol if they were on fire.
I get very angry when I think of the magnificant men I served with or met and the way they have, and continue, to be treated by our Parliament. More talk of a ‘fair go’ is an out and out lie!
Kate, first, I note you used the word “fairer” and not “fair” in your commitment above. Second, you are proposing yet another index “tailored to a realistic cost of living assessment for this group of retirees” which once again raises the spectre of it being decided that we ex-service personnel should have a different (and I am sure lower) cost of living than other retirees such as pre-2004 parliamentarians. I guess that we just have to accept that Parliamentarians and their families are used to a higher standard of living and this should be protected for the remainder of their lives – do we?
Others have very adequately dealt with the discriminatory treatment meted out to the surviving spouses of Defence Personnel vis a vis Parliamentary spouses but it should be highlighted again and again in our country which prides itself on a “fair go”. This is NOT a FAIR GO.
Like others, I have written to various Ministers and local parliamentarians in my area, all members of the ALP. The few replies I have received have been regurgitations of the party line, essentially: concentrating on what they see as the adequacy of the current remuneration/pension scheme; relying heavily on one of the recommendations of one, I believe flawed review, the Matthew’s Review; and concluding by saying that the Nation cannot afford it at this time. So how can the Nation continue to afford to continue to index already generous parliamentary entitlements, pensions and allowances at such a discriminatory and favourable rate? Not to mention the annual spend by parliamentarians past and present of all parties on cars, taxis, and even fines as reported in today’s Sunday Mail in Queensland.
And do I understand that politicians are trying to have all their allowances added to their parliamentary salary? Would that not have the effect of also increasing the Nation’s contribution to their superannuation scheme, thus adding yet another cost to a very costly exercise which seems more like childish theatrics to those of us who watch the broadcasts of Parliament?
One rationale for politicians being able to access their benefits after only a few years of service is reported to be because they often have a much shorter period of “employment” because they are voted out. The main reason a politician would be voted out is because he or she forgot that they are there to serve their Country and their Electorate, not themselves and their party.
I thank you for your interest and efforts on our behalf but I urge you to do more than produce another bureaucratic process as a band-aid measure which won’t even go part of the way to healing the hurt, betrayal and injustice felt in the Veteran Community.
I applaud you Senator for maintaining your support for retired CSS/ADF pensioners, even after Tanner dashed our hopes of equitable reforms. But am I missing something? You state above about proposals “…and reform of the tax treatment of ComSuper and Defence pensions.”
Are you proposing to fix the inequity whereby presently CSS/ADF pensioners/superannuants aged over 60 are taxed (-10%) simply because the government didn’t previously fund it, yet other pensions/super are not taxed from age 60?
Or this just a repeat of promises of reform which were given before the last election? I am still uncommitted, and wait with bated breath for “Monday 16 August at 10.30 am at the Southern Cross Club in Woden”.
Good luck with your colleagues.
Thank you for supporting our cause Kate. I am amazed at how many of the minor parties are also coming on board with the Fair Go campaign. And despite what you say about the Coalition effort as being cynical, the ALP is the only one out of step – or is that the only one in step?.
I agree totally with Ian Scott Kate. The proposal by the Coalition is not “cynical” and you are badly reading the ex-service pensioners if you continue to assert that. What is cynical is the fact that Labor parliamentarians have continued to ignore this issue, even after your deposed prime minister promised to correct the injustice in 2007. If it was a problem then, why isn’t it a problem now?
Cynicism is Labor candidates ignoring our requests for their position and that of their party on this matter. I have emailed Senator Wong (SA) and candidate for Mayo (Sam Davis) but they haven’t even bothered to respond. On the other hand, member for Mayo, Jamie Briggs has received a DFWA group in his electoral office for 90 minutes and has expressed his support and that of his perty for our position. That’s not cynicism. That is caring about your constituents and the need for a FAIR GO! Tell ex-service widows who are struggling to make ends meet on 63% of a rapidly diminishing DFRDB pension about cynicism.
Kate,
It is time the Australian Government ceased treating veterans as second class citizens. There is no equality in the pension system within parliamnetary pensions, aged pensions and military and DVA pensions.
No one has more contempt for the veteran then the Labour Government/Party.
Read the comments above; there is a growing swell of disatisfaction regarding this matter. It is time to have the Labour Party do something positive for veterans.
Kate, thank you for your efforts. The sad reality is that time marches on as does the continual erosion of military pensions. Further debates/investigations simply means even more erosion of purchasing power until the time arrives in the not too distant future when further debate will be futile. Those who served do not want the world but simply what other already have; a fair go.
Is it too much for old soldiers to ask for? particularly after a lifetime of soldiering, where total loyalty, love of country, and sacrifice were the norm. A life where wives were both mothers and fathers and slept in a half filled bed. I am talking about generations of military who served in both peace and war and who maintained the standards despite public apathy and political neglect. I am talking about those who were responsible for forging a new army when two year conscription was introduced at short notice. I am talking about professionals who cut their teeth on Korea, Malaya, Borneo and Vietnam and were responsible for sudden deployements to Somalia ans Rwanda during the great peace. I am talking about our current military forces now involved in operations in many areas. None of this happened because of a magic pill or a charismatic Prime Minister. It all happened because there was and remains dedicated military who made the profession of soldiering their career, first and foremeost and at the cost of other values accepted by the general community as the norm. Each time one of these old warriors pass on, there is another tick in the margin for betrayal and hypocrisy, and will continue to be so until there is a fair go….My very best wishes with your intent…George Mansford
Kate,
Thank you; however, as the nation is at WAR and we are being urged to see this through, isn’t it time to recognise that this military pension issue is now in 2010. Those killed and harmed for life in Afghanistan, had/have wives and children and must now try to accommodate their future needs on a part military pension to cover not only their grief, but also the inexorable increase in the ever rising costs of living, education, etc, while having their pension indexed by a totally discredied factor: the CPI!
Your Treasurer is adamant that this is adequate for military pensioners and their dependants.
Over to you to continue the fight.
Phil Davies AM
Kate,
You have been a friend in Government for some time and I and many other veterans and military superannuation pensioners have appreciated your efforts but I was really disappointed in your comments about the ‘cynical attempt by the Opposition to inject chaos and disunity into the campaign by offering a change in indexation to one section only of the Defence superannuants.’
The Opposition has offered something, your party nothing but a promise to be ‘working with the new Prime Minister and the new Finance Minister in a re-elected Labor Government to achieve the equity we seek.’
The feeling around electorates is that Labor will be making NO announcements on Veteran’s Affairs issues.
Kate, give the veterans and military superannuation pensioners something – please.
Hi Kate
Thank you for making yourself available to address the meeting on the 16th.I am sure you are well are of all the inequites of the current system which have been outlined in earlier comments by my fellow comrades,all we are asking for is that we be treated equally and fairly considering what we had to endure to be eligble for the mere pittance that is handed out to us.
Thank you for at least listening to us and keep up the fight.
I will admit, I have no idea who Kate Lundy is, but obviously she is one of the 50% of senators up for re-election.
As such like them all, say whatever they think is necessary to gain a few more votes.
As for ALL of the members of the lower house, they don’t give a toss for veterans or their families, all they care about is getting re-elected so they can guarantee their lucrative pensions and allowances.
My local member (Steve Gibbons, ALP) actually stated in a letter to me that he has little concern for veterans and the constituants of his electorate. He is only concern about the party and the party line.
Sadly our local ballot paper gives him an additional advantage as well in that he is No. 1 on the form, ready for the perfect donkey vote.
Like them all, you never hear anything of them until an election is in the wind, then every time you open the newspaper or check the mail, their faces are eveywhere.
Yes the cost to make it a level playing field (with the others’ Government indexation and tax arrangements) is high. That’s simply because we are so badly treated compared to the other beneficiaries’ arrangements!
I attended the meeting in Canberra on Monday and it only reinforced my view that Labor is not listening to Superannuants despite the support of yourself and Mike Kelly. I will simple not vote for Mike Kelly or Labor on Saturday. You have simply failed to deliver a fair outcome to Commonwealth Superannuants and deliver on a specific election promise in the last election.
Bob from Jindabyne
With the election just 1 day away, it is most interesting to recall that the only comments Labor has made on indexation have been negative or none at all. The minister says the matter is ‘complex’. Try living on a miserable pension that you thought would be maintained at least to keep up with spending power Mr Griffin. Now that becomes complex!
After having 90 minutes with our local member for Mayo (SA) on the need for a Fair Go for ex-service pensioners, I tried to be fair mined and so wrote in plenty of time for the views of Senator Wong (SA) and the Labor aspirant for Mayo, Mr Sam Davis. I received no responses from either party. I telephoned Mr Davis’s electoral office and his representative advised that Mr Davis is a university student and doesn’t have much time to respond to electors. I sincerely hope he continues to remain a university student after tomorrow.
I also called Senator Wong’s office to request a reponse. Her representative firstly offered to refer me to the Defence Department. When I pointed out the folly of that move, she came back with an email that she had referred my request to Mr Griffin! About as much help as a sore bum to a six-day bike rider!
So there we have it. Labor, the party that professes to have social conscience, has no morals. Particularly as it was the Labor government which emasculated the CPI back in the 1980s.
Even if Labor wins this election, the fight will continue. The pollies are high and dry on their well indexed pensions, so it is just too easy to leave veterans to go begging.
There is only one party that seems to have the interests of ex-service people at heart – the Liberal Party. All those associated with the Labor Party should hang their miserable heads in shame.
I am a current DFRDB recipient and I have been following this issue for some time. Whilst I appreciate your efforts, I am very dissapointed that Labor has chosen to ignore this issue from a federal perspective. It is now 21 August and I live in the bellwether seat of Eden-Monaro. In about 2 hours from now I will be voting. Mike Kelly and Labor have lost my vote and the Liberal Party has gained it as they have seen fit to recognise the service that us ex-military members provided this great country of ours. Not only has Labor lost my vote on this issue, but also that of all of my family members, and a great many of the Defence personnel with whom I still work with. So although we might be a small component of the overall picture in Labor’s minds, we have a much wider and greater influence within the ex-service and current military communities than might be appreciated. Labor should think about this IF they are lucky enough to avoid the massive swing that appears to be underway today.
Respectfully,
Greg.
Seeing all these negative comments reminds me of the last My Telstra Experience forum, when almost every peson who posted (and there were many) had complaints. I also posted negatively and was told I should be more positive and my reponse was: ‘Given that there is such an overwhelming preponderence of ill-feeling, should not management take note of that and become more proactive in rectifying issues.’
I can only make an identical comment to this forum. It is long since time that the Government responded affirmatively to the many requests for positive action. After all, we are only asking for the same indexation Parliamentarians receive. How can any reasonable person pretend (for that is what s/he is doing) that this is an unreasonable request?
I am due to receive my CSS pension next year and after years of building my super and looking forward to the pension, I am someahat dismayed. It appears that the Age pension will quickly match my CSS pension if the current indexation methods remain in place. It scares me when you read about a Motor vehicle going up 10-20% in a year but it has a discount factor due to new technolgy and its real CPI increase is about 2-3%. I was going to be a pension person, but now I am thinking that I should take a lump sum, then have fun with all the money on Holidays and luxury items and then just go on the Age Pension once the super money has gone!