Superannuation Information

Peter Weyling · **Posted:** Fri Jun 17, 2011 11:07 am

Our Pollies are falling into the 20th century trap...they think that military technology will be enough to win a local war....they forget that they will need people to maintain the victory. Look at how hard it is to get rid of Gaddafi....all of NATO's military might is still finding it difficult to remove him.......send in a few SEALs and it's all over

Seejay · **Posted:** Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:35 pm

I received this by email last night. May be of info.

SITREP NO 8 PROPOSED DFRDB CLASS ACTION DATED 1 NOVEMBER 2011

In SITREP No 7 I indicated that there is growing resentment and anger being openly expressed by members of the ex-regular defence community regarding the crass hypocrisy being displayed by politicians of all colours regarding the administration of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits (DFRDB) arrangement.

I expressed the view that the politicians, who hold the key to honouring DFRDB commutation and DFRDB spouses benefit commitments advertised by the DFRDB Authority, are unwilling to act with either honesty or honour to meet the many broken promises that have been made to service men and women over many years.

Thus, this means, in my view, that we have little, or no, alternative but to try to arrange redress through the courts. And this is what I am on about.

I indicated that I had written to the Newcastle University Law School in early October asking them to take on the DFRDB matter as a student project. I have now heard from the Director and prepared a reply to his letter. I have requested the following:

â€¦â€¦."for the Newcastle Law School to take the matter on as a student project with the aim of the student body conducting legal research to produce a reasoned, unbiased, legal opinion on:

One the feasibility of obtaining a judgment to direct the DFRDB Authority to increase DFRDB retired pay to the full Section 23 CPI adjusted entitlement when a DFRDB retired pay advance, received by way of commutation, has been fully acquitted to the DFRDB Authority?

Two the possibility of obtaining a second judgment to direct the DFRDB Authority to restore, to a retiree, the amount of retired pay withheld by the DFRDB Authority over and above the advance he/she received as a consequence of exercising his/her right to commute and receive an advance of a portion his/her legal retired pay entitlement in accordance with Section 24 of the DFRDB Act?

Three if I appealed a DFRDB Authority decision, dated 4 March 2008, which used the Reynolds AAT decision as a precedent to refuse to increase my retired pay to the correct entitlement and the appeal was successful, would this negate the Reynolds decision?

Four a further legal question on the same matter can I still initiate action to challenge the 4 March 2008 DFRDB Authority decision? Or is there a time limit involved?

Five - if there is a time limit associated with question 4 then would it be reasonable for me to initiate a further request to the DFRDB Authority to increase my retired pay to the full Section 23 level and start all over again? or is there a more expeditious way to negate the 2008 decision?

In regard to the last three questions I have prepared a discussion paper on the Reynolds AAT Appeal. A copy of this paper, DFRDB 114 (b) dated I November 2011, is attached.

I indicated to the Director that it is highly likely that a large number of people would come forward if grounds for a "Court Action" can be shown to exist. I also indicated that the help of the Newcastle University Law School would be greatly appreciated by the members of the Australian Defence Force who qualified for DFRDB Retired Pay.

Be of good cheer regards,

J the T (Jim Treadwell)
MMSOB
Tele 02 49603549 jaetread@bigpond.net.au

Pony · **Posted:** Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:36 pm

Response I received to email I sent to the ice pick on DFRDB in January as the government was about to have their butchers paper session before parliament started. :roll:

Dear Mr Moore

Thank you for your email to the Prime Minister and copied to me concerning the indexation of military superannuation. I understand that this issue is of great importance to you and I apologize for my delay in getting back to you.

I hold a great deal of sympathy for the desires of ex-service personnel to be further compensated for the services that they have provided to the nation, and believe that this issue requires a serious amount of consideration. I would like to take this opportunity to outline the Governmentâ€™s position and to explain why a change in the indexation of military superannuation pensions has not yet occurred.

Superannuation is a key element of the competitive remuneration and conditions of service package for Australian Defence Force (ADF) members. Each of the superannuation schemes set up for ADF members reflect the unique nature of service and provide members with lifetime indexed pensions and also death, invalidity and reversionary benefits.

In respect of the DFRDB pension, it was not intended to provide the sole lifelong income source for those who were still of working age when they ceased service, either through choice or due to rank retirement age (the general trend has been some 75 per cent left under 45 years of age, and 40 per cent left between 35 and 40 years of age). In recognition of the unique nature of military service, there are special provisions allowing military personnel to receive a superannuation pension after only 20 years.

There would be many examples of servicemen and women who completed a successful career in the military, and then went on to further careers and had the benefit of a â€œtop upâ€

Graeme Rhodes · **Posted:** Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:46 am

Lots and lots of spin here Pony but no real answer.
I am yet to receive a reply to my e-mail etc to the PM and my local member. Be interesting to see if it is a party line type reply which I suspect it is

Graeme Rhodes · **Posted:** Thu Apr 05, 2012 11:17 am

The reply from my local member arrived at last.
The Government position hasn't changed, won't change (surprise surprise) and goes on about the unique arrangements and benefits for DFRDB superannuants not available to the general public.
He also pooh pooh's the Libs policy for fairer indexation as unfunded and being a $70m black hole in the budget etc etc.
Different words, same spin. ðŸ‘ŽðŸ‘Ž

Pony · **Posted:** Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:10 pm

Just received this one from Snowdon, don't know why it ended up with him as well, but he has gone off on tangents that were not relevant to my original email, but I suppose they support government spin. :roll:

Dear Mr Moore

Thank you for your email to the Prime Minister concerning the ALP Caucus meeting on 5 February 2012 which has been referred to me.

The subject of military superannuation indexation was raised at the Caucus meeting. At this meeting, it was highlighted that aligning the indexation arrangements for Commonwealth superannuation schemes with those applying to the age pension would come at a significant cost. Nevertheless, the Labor Government is committed to providing an equitable and fiscally responsible competitive remuneration package for all current and retired members of the Australian Defence Force (ADF).

Recently, the Opposition said that a Coalition Government would index Defence Forces Retirement Benefits (DRFB) and Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits (DFRDB) superannuation payments the same as the age pension for those members aged 55 years and over. Their proposal would not apply to anyone who joined the services after 1991, therefore ignoring the vast majority of current ADF members. The Opposition never committed to change indexation policy during more than 11 years in Government because they knew they couldnâ€™t afford it.

You mentioned that no increase was passed on to military disability pensioners in 2009. Pension rates can be increased through one-off changes and ongoing indexation. Over the last few years, both types of changes have occurred with respect to the disability pensions and income support payments.

With effect from 1 July 2007, the Special Rate of disability pension was increased by $50 per fortnight and intermediate rate was increased by $25 per fortnight. On 20 March 2008, other veteransâ€™ disability pensions were increased by one-off amounts.

Also, since 20 March 2008, all disability pensions have been indexed in line with the March and September changes in age/service pension. This means that movements in the CPI and Male Total Average Weekly Earnings have been reflected in disability pension rates. Prior to this change, only the above general rate component of the special rate, intermediate rate and extreme disablement adjustment rate were indexed to changes in the age/service pension.

In May 2008, the Government announced that Dr Jeff Harmer would lead a review into measures to strengthen the financial security of seniors, carers and people with disabilities who rely on income support. The Department of Veteransâ€™ Affairs (DVA) disability pensions were not part of the scope of the Harmer Review as they are compensation payments, not income support payments which are means tested. Even so, around 80 per cent of DVA Special Rate disability pensioners also receive an income support payment such as the service or age pension.

A major finding of the Harmer Review was that single people living by themselves were the most disadvantaged and their pension rate was too low, relative to the combined couple rate. Therefore, the Governmentâ€™s principal reform was a significant one-off increase from 20 September 2009 for the single rate of age pension, service pension, carer payment and disability support pension. Pensioners receiving the couple rate received a smaller increase.

The Governmentâ€™s response also included the adoption of the Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index (PBLCI) as a new, additional indexation factor for income support pension rates. This measure was passed on automatically to disability pensions as a result of the earlier changes which took place on 20 March 2008, under which the same indexation arrangements for the age/service pension were adopted for disability pensions.

For those members who retired after 1 July 2007, the following taxation arrangements apply:

â€¢ superannuation benefits, whether paid as a lump sum or a pension, are tax free for people aged 60 and over where the contributions giving rise to those benefits have been subject to income tax in the fund; and

â€¢ a tax rebate is provided for people aged 60 and over in relation to superannuation benefits paid where the contributions which give rise to those benefits have not been subject to income tax in the fund (eg DFRB/DFRDB).

The employer superannuation contributions for the military superannuation schemes are largely unfunded, that is, the Government pays its employer contributions when the superannuation benefit falls due for payment. This has effectively been the funding arrangement for all Government superannuation schemes since their inception (and both the DFRB and DFRDB schemes relied heavily on the untaxed Consolidated Revenue Fund for paying the bulk of the benefit).

Taxation on employer contributions in the military schemes is recovered when the superannuation benefits are paid (that is, when employer contributions are made). Since 2007, no tax is applied to member funded benefits or to benefits that arise from a memberâ€™s â€˜after taxâ€™ contributions.

Finally, it is important that veterans, former members of the ADF and their families are receiving all the financial and health support for which they are entitled. If you are uncertain whether you are eligible to obtain additional assistance, or if you just want to confirm what benefits and services are available through DVA, you can call the general enquiries line on 133 254 or 1800 555 254.

WARREN SNOWDON
Minister for Veteransâ€™ Affairs
Minister for Defence Science and Personnel
:roll:

Seejay · **Posted:** Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:25 pm

Mike, that reply from Snowdon is word for word in another reply I have seen received by an ex-RAAF bloke up this way. It will be the same in every other wafflegram sent out by this mob. I believe that no amount of pressure brought to bear on them will change their intent.

Chippy Ned · **Posted:** Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:50 pm

I just received the exact same e-mail in answer to my e-mail to Gillard.

Why do we bother. :upy:

Graeme Rhodes · **Posted:** Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:51 pm

I was just about to copy and paste the response I got from the same bloke but to say ditto to Pony's will cover all bases.
I have although answered the message I got from my local member on the subject suggesting that he just doesn't get it and given the demographic of his electorate he would do well to take heed. HMAS Stirling is in it.

BC · **Posted:** Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:41 am

-----Original Message-----
From: Bert Denovan
Sent: Thursday, 5 April 2012 6:43 AM
Cc: Maria Vamvakinou; Senator Cash; Donna Gordin
Subject: AVM Criss's response

For privacy: If you are going to forward this message;

PLEASE remove all e-mail addresses prior to sending and ensure that you use Bcc.

This is AVM Peter Criss's response to my dummy spit last night.

He has sent it to me as well as Gary Gray with Ccs to Bob Brown, Nick Xenophon, Penny Wong, and Penny Wright.

Cheers!

Bert.

Would Senator Cash pass this on to Senator Ronaldson, please?

Begin forwarded message:

Bert,

I was obviously a BCC to your e-mail to the Hon Mr Gary and I apologise in advance for adding my contribution from the sidelines but I cannot resist because you asked me a question.

You talk of 5.5% compulsory contribution. Let me assure you that you paid a lot more than that. Yes, your contribution was 5.5%, but that was calculated pre-tax; however, that amount was not subtracted until after tax had been deducted from your salary, so in reality everyone on DFRDB contributed in excess of 8% of their salary into THEIR own superannuation scheme â€“ the employee (you and me) paid his or her way and still does today in MSBS. I call this means testing in advance. We all paid a fixed percentage of our salary for the duration of our respective careers and the more we earned and the longer we worked the more we paid into our super for our future. I have absolutely no objection to that process as long as the Government of the day (our employer) then does not try to ignore what every service man and women of the ADF did, and still does, and that is, pay their way when it comes to military superannuation pensions. We paid, and still pay our way, but our employer, the Commonwealth Government of Australia, obfuscate its responsibility.

That +8% of your contribution was swallowed up into consolidated revenue and earned absolutely nothing for the employee â€“ in effect we all gave the Commonwealth Government of Australia a tax free loan for the duration of our service to the nation. If you served for more than 20 years you could obtain a benefit from that loan but the vast majority putting on the military uniform of the nation were not that fortunate.

Under DFRDB if you left the ADF before 20 years service you were generously given your contributions back with 0% interest â€“ that could amount to 19 years and 364 days of giving the government an interest free loan of your money. I do not see this fact appearing in any of the Finance Ministerâ€™s calculation when she deliberately distorts the cost of fairly indexing military superannuation beyond the forward estimates for Spouse Reversionary Pensions, DFRDB Invalidity Pensions, DVA Disability Pensions, DFRDB and MSBS pensioners, who are all being impacted by unfair indexation.

Accrual forensic accounts are going to have a field day when we let them loose on calculating the â€˜hiddenâ€™ benefit the government obtained by this and other questionable â€˜administrativeâ€™ processes over the last 40 plus years. If Minister Wong delights in projecting costs out to 40 years through exploiting â€œdark artâ€

Superannuation Information

Who is online