The Minister's Rejoinder on QandA
a. Too complex an issue to discuss in that forum. Always being looked at and "not to forget that the welfare system would pick up those that dropped below the poverty line". Others in the injured, wounded, dying and crazed categories could always go begging bowl in hand to DVA for any hand-outs that are within their policy guidelines.
b. The disputed schemes are complicated beyond belief by generically being a "defined benefits" scheme (as though anybody knew at the stage they were forced into it that successive govts would be continually changing the CPI goal-posts so that the overall effect would be to index at exactly 50% of the rate at which politicians' pensions were being increased (see graph)).
c. Any changes would be quite unfair to those who had not maximized their lump-sums when they had that choice so many years ago. I've never met anybody that didn't, actually!!!!!
d. Overall it seems impossible to rectify the inequity but, obviously with an eye to "maintaining recruitment levels", watch out for a future (election-time) new scheme for new recruits. All present pensioners will have to be written off as the unfortunate casualties of some other previous govt's scheme.
e. Obviously Labor govts have studied the election clout and cohesiveness of the ex-serviceman groups and are unafraid of continuing to demean them collectively. Only time will tell whether or not they've got that sum right.
But Lindsay Tanner is obviously only spouting the party-line. He's overall a much more impressive pollie than the hapless Barnbaby Joyce.
.