rmcdonal So the defence super is linked to the CPI?
Of course and that's the reason why its value is falling away so rapidly. Look at the graph above. It's not rocket science.
CPI was discarded as an invalid measure of inflation mny many years ago and they eventually had to modify the calculation of pension indexation to retain the grey-power vote. However a similar calculation bestowed insufficient increments to parliamentary pensions so the bureau of statistics was asked to evolve a guaranteed methodology for providing and locking in significant adjustments to politician's pensions. They were then locked into the same rises that politicians who haven't yet retired are awarded.
Minister Tanner's weak and puny excuse for being unable to do something similar to Defence pensioners was simply that their defined benefit scheme has always orbited around that CPI concept. He says that anyone who'd opted on discharge or retirement NOT to take a lump sum of some (or maximum available) size would be
"relatively" disadvantaged if the CPI basis for annual increments was to be changed. This (in DFRDB anyway) is believed to be around only 1.5% of Defence Force pensioners - (but he didn't mention that).
Overall the govt attitude has always been that the electoral power of ex Defence Force personnel and War pensioners/widows etc is minimal in the overall scheme of things - and any cost/benefit study only serves to reinforce that view. It would cost any budget dearly to depart that CPI fix, because once they'd done that, there would then be no justification for NOT implementing "fair" increases such as the politicians or OAP's get now. It's a revolving door argument, full to the brim with specious arguments, that we can never win - without significant electoral clout.