It is interesting to note the differing concepts of "double dipping".
Apparently, the first 'dip' is to claim an entitlement to which everyone - MBF member or not - in similar circumstances in the workplace is entitled, under statutory schemes.
When you say the "taxpayer" pays for this first 'dip', you're right. But you seem to be overlooking the fact that the "taxpayer"
includes pilots who have been paying income tax, GST, fuel excise, stamp duty and a variety of other taxes during his or her working life, like the rest of the working population. (It's an interesting recent phenomenon in Australia: Everyone seems to have been sleep-walked into believing that they are not entitled to anything in return for the hundreds of billions paid by them in tax each year.)
Apparently, the second 'dip' is to claim from the MBF.
But wait a moment: The MBF member has been paying extra thousands in premiums to the MBF, which premiums
were not being paid by the general workforce.
I am therefore not surprised that MBF members might expect to be entitled to get something more than what the general workforce is entitled to, under statutory schemes, in return for the premiums MBF members but not members of general workforce have been paying.
I anticipate that this will all resolve to two, diametrically-opposed, understandings of what the MBF is actually for. One side will say that the intention of scheme was always, and continues to be, to cover the member to the extent, and only to the extent, if any, that the statutory schemes do not adequately compensate the member for the circumstances. The other side will say that a member is entitled to benefits under both, or at least to have a choice.
Let's assume that the first understanding is the correct one. If I were an MBF member, I'd be saying that's great, but the rule should therefore provide that I'm not entitled to compensation from the MBF if, and only if, I am already receiving, under a statutory scheme, the amount of compensation I would otherwise have been entitled to receive from the MBF for the specific, pilot-career related consequences of the circumstances.
But that's not what the current rule or proposed amended rule says (which is why I wouldn't be paying thousands in premiums under either version).
The way I read it, if I
could be entitled to
any compensation under
any statutory scheme, the MBF can choose not to pay me
anything. Therefore, the onus would be on me to prove a negative: that is, that I am not entitled to receive anything in the circumstances under any statutory scheme. A
very difficult thing to prove as a matter of practicality, especially noting that, by definition, the amount of dollars in my sky rocket may be quickly drying up.
Further, and even assuming I'm undoubtedly entitled to compensation under a statutory scheme, the rule does not require an equivalence of the amount of compensation under the statutory scheme compared with what would otherwise be payable by the MBF. If
any statutory scheme
anywhere will pay me $10 a week compensation for my disability, the MBF does not have to pay me anything at all. I'm perfectly fit to push a pen behind a desk, and therefore the fact that my dream of flying for a career until retirement is over is - well - too bad too sad: enjoy the $10 a week from the statutory scheme.
Dirty Deeds said:
Creampuff,
Yes of course it's a Rule change. That's the point, it's a Rule change to make it clearer.
Exquisitely circular: A change that makes no difference.
That might be the
intention, but on any sensible reading of the current rule and the proposed amended rule, the latter produces a substantially different outcome to the former.
And if it comes to an argument, in a Court, about what each version of the rule means, everyone's strong opinions about what may have been intended will be interesting but irrelevant.