BUT will the MBF top up work cover payments? Because most airline pilot salaries are far in excess of average weekly earnings it is conceivable that the work cover payments will be significantly less than what you would normally earn.

IF the rule change means little, as some would have us believe, why not sit on it for a while and get the concerns of members resolved.

As for the double dipping argument - I am with creampuff, a pilot member of the MBF should be able to access everything the general population is entitled to as a result of paying nearly half of their wages as taxes, paying for insurance policies through superannuation (which I assume would be roped into the exclusion clause) plus any benefit from the MBF.

To exclude a benefit from the MBF because you are getting some other sort of payout is just like means testing or the argument from the labor party that everyone who earns more than 50 grand is rich and can afford to pay for everyone else.

If I am in a position where I am likely to need to claim on the MBF then it has well and truly gone to **** in my life and I want as much support as I can possibly get. Having one of my support pillars pull the plug isn't something I would want to happen

And to ascertain the intent, the Court will interpret the words of the rule, in context. To do that, the Court will not invite individual members to say what they earnestly hope the words to mean. This thread demonstrates that that way lies madness. No I'm not a member.

But my membership or otherwise of the MBF is, like various individual MBF member's earnest hopes as to what a rule might mean, completely irrelevant to what a rule does mean as a matter of law.

(Snake: The proceeds of other private insurance policies are probably not covered by the exclusion, because those proceeds are probably not paid under legislation. But, like all of these things, it's best to ask and get definitive answers before a life changing event that makes the answers important.)

Creampuff


Quote:
And Creampuff, I can assure you that the courts will look at the intent of the rule, that's their job, to apply intent!!!
And to ascertain the intent, the Court will interpret the words of the rule, in context. To do that, the Court will not invite individual members to say what they earnestly hope the words to mean. This thread demonstrates that that way lies madness.

Context exactly, and they will call to stand those that wrote the rule to explain to the individual and the court its true meaning. Thanks for partly explaining the court proceeding!

Quote:
By the way, are you an MBF member, because in your post you state, "If I were an MBF member"?
No I'm not a member.

But my membership or otherwise of the MBF is, like various individual MBF member's earnest hopes as to what a rule might mean, completely irrelevant to what a rule does mean as a matter of law.

Why the interest in something you have no vested interest in? What is your earnest hopes of what a rule may or may not be? Do you argue the virtues or rules of Workcover legislation or a random AAMI insurance policy with such enthusiasm on a public forum?


(Snake: The proceeds of other private insurance policies are probably not covered by the exclusion, because those proceeds are probably not paid under legislation. But, like all of these things, it's best to ask and get definitive answers before a life changing event that makes the answers important.)

And your last point is the most pertinent, get the definitive answers by picking up the phone and calling the MBF to get answers that affect those life changing events.

It's not the MBF that's creates the offsets guys, it's the workcover and insurance policies that do.

No. The Court won't do that.

The Court will accept authority-based submissions as to the proper interpretation of the words, in context, and the Court will decide and explain to the parties what the words mean as a matter of law.My religion requires me to.But that doesn't prevent the MBF from paying compensation. It's the other way around.

I'd suggest that MBF members first need to get their head around what the current rule means and how it's administered by the MBF. I anticipate many members may be in for a light-bulb moment.

Creampuff,

Yes, authority based submissions from the people who wrote the rule, exactly. Once again thanks for pointing this out. Your responses are really helpful and provide excellent input to help people understand the process of the court.

Maybe we should start another thread, torts and common law...lol!

Once again you are absolutely 100% correct, it doesn't prevent the MBF from paying compensation, just remember if it does, any other stauatory authority will offset their payments. I cannot remember, but maybe this hadn't been pointed out yet, sorry if I forgot to.

Members do need to get their head around these rule changes, and thank you for proving me the opportunity to do so. It's been a good debate and your inputs to the discussion have been helpful in proving the basis to explain just one of these rule changes.

So if a rule said:and the people who wrote that rule submitted to the Court that what the rule means is: do you reckon the Court would say: "Well okay then. The rule means the fund may be expended on lollies."

A rule means what it says, not what the people who wrote it think it means.

Creampuff

Thanks for the response, your providing excellent examples of what we are trying to convey:

Stamps

Member is either currently: defer your MBF payments and receive payments from elsewhere.

My understanding is if you are injured at work, you would be on sick leave, therefore during this process you are entitled to workers compensation (WC).

Lollies

Or would be entitled to: If you are not entitled to WC, you should receive MBF payments.

You are 100% correct, what it says and what it means!

Dirty Deeds:
Stamps

Member is either currently: defer your MBF payments and receive payments from elsewhere.


It reads defer or "exclude" - lets not leave out that part. It is not the Member who decides to defer (or exclude) it is the Fund. Herein lies the issue, it should be up to the member whether to defer payments or take a disability payment from their private funded policy (MBF) regardless of what arrangements they are on with WC - also worth noting that it's not only WC that constitutes "periodical or other payments."


Yes, the current rules has the capacity to exclude payments in similar circumstance - but the new rule seems to attempt to make this more prescriptive or available to the Trustees. If not, then why bother with the rule change? Perhaps this is the real question at play.

Had a conversation with the MBF, the gist of it:

-current rule doesn't allow the fund to force a member to claim on work cover (or TAC etc)
-new rule has changed that so they can, or at least withhold payments if they think you should be
-both the current and previous rules mean that if receiving WorkCover periodical payments you will NOT receive MBF payments. Once work cover payments stop you can claim MBF.
-if on a permanent disability leading to loss of licence a WorkCover/TAC etc payout was "unsatisfactory" you could then claim from the MBF. Not sure who's definition on satisfactory is used.
-Whilst receiving payments from WorkCover/TAC/etc the MBF will NOT top up payments to bring in level with what you would receive from the MBF even though they acknowledged it would be significantly less.

Now I might just be too cynical after dealing with insurance companies but this seems to leave the fate of your payouts on good faith rather than clear rules?

In QLD the maximum that Workers Comp will payout is 85% of your NWE (Normal Weekly Earnings). With a pregnant wife, two kids and a mortgage, I don't want 85% of my NWE, I NEED 100% of my NWE!

As a helicopter pilot it's basically impossible to obtain affordable income insurance other than the MBF fund. That, along with the fact that it is an MBF fund run by pilots and not an insurance product, is the reason I took out the MBF coverage.

Like a lot of people these days, financially speaking we run pretty close the wire. If I have an accident at work tomorrow and my income drops to 85% of my NWE, I'm going to have to sell my house. Whereas if I was able to claim the temporary benefits from my MBF policy, that aren't capped at a percentage of my income, then I can keep my house and my kids stay in Kindy. It's that simple for me!

Or am I missing something here?

So if you receive any payment the fund doesn't have to pay. Even if the payment is say, 10%, you won't get any from the MBF, as 10% would constitute any payment.

Perhaps it could be changed to say that the fund will only pay the extra above what other entities are paying, up to a total of 100% of current earnings. That would stop double dipping & still be fair on pilots trying to survive financially.

I was about to push the button on joining the fund up until a few days ago. I was attracted to it because it appeared to be heavily favoured towards paying one out in the unfortunate event that you needed it and wouldn't be trying to screw you out of your payment (ala an insurance company). The amount was good, tailored for pilots and run by pilots this made a really attractive safety net. Until now.

This one seemingly small rule change is a red flag in my opinion. It signals the intent of the trustees to change what this fund was all about and instead start to focus on penny pinching and screwing it's members out of payments that they deserve.

Alas ANOTHER business in Australia is getting greedy and will not be getting my business as a result of playing Mr Scrooge. Unless someone can show me otherwise that is.

And for the numptys throwing the "double dippling" guilt trip around, get a grip! We pay a ****load of tax and that covers our work cover (that we should be entitled to just like everyone else is), you pay a small fortune to be covered by the MBF, out of your own pocket, for a policy that advertises to keep you going in a time of need. You're not doubling dipping, you're receiving what you're bloody well entitled to. I just don't get why people lie down and get kicked whilst screaming "give me more!" these days. The government love you lot.

Enough from me.

NOTICE TO ALL
 

THE CHOICE IS CLEAR VOTE NO.

NO from me-insurance changes never benefit the insured!

Response from MBF Trustee regarding Rule Change
 

Dear MBF Members,

The MBF Board of Directors, would like to take the opportunity to clarify a few outstanding issues in regards to the ongoing Rules Voting, specifically drawing attention to Rule 6c discussed throughout this thread.

Rule 6c proposed changes are a clarification of the existing rule only, which currently allows the Trustee not to make payments to members if their Class 1 has been suspended temporarily, or cancelled permanently where members are receiving payments for any disability recognised by any repatriation or statutory authority. WorkCover currently falls into this category. Hence the proposed rule change is solely a clarification of the existing rule to make it clearer to members. The treatment of WorkCover benefits is no different in the new or old Rules.

This does not mean that you are ineligible to claim your benefits, you could receive 12 months from WorkCover and there would be nothing preventing you from receiving your MBF benefits for the FULL two years afterward. If the condition were to be permanent, after the waiting period, you could make a claim for your Capital lump sum payment (which has been preserved by taking WorkCover payments). Your Capital payment is then free of tax.

The advantage of 'mutual benefit' is that we are driven by rules designed to look after YOU the member rather than profits or returns to shareholders. The Trustee Board is comprised of pilots who understand the needs of pilots but exercise a rigorous process of assessment to ensure all statutory entitlements are taken into account. This governance is why the MBF is in such a good position to support those pilot members who need our help each month, none of whom would be affected by this change.

The suggestion that the MBF could refuse a payment based on your assertion is extreme. It seems predicated on an assumption that there is something to be gained by refusing claims without good reason. Remember, the Board are all members (looking for the same protections as you) and volunteer their time and efforts specifically to help provide a robust Fund that will look after all of us as well as the next generation of pilots.

It’s not accurate to say that this constitutes a major shift. It was and will remain the case that: were you to work whilst receiving MBF benefits that there would be no reduction in monthly benefits. If your employer pays salary continuance, you have a farm or work part time, none of that is taken into account. During this time, it’s not uncommon for members to actually receive much more income than they would by flying alone.

Every month the Board exercises its discretion in the interests of the members. Judgements are made about hardship and early payments on a regular basis. Where the Board is satisfied of the genuine nature of a claimant, everything is done to assist the Member.

We encourage you to write your concerns to the Board so that it can be discussed formally. Whilst this process is well and truly under way, rules can change any time and this can come from the membership. Every email that comes to the Board is read to the Board and discussed. The Board is very mindful that the MBF is in a competitive space and it is with this in mind that the product has been massively enhanced over the past few years (based on an exhaustive consultation with the membership).

If you have any further questions, we urge you to speak directly with our Chairman, David Harget. Please call 03 9928 4500 or email [email protected] and the MBF staff will put you in contact with him.

I have contacted the Fund with my concerns and herein the reply:
So on that basis the rule change is OK for me. Jeezuz I hate legalese jargonic BS.......

Let me fix that response for you:

C Puff:

Seems to me that you are only trying to stir up trouble in something you are not involved in, "not being a member." As you admit too

One would ask why? are you in some other organisation.

As I said: My religion requires me to (or is that "too"?).

Are you able to point out any errors in any of my posts, or any breach by me of forum rules?

I didn't start this thread, and it ain't private.

The problem I see is there may already be a large number of 'no' votes already submitted, due to lack of clarity that was initially provided.