Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I thank colleagues for taking on this debate with regard to military superannuation and the many concerns in the community in relation to equity and justice within the military superannuation scheme. There is a large and frustrated community of ex-service men and women who feel that the standard of living entitlements are not keeping pace with existing fundamentals within the military superannuation scheme. This motion was, effectively, put through this very chamber nearly three years ago by me and was passed with the full support of the House. Yet we still see frustration, concern and a very active campaign, particularly online, of the ex-service community, who want to see more access to equity and justice.

I accept that there are some realities that government does need to deal with in considering any changes. They relate to cost and, if Parliamentary Library figures are to be believed, there are some substantial costs in relation to any changes in this area. There are issues in relation to impacts on the cash balance and the fiscal balance. There are issues in relation to clawback within the scheme, acknowledging that any increases do potentially have an impact on other arrangements such as those to do with age pension payments. That does need to be sensitively considered through any changes in this regard. Also, there has been ongoing debate since the early 1970s in relation to establishing the appropriate link between indexation with regard to the military superannuation pension and the issue of purchasing power to guard against erosion by inflation. Report after report has been unable to resolve this issue of a link.

The use of CPI methodology is based on recommendations of Professor AH Pollard in 1973. It has been challenged in reports such as the Jess review of 1970. There were Senate select committee reports in 2001 and 2002 and in 2008 there was a Senate standing committee report. ABS is still grappling with it, the Podger review grappled with it, all the way through to the Matthews report in 2008, and remained unable to resolve this issue of how to adequately link military superannuation schemes with those issues around purchasing power and the CPI.

I accept the difficulty in dealing with this issue. However, there are many in the community who are aggrieved and their concerns deserve to be heard in this House. There are many who are frustrated that government, report after report, seems to get the concerns about a lack of purchasing power within the current military superannuation scheme, yet, when it comes to actually doing something about it, the arguments of cost and difficulty in making those changes seem to be directed towards those who have done military service. So there is, I think, some justification in the argument that 'why is it only those who have done military service who get the book of government thrown at them when it comes to all being too hard?' Why not engage the military superannuation and ex-service community in trying to work through the many challenges in trying to answer the at least half-dozen reports that have been done in this area since the 1970s and come up with the right and appropriate scheme that can deliver equity and justice for those who have served this country so well and so often? I ask the government to consider this again and I hope this motion has the full support of the House.

See this speech in context