Veterans should have been included in banking commission

AS major parties continue point-scoring, neither of them shows the slightest interest in assisting ex-servicemen and women subjected to a rip-off by Government.

A letter writer says neither of the major political parties are showing interest in assisting ex-servicemen and women whose pensions are subjected to a "rip-off by the Government”. Picture: KELLY BARNES

I AM a veteran of 34 years' army service.

AS the major parties continue point-scoring, neither of them is showing the slightest interest in assisting ex-servicemen and women whose pensions are subjected to a rip-off by the Government.

Superannuation for military has been compulsory since 1948 and operates in accordance with outdated Legislative Acts and policies. The first two schemes, the DFRB and the DFRDB would never pass the so-called "pub test”.

Under these schemes, retiring veterans with 20 years' service could elect to take an advance lump sum to enable them to adapt to civilian life.

If they opted to take the lump sum, their ongoing superannuation payments were reduced based on life expectancy calculated on 1962 figures - for men at this time: age 72. These men and women now find themselves living well beyond those outdated calculations. But the Government maintains it will continue to pay veterans at this reduced rate.

Up to 2014, the Government also fiddled with the indexation of veteran benefits by using an inappropriate index which does not keep pace with the cost of living.

Despite petitioning the current Government, a review of the glaring injustices of the DFRDB super scheme was denied inclusion in the recent Royal Commission into Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry.

PHIL SULLIVAN

Kiels Mountain

Originally published as Veterans should have been included in banking commission