Senator Kate Lundy
| 
| Hits: 1927
Party: LABOR
Seat: Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator for Australian Capital Territory
Senator Lundy has a whole section of her website dedicated to "Advocating" Military and Commonwealth Superannuation Pensions. She writes in there that she was very disappointed in the recommendations of the Matthews Report. Yet when the Bill came down to a vote, and Senator Lundy had the decider....She votes down the party line, which, is pretty contradictory when on her website she claims to continue to advocate fair indexation. If this was the case, then why vote the Bill down that would have resolved the issue?
There have been many letters written to Senator Lundy and many posts on her website. In fact, she has closed the posts on the topic, probably because of all of the negative posts and messages of disappointment in her descision.
If you have any letters that you have sent to Senator Lundy and would like us to share them with other visitors to the site, you can contact us by clicking on the link to the left.
CONTACT DETAILS
| Parliament House PO Box 6022 Canberra ACT 2066 (02) 6277 3334 (02) 6277 3884 Email Kate | Street & postal address: Law Society Building 11 London Circuit Canberra ACT 2601 | Phone: 61-2-6230 0411 Fax: 61-2-6230 0413 |
Responses to Letters Sent: Senator Lundy is sending a standard form letter which pushes the party line. Here is a copy of that letter.
Thank you for your letter.
The prevailing tightness of the budget situation was the driver of the Labor position. I also expressed concern the bill did not extend to msbs and css.
I am aware of the hardship many who receive DFRDB and DFRB endure and have already begun to make the case for recognition of defence and commonwealth superannuants for the purposes of specific cost of living impacts. This is advocacy within the govt and while I don’t have many successes I will always be trying.
I will of course continue to press for the development of a new indexation methodology as I said in my speech. The ALCI (analytical living cost index) was foreshadowed in the Mathews Review, as you point out, and leaves open ‘if the govt were to devt an ALCI’ (the direct quote is in my speech on the bill).
The PBLCI in the eyes of some would be an improvement but as has been pointed out to me by advocates, has its weaknesses and the problem of maintaining value of the pension would persist.
On the issue of the timing of the govt response to the Mathews Review and the announcement of the PBLCI, I understand your cynicism and at the time (aghast, initially) I was reassured they were not linked in any way.
I know this is small comfort to you at this time. Thank you for your letter and advocacy.
Regards
Kate Lundy
RSS
In reading through this web site I noticed that there were several comments about standard letters had been sent in response to letters from voters. I wrote to Lundy but did not even receive a standard letter as a response. Maybe that was because I accused her of being a hypocrite by setting up a web site that sought comment on military superannuation from ex servicemen and women on the pretext that she supported us. Lundy then stabbed us in the back by voting against the bill. Surely, this is not the quality of people we need in our parliament. Maybe the loss of the few votes I can influence will not remove her, but at least it might help.
Part 2MY REPLY
Dear Senator Lundy,
Thank you for your responses to my letter concerning the inequity of the indexation to the DFRB and DFRDB scheme recipients.
I said ‘responses ’ because I have two letters from you dated 31 August. One to my brother Peter and one to me (Paul). My brother, a long time Labor supporter (damn his sox)is in a nursing home and never served one day of military service. Perhaps you might chastise your staff for wasting taxpayers money on two letters to me (and my brother)! Although, I must say, you or your staff did slightly better than Senator Bob Brown who also got my name wrong and addressed me as ‘Dear Peter’ but you had the good manners to address me as Mr Threlfall. Thank you.
However, you should be aware that thousands of DFRDB and DFRB recipients have read the letter you co-signed with three other Labor Senators supporting a fairer indexation method for DFRDB and DFRB pensioners. We (thousands of us) have also read the link to the Committee report of the Fair Indexation Bill – many times. We are not impressed with the argument.
You know very well the reasons behind our plea to the government to have our pensions aligned to a fairer system. And the longer you delay your actions, the more our less well off pensioners will suffer financially. But not to worry – your pension and indexation is safe!
You are probably aware of the ‘just a fair go’ web site and affiliated links. Just in case you aren’t and you need to have a better understanding of what servicemen and servicewomen have done for our great nation, then I would like to draw your attention to this website http://www.independentaustralia.net/2011/politics/exclusive-breaking-news-diggers-versus-the-gillard-government/
Instead of scrolling through the hundreds of letters, just have a look at the latest ones of 3 September. Have a read and then ask yourself – is it fair that these veterans are treated this way?
Please, get off your chair and do what we put you in office to do! Gillard and her government are gone – but you might just stand a chance of retaining your seat in the next election if you are vocal and LOUD in your support of a fairer indexation for DFRDB and DFRB pensioners. We really aren’t asking for much – just a fair go!
Yours sincerely
Paul Threlfall
Lieutenant Commander RAN (Retired)
DFRDB recipient
Confrontation and Vietnam Veteran
PART 1I received a response from Senator Lundy – well – two actually (see my letter below for explanation)whi ch I will have to type for posterity’s sake. Those who have also received the same reply as my brother Peter and I, are welcome to cut and paste the text! I am sure it will be the same
Mr Peter (and Paul) Threlfall
Dear Mr Threlfall,
Thank you for your letter on the issue of the indexation of the military superannuation, I appreciate the time you have take (sic) to write to me. I apologise for the delay in answering your letter and thank you for your patience, as I have received a large amount of correspondence on this matter.
I certainly DO acknowledge the unique nature of military service and our debt to our servicemen and women.
The Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Amendment (Fair Index)Bill 2010 was referred to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee in March this year. The Committee found problems with the Bill and in their final report advised against passing it. For more information on the Committee report please see the following link:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/fapa_ctte/defence_retirement_benefits.index.htm
Of particular note, this bill applied to only a section of the Defence superannuants, and unfairly overlooked 7,200 current Military Superannuation Benefits Scheme superannuants including those employed in the Department of Defence.
I remain committed to continuing the campaign to improve the indexation methods applying to military and civilian Commonwealth pensions and will continue to work closely with the representative organisations such as DFWA, SCOOA, and ACPSRO. I am, of course convinced that the CPI no longer provides the kind of indexation that responds to the cost-of-living needs of this group of superannuants and pensioners, and I have been seeking the development of the new analytical living cost index which would reflect more accurately the cost of living needs of military and civilian superannuants.
I will continue to post details of the campaign on my website at http://www.katelundy.com.au
Thank you again for your comments.
Yours sincerely
Kate Lundy
31 August 2011
Having written to Ms Lundy (unsuccessfully ) concerning the general denial of equity (fairness and natural justice) to veterans' in the administrations of all entitlements under the Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986, I ask "Why does equity not apply to veterans'?" The answer: Because the Federal Court has interpreted that Act as one which excludes the provisions of equity from being considered or extending the power of that Act for the benefit of all veterans' generally. Every other Australian resident has equity available to them to redress wrongs done to them: immigrants (legal or illegal), criminals (their rights are enshrined in in the respective Australian Crimes Acts), to name but a couple, but veterans' are denied that right AT LAW!!
The government has no legal obligation to "give" equity to veterans' . That being the case, Stephen Smith' s claim that veterans are treated fairly is a gross and hypocritical deceit.
Politicians manage to index their pensions at a higher rate than anyone else. Gee!! That's really surprising! But veterans'??
Shame on Lundy, Smith, Gillard and,particularl y, Bob Brown who has advised me "The Greens maintain our position that the current indexation of all commonwealth superannuation pensions is unfair". Really, Bob!
And the Labor/Green bed-fellows voted to deny fair indexation for veterans' DFRB and DFDRB pensions just a few weeks ago!
Shame! Shame! Shame! Legislating to deny your veterans' the right to fairness and natural justice!! You all have to be kidding.
