Yesterday, 17 September 2024, Clinton McKenzie, Herb Ellerbock and I met with Senator Pauline Hanson and her senior advisor Pat Hancock to discuss an amendment to the DFRDB Act and Explanatory Memorandum we had drafted and presented to her.
The amendment to the Act:
1. Ceases the post-commutation reduction of retirement pay and Class C invalidity pay at the end of the period of Life Expectancy and which the reduction was based.
2. Adjusts all DFRDB benefits to a fair level by indexing 100% of those benefits to maintain parity with Average Weekly Earnings from 1976 to 2014.
Our aim was to have the amendment tabled in the Senate as a Private Member’s Bill.
Senator Hanson gave us an hour of her time.
The atmosphere was warm and she showed genuine interest, asking thoughtful questions.
That was more time than we have ever been given by any other Senator, Minister, or Member of Parliament over this matter.
Based on our discussion, Senator Hanson said she would study our submission but could see no reason at the moment why she would not be prepared to advance the amendment as a Private Member’s Bill.
However, we are under no illusion. The amendment could be tabled and defeated by the major parties in the Upper House. However, it is the Lower House that controls legislation, and that is another hurdle to be surmounted.
The next step will be for Senator Hanson’s office to seek from the Parliamentary Library any further information which may be relevant, as well as asking the Parliamentary Budget Office to undertake a costing of the amendment.
Once Senator Hanson’s office obtains the necessary details, we will circulate the proposed amendment and Explanatory Memorandum.
Plan B is that Senator Hanson could also arrange for a Senate inquiry into the matter. That would also be a good outcome because it would finally provide a public forum for us to air ALL of the detrimental aspects of the current legislation and the skullduggery that led to those outcomes.
We finally have a way forward and must be united behind it.
The divergent proposal of altering the Life Expectancy tables and concept of a 20-times ‘commutation factor’ are not helpful and must be abandoned.
If the Amendment Bill is debated and voted on in either or both the Senate and the House, we will know who supports ex-servicemen/women and their families.
Some members may think we are entering the political arena here, but we are not. If we want the DFRDB fiasco resolved, we must consider where to place our vote at the next election.
Jim Hislop OAM
President