VIDEO – #Vetrans Clawback – CSC & The Banking Royal Commission

 

The only significant Superannuation Organisation NOT included in the Australian Banking Royal Commission is the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation. The CSC. It manages our Military Super.

The Defence Community has been pleading for the Turnbull Govt to give them a Fair Go – just like all other Australians – and have their super fund scrutinised like the all others.

The Labor Opposition supports the call for a Fair Go.

The Govt has dug in and says the CSC is “well regulated and scrutinised.” That’s what they said about the banks!

With elections looming the Defence Community wishes to see who is going to fight for us.
Please call your local Federal MP and ask for their support and participate in our ADSO actions.

CSC and the Royal Commission – Summary & Actions

Summary Update

 “Why is the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation excluded from the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry?

The Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation (CSC) administers military and other superannuation public service funds for over 700,000 people of which 230,000 are serving and former servicemen and women.

The Royal Commission’s Terms of Reference say: “All Australians have the right to be treated honestly and fairly in their dealings with…. superannuation…. providers.”

Why is our superannuation provider excluded from Royal Commission scrutiny?

Why deny us an equal voice in making submissions to the Royal Commission?

The following representations have been made to PM and the Government  since the announcement of the Royal Commission:

13 December 2017: Media Release – Calls to clarify the Terms of Reference of the Royal Commission into Banking and Superannuation.

18 January 2018joint Media Release with RSL re Royal Commission into the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry.

7 June 2018 at the Longman Electorate Forum a younger veteran asked the PM the Why question. The PM answered “I don’t know but I;ll find out and get back to you”

15 June 2018 An Open Letter sent to the PM and all Federal Parliamentarians, the Defence Family network and national media outlets and social media.

More recently representations to the PM by both the  Australian Public Services – Superannuated Commissioned Officers Association (SCOA) and the Australian Council  of Public Sector Retiree Organisations  (ACPSRO) have made the same requests for CSC’s inclusion in the Royal Commission

The ALP supports the inclusion of the CSC into  the Royal Commission’s Terms of Reference

To date the Government and PM have not formally responded to our representations

Actions

Veteran Clawback – CSC & The Banking Royal Commission

CSC Campaign: Veteran Protest Rally – 28 June 2018

As part of our campaign to seek inclusion of the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation (CSC) in the Royal Commission into the Banking, Superannuation and Finance Services Industry, a Dignified Veteran Protest Rally will be staged when the Royal Commission convenes in Brisbane on 28 June.

Our aim is to draw media and public attention to our cause and have the Veteran Voice be heard at the Royal Commission.

READ THE DETAILS HERE

 CSC Flyer

ALP Supports – Banking Royal Commission Must Include CSC in Terms of Reference

Labor has written to Treasurer, Scott Morrison and Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Michael McCormack backing calls by ex-service organisation to include the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation (CSC) into the Terms of Reference for the Royal Commission into the misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry.

Royal Commission

While the Turnbull Government made it clear they wanted superannuation to be examined by the Royal Commission they have neglected to include CSC- a significant player in the superannuation sector especially for our current and former Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel.

Labor has listened to calls from the National Returned and Services League (RSL) and the Alliance of Defence Services Organisations (ADSO) who have also raised their concerns about the exclusion of the CSC from the Terms of Reference.

In neglecting to include CSC from the Terms of Reference our service men and women cannot be satisfied that CSC is working in their best interests.

If the Turnbull Government believes superannuation needs to be examined by the Royal Commission then they need to amend the Terms of Reference to include CSC.

Labor is committed to ensuring the Royal Commission delivers justice to all families and small businesses that have suffered because of the misconduct in the banking and financial services sector.

Open Letter to the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull MP Prime Minister of Australia

 

 

 

Dear Prime Minister,

ROYAL COMMISSION INTO MISCONDUCT IN THE BANKING, SUPERANNUATION AND FINANCIAL SERVICES INDUSTRY
Call to include the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation

The Alliance of Defence Service Organisations and the Returned & Services League of Australia, on behalf of 230,000 serving and former Australian Defence Force men and women, and their families, whose superannuation is managed by the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation (CSC) cordially pose you the question:
“Why is the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation excluded from the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry”?

CSC is the only significant superannuation entity in Australia to avoid examination with the Government claiming that it is “not only already well-regulated but is also subject to greater scrutiny and accountability than other funds by Acts of Parliament, by the Australian National Audit Office, and through oversight by a Senate Estimates process”.

Those very same ‘well-regulated’ claims were initially made as arguments against holding a Banking Royal Commission. What has transpired at recent Commission hearings starkly exposed the inability of established regulators to deal with misconduct. No misconduct is necessarily implied against CSC but what possible confidence could anyone now have that the very same or similar inability to properly scrutinise should not apply to CSC’s regulators as well.

Simply put, the veterans’ community is not convinced of assurances that CSC is as well oversighted and regulated as has been the claim thus far. As an example, if CSC always acts in the best interests of its members, what could have driven legal proceedings, self-funded by disabled individual exservice personnel as recently as last week, seeking redress for claimed unfairness and injustices.

The Royal Commission’s Terms of Reference say: “All Australians have the right to be treated honestly and fairly in their dealings with…. superannuation…. providers.”

The Defence Family of 230,000 service men and women, serving and retired, and those they leave behind, are also Australians. Why is their superannuation provider excluded from Royal Commission scrutiny? Why deny the Defence Family an equal voice in making submissions to the Royal Commission?

We urge you to include the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation in the Royal Commission’s Terms of Reference without further delay. Fairness demands nothing less!

Yours sincerely,

 

                        

 

 

Kel Ryan                                                                                Robert Dick
National Spokesman                                                           National President
Alliance of Defence Service Organisations                      RSL Australia
Mobile: 0418 759 120                                                           Mobile: 0448 889 848

Phone: (02) 6265 9530   Email: [email protected] ABN: 49 929 713 439

——————————————————————-

                  

 

RSL & ADSO Comments

The Open Letter has been sent to the PM and all Federal Parliamentarians, the Defence Family network and national media outlets.

The ALP has announced its support for our request here.

We ask your support for the CSC to be included in the Royal Commission by calling the PM (both his electorate office (02) 9327 3988 and parliamentary office (02) 6277 7700) and your local Federal member at their electorate office (details at www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members  , ideally before Parliament resumes next week 18th June or during the Parliament sittings (18 – 21 June and 25 – 28 June)
Thank you Australia.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ALP – Labor announces Senate Inquiry Inquiry into the use of Anti – Malarials in the ADF

Today, Labor has announced that we will move to establish a Senate Inquiry into the use of the Quinoline anti-malarial drugs Mefloquine and Tafenoquine in the Australian Defence Force.

 

HWA

It is almost two years since the Turnbull Government first acknowledged concerns around the use of the anti-malarial drug, Mefloquine.

However, members of the serving and ex-service community have continued to raise their concerns around the side effects from some anti-malarial drugs which were taken during their service.

It is time for a proper and public examination of the issue and to establish the facts.

In that spirit, Labor has discussed the draft Terms of Reference with the Government to ensure the Senate Inquiry has the opportunity to work through this issue in an open and transparent manner and provide a thorough and comprehensive report about the use of Quinoline anti-malarial drugs in the ADF.

The draft terms of reference for the inquiry are:

The use of the Quinoline anti-malarial drugs Mefloquine and Tafenoquine in the Australian Defence Force with particular reference to:

A. Current and past policies and practices for prescribing quinolone anti-malarial drugs to ADF personnel

B. Current and past policies and practices for identifying and reporting adverse drug reactions from quinoline anti-malarial drugs among ADF personnel

C. The nature and extent of any adverse health effects of those who have taken Mefloquine/Tafenoquine on serving and former ADF personnel

D. Support available for partners, carers and families of personnel who experience any adverse health effects of quinoline anti-malarial drugs

E. A comparison of international evidence/literature available on the impact of quinoline anti-malarials

F. How other governments have responded to claims regarding quinoline anti-malarials

G. Any other related matters.

Labor understands this is a complex issue and looks forward to the Inquiry providing further transparency on this issue.

It is anticipated the inquiry would hold public hearings to allow all voices to have an opportunity to be heard.

Labor will consult with senators over the coming weeks to establish the inquiry during the next sittings of the Senate in June.

Amanda Rishworth MP & Senator Alex Gallacher
Tuesday 5 June 2018

Senate Questions on Notice 9 – RCB Recognition of Service

Senator Brian Burston  (PHONP) presented Questions On Notice re RCB submissions to the Defence Minister, Sen, Marisse Payne on 15th December 2017. The answers from the Department of Defence were provided by Sen. Mathais Cormann (in the Minister’s absence) in the Senate in February 2018

There are ten questions and answers. Each day hereafter we will post one of those questions and the answer  with our response to the answer.

Question 9 – Sen. Burston (PHONP)

Why was Minister Billson’s determination to Grade RCB as “hazardous service” in 2006 not implemented prior to, or after, the change of government in 2007? 

 

Answer 9. Sen. Cormann for Sen. Payne

As a result of a number of representations on 18th September 2007 the them Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence declared that the service of Rifle Company Butterworth should be retrospectively reclassified as either hazardous or non-warlike service.

In 2009 it was found that the instruments had omitted RAAF security personnel. contained incorrect dates, omitted key references and were not registered in the Federal Register of Legislative instruments. In response to the continuing campaign conducted by ex RCB members seeking war-like service, a new review from first principles comprehensively investigated RCB service since inception, locating Government files and documents that were never considered in the 2007 review. 

The 2011 review was not supportive of the classification of RCB services as anything other than peacetime service.

On 21 March 2012 the then Parliamentary Secretary for Defence recommended that the nature of all ADF service at Butterworth should remain as peacetime from 12 August 1966 to the present. A detailed explanation of this decision was provided to the Chairman of the RCB Review Group in a letter dated 19 May 2012. This decision is consistent with the long-standing Government determination that the nature of service of all ADF service at the end of confrontation is peacetime.

RCB Review Group Response to the Answer 9.

RCB Logo SML

The Government response claims that Defence conducted a comprehensive review in 2009 (which it failed to include the RCB Review Group in), claiming to find new material not considered in their 2007 determination.  Why were we not notified and included in that Review?

Unsurprisingly, this led to the same result – non-recommendation of war-like service. The overturning of ex-Minister’s Billson’s decision, because it had not been processed, was a very opportune chance for the government (again on ‘advice’ from Defence), to ‘situate the appreciation’, therefore nullifying a Ministerial decision through an administrative fiat. This latest response to the Question again is another case of stubborn refusal to right a wrong.

DVA Minister – Putting Veterans and their Families First – New Study to Improve Advocacy Services

A MAJOR study to improve advocacy services for veterans and their families has commenced under the leadership of the former Chair of the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce, Mr Robert Cornall AO.

download 16Minister for Veterans’ Affairs Darren Chester said the study was part of the Turnbull Government’s ongoing commitment to put veterans and their families first and delivers on a significant part of the Government’s response to the concerns raised in the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Reference’s committee report: The Constant Battle: Suicide by Veterans.

“Veterans and their families deserve to have easy access to the best services available to them and this study has been established to ensure that happens,” Mr Chester said.

“This study will go a long way to helping our younger veterans and their families navigate the compensation claims and appeals processes and it will address a number of improvements to the current advocacy model which were recommended in the report.

“Mr Cornall has an excellent track record in working with the Defence and legal communities, and I’m confident he’ll bring all his experience to bear on finding new ways to ensure those who’ve served our nation get the best possible advocacy.”

Mr Cornall will talk to younger veterans, female veterans, veterans’ families, ex-service organisations, and the broader Defence community in coming months.

The latest research will be reviewed, veterans’ advocacy services in other countries will be examined, and advocacy models in other areas, such as the legal services, community, and disability sectors will be looked at.

“I hope many individuals and organisations will contribute their experiences and ideas to the study,” Mr Chester said.

Separate to this study, Mr Chester said the recent passage of new veterans’ legislation will also have a big impact on improving the health and wellbeing of those who have served their country.

For more information about the advocacy study, visit  here  or send an email to [email protected].

16 April 2018

Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service (VVCS) can be reached 24 hours a day across Australia for support and free and confidential counselling. Phone 1800 011 046 (international: +61 8 8241 4546). VVCS is a service founded by Vietnam veterans.

RCB Recognition of Service 3 – Senate Questions on Notice

Senator Brian Burston  (PHONP) presented Questions On Notice re RCB submissions to the Defence Minister, Sen, Marisse Payne on 15th December 2017. The answers from the Department of Defence were provided by Sen. Mathais Cormann (in the Minister’s absence) in the Senate in February 2018

There are ten questions and answers. Each day hereafter we will post one of those questions and the answer  with our response to the answer.

Question 3 – Sen. Burston (PHONP)

Is the minister prepared to take disciplinary action against public servants/Ministerial staffers found to be generating deliberate mis-information thereby putting elected Ministers into a situation of contempt of Parliament during Petition hearings now on record on the matter of the RCB petition?

Answer 3. Sen. Cormann for Sen. Payne

There is no evidence of any such prejudicial conduct in this case.

 

 

RCB Review Group Response to the Answer 3.

RCB Logo SML

Try reading the official including Hansard records. On 3 March 14 a Petition was placed before the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Petitions (HRSCOP).  This triggered a Nature of Service Branch (NOSB) paper dated 28 Apr 14 to assist the Assistant Minister for Defence (Robert) respond.  Minister Robert duly sent a letter to the Chair HRSCOP on 29 May 14 which included the NOSB paper to maintain the clearly intransigent Defence position. This same document was then presented to Parliament and published in Hansard on 16 Jun 14 by Minister Robert. The contents of both the letter and its support NOSB paper demonstrated distortions, untruths and selective omissions that sought to ‘prove’ RCB service was not warlike when the evidence clearly showed it was: and Defence had that evidence.

On 24 Jul 14, it was brought to the attention of the HRSCOP that the NOSB paper that Minister Robert used was deliberately misleading Parliament, with evidence given to support that assertion.

The RCB Review Group repeated this advice again on 18 Aug 14 directly to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence (Darren Chester), and provided an in-depth rebuttal of numerous assertions made by the NOSB in their paper.   Notwithstanding, Minister Robert, with all of this material at his advisors’ fingertips still chose to present essentially the same position to the HRSCOP on 29 Oct 14. See Hansard  for that data; it is clear that public servants provide the Minister material that is knowingly false and/or fails to provide the full and correct information. It is understood that such action constitutes an offence under certain Codes of Conduct.

The RCB RG provided a further rebuttal to the HRSCOP in its letter and attached document dated 1st December 2014. The response from the HRSCOP  advised that the Committee considered the matter but has no role to investigate, comment on, resolve or follow-up matters relating to the subject matter of the petition, or on any petition.  That means that any outcome from the Petition’s process rests with the appropriate Minister. 

Is this a case of Caesar judging Caesar?

 

RCB Recognition of Service 2 – Senate Questions on Notice

Senator Brian Burston  (PHONP) presented Questions On Notice re RCB submissions to the Defence Minister, Sen, Marisse Payne on 15th December 2017. The answers from the Department of Defence were provided by Sen. Mathais Cormann (in the Minister’s absence) in the Senate in February 2018

There are ten questions and answers. Each day hereafter we will post one of those questions and the answer  with our response to the answer.

Question 2 – Sen. Burston (PHONP)

Given the Minister expresses complete faith in the 2011 DHAAT findings and given that it has been pointed out that the same findings totally ignored all evidence after 1975, how can the Minister continue to believe the flawed findings or worse still, multiple errors failure and mis-information from the NOSB which is the prime source of expert advice on such matters as the RCB claim?

Answer 2. Sen. Cormann for Sen. Payne

The Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal (The Tribunal) is a statutory body that has been established under The Defence Act 1903. All enquiries by the Tribunal are undertaken undertaken in accordance with the general principles  of procedural fairness. The inquiry into recognition of service with Rifle Company Butterworth received written submissions from 29 parties, heard oral evidence from five individuals and undertook its own research into the claims. There is no credible evidence to suggest that the findings of The tribunal “totally ignored all evidence after 1975”. On the contrary, the Tribunal’s report cites evidence from Wing Commander Joe Piers (retired) who was commander of the Ground Defence Element from 1979 to 1981.

RCB Review Group Response to the Answer

RCB Logo SML

The Minister’s answer states there was ‘ no credible evidence to suggest that the ‘findings of the Tribunal totally ignored all evidence after 1975’.

This response beggars belief.

Even a cursory read of the 2011 DHAAT report shows that, under “Evidence” there is no consideration whatsoever of the huge amount of claimant  evidence put before the Tribunal.

It only provides the most shallow pro-Defence bureaucratic argument of pre-1975 events seeking to negate the unanswered evidence put up by the RCB claimants which covers the entire period 1970-1989. 
Of 59 paragraphs constituting the entire DHAAT report, only eight deal with evidence. The rest is padding designed to justify, in our opinion, a pre-determined position. 

The Minister also states ” . the Tribunal’s report describes evidence from Wing Commander Joe Piers (Retd) .. “. It does not; it only lists his name in an Annex. Two unspecified “senior commanders” are mentioned in the procedural part of the report, but what evidence they gave (if any) is not stated. Nor can it be challenged. This is procedural unfairness to the extreme.

RCB’s Claim for Warlike Service Classification 1970-1989 – The Air Force Association calls on the PM for an independent examination.

In its letter to the Prime Minister, The Air Force Association believes “there is a compelling argument supporting an upgrade of the company’s service classification…. Consequently, …. the Air Force Association strongly requests the RCB’s deployment be examined by an independent body to determine the correct service classification.”

Letter Prime Minister – Rifle Company Butterworth Malaysia