Research Paper no. 16 2007–08
Military superannuation myths and reality
Leslie Nielson
Economics Section
10 January 2008
- Military superannuation arrangements have been subject to
extensive changes. Yet another change may occur in the wake of a
recently completed review of military superannuation
arrangements.
- Both serving and retired members of the Australian Defence
Force have legitimate grievances in relation to superannuation
matters. However, often lobbying efforts in pursuit of these
grievances have been based on a poor or inaccurate understanding of
past events and current conditions.
- This paper presents background information on past events and
current arrangements for any discussions following the recent
release of the report of the review of military
superannuation.
|
Contents
Executive summary
Glossary
Introduction
Current provision of
benefits
Some Issues
Whitlam stole my
super
The Jess Review
The Whitlam government s response to the Jess
Review
Is this stealing ?
The Whitlam government and
pension indexation
The Whitlam government s
response to the indexation issue
Indexing the DFRDB pension
Retired ADF members were
permanently disadvantaged
Hawke stole my super
Indexing military superannuation pensions to
the CPI leads to a decline in retirees standard of living
Other Commonwealth government pensions are
indexed to increases in wages
Tax treatment of military super pensions
DFRDB and DFRB
MSBS
Military pensions are not
indexed in the same way as the age pension
Relative movement of CPI,
MTAWE and the Age Pension rate
Military pensions topped
up by the Age Pension
Level and security of military retirement
income
Conclusion
Glossary
|
ABS
|
Australian Bureau of
Statists
|
|
ADF
|
Australian Defence
Force
|
|
Age Pension
|
Pension paid by Department
of Social Security
|
|
Age Pension age
|
Age at which a person may
qualify to receive the Age Pension (65 Male up to 65 Female,
depending on date of birth)
|
|
AWOTE
|
Average Weekly Ordinary
Time Earnings as calculated by the ABS
|
|
CPI
|
Consumer Price Index as
calculated by the ABS
|
|
CSS
|
Commonwealth
Superannuation Scheme (now closed to new members)
|
|
DFRB
|
Defence Force Retirement
Benefit Scheme
|
|
DFRDB
|
Defence Force Retirement
and Death Benefits Scheme
|
|
Indexation
|
The increase in the annual
rate at which a pension is paid
|
|
Indexation method
|
Method used to index a
pension. Pensions can be increased annually or semi annually by
increases in CPI, AWOTE or MTAWE or a combination of these
measures
|
|
Jess Review
|
Review of military
superannuation arrangements conducted between 1970 and 1972 chaired
by J. D. Jess CBE, MP
|
|
MSBS
|
Military Superannuation
and Benefits Scheme (current military superannuation scheme)
|
|
MTAWE
|
Male Total Average Weekly
Earnings
|
|
Retirement Pay
|
Pension paid to retired
members of the DFRDB and DFRB
|
|
1922 Scheme
|
Commonwealth civilian
superannuation scheme that preceded the CSS
|
On 27 February 2007 the then
Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, the Hon Bruce Bilson
MP, announced a wide-ranging Review of Military Superannuation
Arrangements.[1]
Under the
Terms of Reference, the Review examined current superannuation
arrangements and evaluated whether the design of the Defence Force
Retirement and Death Benefit Superannuation Scheme (DFRDB) and
Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme (MSBS) suit current
Australian Defence Force (ADF) members and reflect contemporary
superannuation policy.[2] The Review has completed its work and its report
submitted to the previous government. This report was released to
the public on 24 December 2007.[3]
It is very likely that the retired defence force community will
be critical of some of its findings and recommendations. In part,
this dissatisfaction stems from perceptions of past government
actions in relation to military superannuation arrangements. The
purpose of this paper is to briefly outline and provide comment on
some of the more common points of contention in relation to both
past actions and some current issues.
Those who have retired from the ADF fall into one of two groups:
those who are receiving a pension[4] from their scheme and have then undertaken other
employment and those who receive a pension and who have retired
from the workforce. This paper discusses the concerns of this
latter group.
Currently military superannuation benefits are provided under
three separate schemes:
- between 1948 and 1972 the only military superannuation scheme
was the DFRB. It was effectively closed to new members on 30
September 1972[5]
- between 1972 and 1991 both the Defence Force Retirement and
Death Benefits Scheme (DFRDB) and the DFRB provided military
superannuation benefits.[6] The DFRDB was closed to new members on 30 September
1991,[7] and
- from 1991 the Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme
(MSBS), DFRDB and DFRB have provided these benefits.[8]
All three schemes are now providing
superannuation benefits to retired ADF members, though the number
of DFRB recipients is rapidly declining. The arrangements made
during the changeover period for each of these schemes are one
source of the above mentioned dissatisfaction to ADF retirees.
Many DFRB beneficiaries are concerned that the arrangements for
closing of this scheme in 1972 and the commencement of the DFRDB
scheme saw the government of the day transfer their retirement
savings into the Commonwealth s Consolidated Revenue Fund
(CRF).
A particular feature of all three military superannuation
schemes is that active members (i.e. before leaving the ADF)
contributed about 5.5 per cent of their after-tax salary to their
particular scheme. Active DFRB members contributions went into a
separate DFRB Fund and were invested. The accrued benefits were
paid partly from the DFRB Fund, but mostly from the CRF.
Commencing work in 1970, the Joint Select Committee on Defence
Forces Retirement Benefits Legislation reviewed the operation of
the Defence Force Retirement Benefits Act 1948 (the Jess
Review), under the chairmanship of Mr J. D. Jess, CBE, MP (Liberal
member for the seat of La Trobe 1960 1972). The main reasons for
this review were the perceptions that the DFRB was too complicated,
poorly understood by servicepersons and inflexible in its provision
of benefits.[9]
Amongst other things this review recommended in 1972 that a new
military superannuation scheme be established and that the assets
of the DFRB Fund be transferred to the CRF.[10]
The newly installed Whitlam government accepted the need for a
new military superannuation scheme and agreed that the assets of
the DFRB Fund be transferred to the CRF.[11] These assets were transferred between
1973 and 1975.[12]
Contributing members of the DFRB scheme (i.e. active members of the
ADF) were transferred to the new DFRDB scheme.[13] All contributions made by DFRDB
members went (and continue to go) into the CRF.[14]
Some retired members of the ADF consider that the transfer of
the DFRB Fund assets to the CRF amounts to the theft of their
superannuation savings.[15] This view may be based on the notion that the DFRB s
member s benefits were wholly paid from the assets of the DFRB
Fund.
Typically, only 20 per cent of a DFRB member s benefits were
paid from the DFRB Fund.[16] The former DFRB and DFRDB member s full benefits are
paid, but not from the same source as in 1972 and preceding years
(i.e. not partly from the DFRB Fund). Rather, retired DFRDB and
DFRB members receive their own contributions, and any investment
earnings they may have otherwise accumulated, back as part of the
benefits they receive directly from the CRF.
In its report, the Jess Review strongly recommended that the new
DFRDB scheme be a contributory one (i.e. a scheme where members
make a contribution from their salary).[17] But due to the generally shorter
period of service in the ADF (i.e. then generally only 20 years)
the new schemes members contributions would not have sufficient
time in which to accumulate sufficient earnings to pay the full
benefits received.
Further, given the Commonwealth government s control of and
access to taxation revenue, it was not necessary, or in some ways
desirable, for the government to accumulate resources to pay these
benefits as they accrued (i.e. pre-fund these benefits). Thus the
government was to assume the sole responsibility for paying the
benefits of the then new scheme when they became payable upon a
service person s retirement. The government s assumption of sole
responsibility for the payment of the benefits was in line with the
normal practice in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom
at the time.[18] As
such, the Commonwealth s assumption of sole responsibility for the
payment of benefits was simply standard operating practice for
military superannuation schemes of the time.[19]
A significant issue for those receiving military superannuation
pensions is the indexation of those pensions. [20] Indexation is the annual or semi
annual increase in the pension paid. Currently, all military
superannuation pensions are indexed to changes in the Consumer
Price Index (CPI) as calculated by the Australian Bureau of
Statistics.
The Jess Review recommended that military superannuation
pensions be expressed as a percentage of final pay and be adjusted
annually so that relativity with average weekly earnings is
maintained .[21]
Speaking about the indexation of pensions paid by
the DFRDB, the Minister sponsoring the new legislation noted that
the question of the indexation of all Commonwealth superannuation
pensions was then being examined.[22] During this period the Whitlam government was
reviewing the Commonwealth s superannuation arrangements and was
developing the policy that led up to the introduction of the
Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS) which was, for the period
between 1976 and 1990, the main civilian superannuation scheme for
Commonwealth public servants.[23]
On 5 March 1974, the then Treasurer, the Hon. Frank Crean, MP,
announced that in view of the complexity of the matter, the
Government had decided to seek the benefit of outside actuarial
advice on his proposals for a new superannuation scheme for
Australian Government employees.[24] The subsequent report on the Treasurer s
proposals was compiled by Mr G. L. Melville and Professor A. H.
Pollard and commented specifically on the post-retirement indexing
of Commonwealth superannuation pensions.[25] This reference to an independent
expert followed the policy of the previous McMahon
government.[26]
Professor Pollard was commissioned by the previous government to
review the methods for indexing all Commonwealth superannuation
pensions, including military pensions.[27]
This report recommended that, under the proposed
provisions of the CSS, it would be appropriate to index the
government financed pension to be increased automatically and
annually by the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index
.[28]
This recommendation was made against the
background of the then current Commonwealth superannuation scheme
(the 1922 scheme). The 1922 scheme main features were that it:
- did not pay a lump sum benefit
- paid an un-indexed pension financed by the contributions (and
associated investment earnings) of the employee, and
- paid an irregularly indexed pension financed by the
government.[29]
To maintain the overall value of both pensions
the government financed pension was indexed by 1.4 times the
relevant increase in the CPI, though not at annual
intervals.[30]
Melville and Pollard argued that since the
proposed superannuation scheme (the CSS) was generally to pay a
lump sum in addition to an indexed pension there was no need to
index this pension by 1.4 times the CPI increases. That is, the
standard benefits paid by the CSS would not include an un-indexed
pension. Accordingly, only CPI indexation was necessary in respect
of the government financed pension paid by the CSS.[31] This view was
subsequently accepted by the government and incorporated into the
features of the CSS.
The enabling legislation for the DFRDB scheme, the Defence
Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973 (DFRDB Act), as
first passed by the Parliament, did not contain Part XA, which
provides for the indexation of DFRDB pensions in line with changes
to the CPI.[32]
These sections were added to the DFRDB Act by the
Defence Forces (Retirement and Death Benefits Amendments) Act
1977. The reason why these particular arrangements were
inserted into the DFRDB Act was set out in the second reading
speech, as follows:
In essence, therefore, the pension updating
arrangements encompassed by this Bill achieve the earlier stated
aim of consistency with those currently applying to the comparable
classes of pensioners under the Commonwealth Public Service
superannuation schemes.[33]
The CSS commenced operation in 1976 and its standard pension is
indexed to changes in the CPI. Thus the government of the day (the
Fraser government) sought consistency in the manner in which all
Commonwealth retirement income streams (i.e. pensions or retirement
pay) were indexed.[34]
As noted above, the indexation of military superannuation
pensions has been, and is currently, an important issue for retired
members of the ADF.[35] It has been alleged that by indexing the DFRDB (and by
implication the MSBS) pension to the CPI, military superannuation
pensioners have suffered a permanent disadvantage as increases in
wages have exceeded increases in the CPI. The following graph
illustrates the comparative rates of change in the CPI and Male
Total Average Weekly Earnings (MTAWE).[36]
While it is true that MTAWE increases are currently increasing
at a faster rate than CPI increases, the above graph demonstrates
that there have been times in the past when the CPI has grown at a
greater rate than MTAWE. In particular, between 1985 1986 and 1989
1990 the CPI was increasing at a greater rate than earnings rates,
mainly due to increasing interest rates and the then wages accords.
This again happened briefly in 2000 2001, due to a spike in the CPI
induced by the introduction of the goods and services tax. All
other things being equal, this would have led to military
superannuation pensions increasing at a faster rate than average
wages during these periods.
In short, whether a disadvantage has been suffered by retired
ADF members through the indexation of their pension to the CPI
depends entirely on when the person began to receive these
payments.
On several occasions retired members of the ADF have noted that,
at one point, the full CPI indexation of the DFRDB and DFRB
pensions was not paid.[37]
The Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment
Act 1986 amended the legislation governing the operation of
both the DFRDB and DFRB from the payday of 23 October, 1986 to
discount the 1986 pension increase by 2 per cent from 9.2 per cent
to 7.2 per cent.[38] This policy continued till 20 October, 1989 (that is,
the full CPI increases were not passed on to DFRDB pensioners).
There was no later increase in the DFRDB pension to make up for
this period of discounting.
These actions were undertaken as a budget measure in response to
the unusually high rates of inflation of the period combined with a
shortfall in government revenue. The rates of increase in CSS
pensions were also discounted in the same way during this
period.[39]
Retired ADF community representatives argue that indexing
military superannuation pensions to increases in the CPI leads to a
steady decline in the standard of living of retirees. They argue
that the standard of living of the general community is best
measured by increases in the average level of wages, not
prices.[40]
The problems with the CPI versus an earnings based index as an
indexation method can best be summed up by the comments in the
Senate Select Committee on Superannuation and Financial Services
report A Reasonable and Secure Retirement?: The benefit design
of Commonwealth public sector and defence force unfunded
superannuation funds and schemes relating to the Australian
Bureau of Statistic s evidence to the Committee. The report
states:
3.27 At the public hearing, the Australian Bureau
of Statistics (ABS) explained the rationale for the compilation of
the CPI and what it aims to achieve. The ABS reported that the CPI,
as a measure of inflation, is gauged on the basis of price rises on
a designated basket of goods; and that the composition of the
basket is designed to represent all but not any one particular
household. The price on each item is adjusted on an annual basis
and the composition of the basket re-weighted on a five yearly
basis. The ABS also stated that a number of major reviews of the
index have been conducted, such as in 1992 and 1997.
3.28 ABS representatives emphasised that the
adequacy of the index depends on the particular purpose intended.
They judged that the index was perfectly adequate to gauge the rise
in costs of particular items in the basket of goods over a period
of assessment. However, to the extent that that fixed basket of
goods and services becomes less and less representative of an
overall living standard, then the CPI will not pick it. This is
because: The CPI is not a measure of the cost of living. It is a
measure of inflation and there are differences between the two
things .
3.29 The ABS concluded that if the purpose was to
maintain a relative standard of living with other groups in the
community then an earnings measure of some sort would be a more
appropriate vehicle for indexation . Finally, the ABS told the
Committee that in weighting the CPI it had to make an on balance
decision about its primary purpose which, in the end, is a policy
issue.[41]
In short, CPI is a measure of inflation, not the cost of living.
To the extent that increases in inflation do not represent
increases in the cost of living the indexation of any pension by
the CPI may produce a fall in the recipients standard of living.
That said, if a government wanted to ensure that a pension was
indexed only to compensate for increases in costs no better
alternative has bee put forward than indexing these payments to the
CPI.
A common point made in support of indexing military
superannuation pensions to increases in wages, as well as the CPI,
has been that other commonwealth superannuation pensions are
indexed to increases in wages; specifically, parliamentary
pensions, judges pensions and pensions paid to retired Reserve Bank
of Australia officers.
Former parliamentarians, who entered parliament before the 2004
election, may be paid a pension upon their exit from
parliament.[42]
These pensions are increased in line with increases in the annual
allowance for serving senators and members.
Upon retirement after 10 years service a Commonwealth judge s
pension is 60 per cent of the appropriate current judicial salary
(less any adjustment for the superannuation contributions
surcharge). When the judicial salary is increased, so is a retired
Federal judge s pension.[43]
A Federal judge s basic salary is determined by the Remuneration
Tribunal. The basic salary of parliamentarians is linked by
regulation[44] to a
reference salary in a Principal Executive Officer classification
determined by the Remuneration Tribunal.[45]
Under the provision of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 a
Tribunal determination, or part of it, can be disallowed by the
Parliament.
The question is whether the Remuneration Tribunal determines
salaries in direct relationship to movements in wages. In its 2005
06 Annual Report, the Tribunal outlined some of the
factors that it takes into account:
In determining annual adjustments, the Tribunal
takes account of a range of factors. Statistical indicators, such
as movements in the labour price index; increases incorporated in
Australian Public Service and public sector certified agreements;
and increases in agreements generally, provide some guidance.
Movements in senior management remuneration are
also relevant, given the nature of many of the offices in the
Tribunal s jurisdiction. The Tribunal is not, however, overly
influenced by executive remuneration surveys [46]
Thus, movements in parliamentary base salary and federal judge s
salary are not automatically linked to increases in general wages.
However, movements in public sector salaries as well as other
matters appear to be very influential in the Tribunal s decisions.
Finally a Tribunal s determination is subject to parliamentary
approval.
Since September 2002 pensions paid by the Reserve Bank of
Australia Officers Superannuation Scheme have been indexed to
changes in MTAWE. Prior to this date these pensions were indexed to
changes in the CPI.
From 1 July 2007, a pension paid from a funded or taxed
superannuation source is tax free if the recipient is over 60 years
of age. A funded superannuation source is one that has been subject
to the 15 per cent superannuation fund income tax (that is, 15 per
cent on contributions and 15 per cent on earnings).[47]
A pension paid by the DFRB and DFRDB schemes is paid from CRF,
which is not subject to tax, and thus, the pension is paid from an
unfunded or untaxed source. That is, the source from which these
particular pensions are paid is not subject to the 15 per cent
superannuation fund income tax. These pensions are fully taxable in
the hands of the recipient. This difference in tax treatment has
been a source of discontent amongst retired ADF members.[48]
If a pension from an unfunded source is paid to a person over 60
years of age that person is entitled to a tax offset of ten per
cent of the gross amount of that pension. The following table shows
the maximum amount of pension that can be received tax free after
reaching 60 years of age, taking into account the above mentioned
10 per cent tax offset and the low income tax offset in the 2007 08
year.
Table 1 Maximum tax
free unfunded pension; 2007 08
|
Annual Pension
|
$30 628
|
|
Tax Paid
|
$3 788
|
|
10% Tax Offset
|
$3 063
|
|
Low Income Tax Offset
|
$725
|
|
Tax Actually Paid
|
$0
|
|
Net Annual Income
|
$30 628
|
Source: Parliamentary
Library
The figure of $30 628 per annum is well above the average
pension now paid from the DFRDB.[49] Thus the majority of pensions from the DFRDB (and
most likely the DFRB) are, in the absence of other income,
effectively tax free (not including any Medicare Levy payable).
The tax treatment of an MSBS pension is more complicated, and
depends on the source of the particular pension paid. This will be
different in every case and the following are general comments
only. A portion of such pensions is paid from a taxed or funded
source and is tax free in its own right if paid after the recipient
passes 60 years of age. The amount of pension paid from the untaxed
or unfunded source is likely to be well below the $30 628 figure.
In the absence of other income, the majority of MSBS superannuation
pensions are likely to be tax free when received by those over 60
years of age in the absence of other income.
A major source of disaffection in the current debate about the
indexation of Commonwealth pensions is the method used to index the
social security age pension.[50]
Section 1191 of the Social Security Act 1991 provides
that the Age Pension increases in line with increases in the CPI.
However, section 1195 of the same Act provides that the Age Pension
is also increased so that it is not less than 25 percent of Male
Total Average Weekly Earnings (MTAWE). The effect of these
provisions is that the Age Pension increases in line with
semi-annual increases in the CPI or MTAWE, whichever is the
greater.
These formal provisions commenced in September 1997. However, it
had been a matter of informal government policy that the basic Age
Pension rate not fall below 25 per cent of Average Weekly Earning.
However, there has been a formal link between general increases in
wages and the rate of Age Pension payments since 1975.[51] In effect, the formal
provisions enacted what had previously been an general government
policy.
The following graph shows the relative movement of the various
indexes and rates involved in this debate. The figures are indexed
at 100 in the September 1997 quarter, as the Age Pension was
legislatively indexed to increases in MTAWE from this point
onwards.
As can be seen, the value of the Social Security Age Pension and
MTAWE has increased at a faster rate than the CPI. This reflects
the faster rate of increase in real wages, compared to inflation,
over this period.
One of the unstated assumptions in the above arguments is that a
retired military pensioner s retirement income is only derived from
their government pension. This is not generally the case. For
example, a retired ADF member, who is over Age Pension age (65
male, 60, increasing to 65 female depending on date of birth) can
claim a part Age Pension, while receiving the full military
superannuation pension.
All military superannuation pensions are assessed, for social
security purposes, only under the income test. Currently, a couple
can receive an annual non-social security income (such as a
military superannuation pension) of up to $64 792 per annum and
still be eligible for at least one dollar of a social security age
pension per annum.[52] This limit is increased in line with increases in the
Age Pension and is well above the average annual military
superannuation pensions paid by the Commonwealth.[53]
Thus, not all of a retired ADF member s retirement income is
potentially indexed to the CPI. A significant proportion of most
retired ADF member s income after reaching Age Pension age may be
indexed to the greater of increases in CPI or MTAWE through the
recept of age pension payments.
Generally, the level of benefits received by retired ADF members
is far above what could be reasonably expected in non-government
employment at a similar salary level. If the value of early access
to these benefits is also taken into account, as well as the
security of payment of these benefits (i.e. payment of military
superannuation pensions is guaranteed by the government[54]), the comparative
value of these benefits is generally far above that available in
the private sector at the same income level with the same amount of
contributions.
While CPI indexation of military superannuation pensions may be
viewed by some as reducing their living standards comparative to
the rest of the community, it should not be forgotten that ADF
retirees income generally starts from a much higher level than the
general run of retirees. This point reduces the comparative
disadvantage that may be felt by retired ADF members.
A related point is that the payment of the social security Age
Pension is subject to a means test. Generally the level of a person
s Age Pension is determined by the amount of other assessable
income the person receives for social security purposes or the
amount of assessable assets they have. The rate at which an Age
Pensioner is paid is the lower of the rates calculated under either
the income or the assets tests.
A military superannuation pension is payable irrespective of the
level of other assets a recipient has or income they receive. Put
another way, in comparison to the Age Pension, a military
superannuation pension is a very stable and predictable form of
retirement income.
When considering the advantages and disadvantages of receiving a
military superannuation pension it is worth noting the level of
implied or notional contributions made by the government to fund
the accrued level of military superannuation benefits.
The notional employer contribution rate is the contribution rate
that would be required to fund the benefits accruing to serving
members over the next three years on the basis that superannuation
benefits are accrued uniformly over a member s period of service.
No account is taken of the serviceperson s possible advancement in
rank over that period or any increase in contributions (for MSBS
members). They are notional contribution rates as the government
does not actually contribute this amount of money to a serving ADF
member s superannuation scheme.
The following table shows the notional employer contribution
rates for each scheme as calculated as at 30 June 2002 and as at 30
June 2005. These rates can be thought of as the percentage of a
service-person s salary that their employer (the government)
contributes to their superannuation benefits.
Table 2: Notional
employer contribution rate to Commonwealth military defined benefit
superannuation schemes as a percentage of superannuation
salary
|
Reported as at
|
MSBS
|
DFRDB
|
|
30 June 2002
|
23.2
|
33.9
|
|
30 June 2005
|
24.7
|
33.5
|
Source: Australian
Government Actuary [55]
These notional employer contribution rates are higher than the
notional contribution rates for the Commonwealth s civilian defined
benefit superannuation schemes (the CSS c.f. DFRDB (28.2 per cent)
or the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme c.f. MSBS (15.6 per
cent) and the actual contribution rate under the post 2004 election
Parliamentary superannuation scheme (15.4 per cent)).[56] This is not to suggest
that these higher rates are unjustified. Further, these
contribution rates are far in excess of the current 9 per cent of
ordinary time earnings that private sector employers are obliged to
contribute to their employee s superannuation accounts under the
Superannuation Guarantee regime.[57]
No-one can question that serving in the Australian Defence Force
is a unique and very important occupation making a significant and
lasting contribution to overall national security and welfare
defined in its broadest sense. And no-one should make light of the
stress and dangers of this occupation. Indeed, service personnel
are subject to considerable danger, injury and death whether or not
they are serving in an area of combat operations. Further, in past
years a service person was encouraged to retire from the military
once they had completed at least 20 years of service and had
reached a particular rank (the actual age at which this occurred
depended on the rank reached). This age was a comparatively young
one by civilian standards.[58] Military service is a special occupation and deserves
special recognition.
In the same way, no-one should make light of the often
legitimate grievances that retired service personnel have about
their superannuation arrangements. However, neither should the
presentation of those grievances be based on poorly understood
events in the past or a less than adequate understanding of the
advantages of current arrangements. The object of this paper has
been to provide better information on these matters.
Any future scheme should take account of the unique nature of
military service; not just as a matter of natural justus, but also
for the benefit of the ADF to attract and retain suitable
personal.