THE AUSSIE DIGGER FORUM

Keith

Sep 13, 06 - 12:36 PM

Reply To DVA Minister On Economic and Non Economic Loss

Good morning Minister.

Over the early part of this year, I and others have contacted your office, requesting a copy of the Legislation which authorises the Government, and it’s agent the Repatriation Commission, to divide the SR Compensation Payment [ the TPI payment] into economic and non economic loss. To date the Veteran community has still not been provided with a copy of the relevant Legislation.

Yesterday I again received a reply via surface mail, from your office, to my latest request for a copy of the Legislative authority which the Government uses to divide the TPI payment into economic and non economic loss, and the latest letter again does not provide the requested Legislation. This is the third time your office has failed to send the requested Legislation.

We are aware that you personally do not compile replies to emails and letters, and we are aware you use Staffers to do this work for you. In fact in all probability you do not even read all the rational, logical and honest requests for information which flow into your office. We are also mindful that many of your staffers have no Military experience, have little if any interest in Veteran Justice and Truth and are solely motivated by promoting the Government line, and protecting their jobs in your office by falling into line with what the Government demands of them, rather than protecting and standing for the interests of Veterans. This is human nature, but it is not good for Veterans who seek accurate and honest information from your office.

The latest Staffer composed reply from your office does NOT provide us with the Legislation which authorises the Government to divide the TPI payment into economic and non economic loss. It simply points us to existing Legislation which explains what is being done, rather than giving us the authority for what is being done. The latest letter also refers to the Toose Enquiry and Baume Report. It ought to be noted that these learned gentlemen do not enact Legislation, and their Reports are not Legislation. The Government proposes Legislation, under usual circumstances, and the Parliament either passes the Bills into Law, or rejects them. Referring to Toose and Baume as authorities for what the Government does under Law is plainly mischievous and in error.

The Government is responsible for the division of the TPI payment into economic and non economic loss, and nobody else.

Once again the Government, via your Office, has failed to provide the TPI Veterans of this country with the relevant Legislation which YOU say empowers the Government to so divide the TPI payment. It might be noted that this division of the TPI payment has the effect of ensuring that over time the TPI payment will continue to lose value, unlike Social Security pensions and the Service Pension, which are indexed in line with the MTAWE or CPI, whichever if the higher.

Nowhere does the Government divide any Social Security pension or the Service Pension into TWO parts for indexation purposes, which is what happens with the TPI payment.

The Government is obviously determined to continue short changing the Nation’s most disabled Veterans, is determined to use false legalese to justify that theft of compensation and is determined to see the TPI payment continue to erode over time.

The TPI payment has eroded by about 60% in the last 30 years. The Government does this to the Nation's most disabled Veterans, all the while engaging in hollow rhetoric and backslapping for Party political purposes to win elections.

The Veterans of this country will continue to advise young Australians not to enlist in the Military as long as the Government continues to chew up severely disabled Veterans and spit them out.

Sincerely.

Keith Tennent.

Keith

Sep 13th, 2006 - 12:37 PM

Re: Reply To DVA Minister On Economic and Non Economic Loss

From: Bodey L & R
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 1:04 AM
Subject: Re: A YES MINISTER FROM THE DVA MINISTER

I suggest that you analyse this reply (spin) very closely.

It is very cleverly worded in order to mislead and deceive.

They obviously think that they can fool you with spin.

Take -

"These concepts are expressed in the VEA as the General Rate and Above General Rate."

Nobody disputes that.

It is a fact.

There is the GR and certain pensions (SR, IR and EDA) are above the GR - simple.

Naturally they have to be included in the VEA otherwise they would not exist.

Take -

"For your information the authority to pay pensions at the General Rate is provide in section 22 of the VEA and authority to pay pensions Above the General Rate is provided in sections 23,24 and 27 of the VEA."

Again, nobody disputes that.

That is there for all to see.

But where in the VEA does it state that the SR, IR or EDA is anything but one component - that one component being compensation ?

What subsection specifically states that the SR, IR or EDA is made up of more than one component?

It is all very nice to quote Baume, Toose and whoever and their "concept" of what constitutes the make-up of the Special Rate but where does the legislation differentiate different components of the SR ?

When it comes to their respective "concepts" of the Special Rate Baume and Toose could not agree where compensation (non-economic) and income support (economic) finished and began.

One argued that 100% of the General Rate constituted the boundary between eco and non-eco components.

(this is the argument that currently suits the government)

The other argued that that the EDA was the ultimate measure of disablement, therefore it constituted the boundary between the eco and non-eco components.

The very failure of these two learned gentlemen to agree on a common boundary acknowledges that there is no legislated breakdown of the Special Rate.

Therefore it is apparent that the Howard Government has acted illegally in its efforts to short change recipients of the Special Rate.

The basic question remains - where is the legislation that enables the Special Rate to be broken down into more than one component - that one single component being compensation ?

Please supply the specific subsection that details when or where economic and non-economic payments begin and finish.

That simple request should be simple enough for any well-meaning office-holder in the DVA to provide.

LB

Keith

Sep 13th, 2006 - 12:40 PM

Re: Reply To DVA Minister On Economic and Non Economic Loss

From: Bill Dobell
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 7:54 AM
Subject: RE: A YES MINISTER FROM THE DVA MINISTER

I note that Billson keeps referring to the General Rate and Above General Rate and that they have been in the act since 1920, he is partially correct as I understand it but, all Special Rates are above the General Rate and all he is doing is interpreting the Act differently to interpretations that were the norm for about eighty years.

There have always been several rates of compensation and to name a few there is Special Rate encompassing T&TI, T&PI and EDA, there is another rate known as Intermediate Rate (fifty percent of T&PI and of course General Rate. They are all separate and stand alone.

Just something I noted, you may have already picked up on this but I thought it worth mentioning for others.

Bill Dobell

http://mc2.vicnet.net.au/home/dobie/web/index.html

Veterans' pensions don't cost

They contribute to the economy

**********************

From: Bill Dobell
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 8:11 AM
Subject: RE: A YES MINISTER FROM THE DVA MINISTER

Keith

I have just read the letters fully and it is my opinion that as usual the Minister is being very careful in what he refers to as evidence to support his contentions, there is far more in the act than the few docs he refers to and I am not well enough equipped to investigate the issue, do we have anybody that can carry out the investigation??

Just a thought mate

Bill Dobell

http://mc2.vicnet.net.au/home/dobie/web/index.html

Veterans' pensions don't cost

They contribute to the economy

*********************

From: Bill Dobell
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 8:26 AM
Subject: Economic vs non economic

Just a thought mate, how come disabled veterans are entitled to two economic loss payments? SP and Above GR according to Billson are both Income Support while the below GR is for pain and suffering, (I might add that GR is a pittance for those that were seriously wounded physically or other.) if it were intended that SR was to be divided into two components we would not receive SP at all.

Just a thought.

Bill Dobell

http://mc2.vicnet.net.au/home/dobie/web/index.html

Veterans' pensions don't cost

They contribute to the economy

*******************

From: B.J. Billing
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: A YES MINISTER FROM THE DVA MINISTER

I agree with all the arguments being put forward. However I rely on Division 2 s13 sub-section (1) and (2).......it says it's all Compensation by way of pension.

This does not include the Service Pension.

The whole damm thing is compensation, the Act says so. Black letter Law.

*******************

From: ron king
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 8:26 AM
Subject: public service.

I have been looking at some of the emails on the dept of veteran affairs (DVA) which have set my mind to thinking about the staff who work at DVA.

You know one of the sad things about this is that a lot of the senior staff are ex snr ncos and officers who left the defence force and joined dva as case and pension officers and over the years have gone up the promotion ladder.

Some of these people now sit on VRB for advice to the chairperson and to give support to the claimant. One recent review I attended with a ex member the mil rep asked one question and that was "you said you served in Darwin" the member answered yes sir I did and then said your record of service does not reflect that. One angry pensions officer said if you look you will see BSU DARWIN he then asked what BSU stood for well my reaction very calmly told him now my point was on this that he could not have done too much research into this if he did he'd understand the meaning of the BSU, SO WHAT OTHER ADVICE DID HE GIVE THE SITTING CHAIRPERSON........AND THE OTHER MIL REP SAT THEIR LIKE A STATUE AND SAID NOT ONE WORD.

The sad thing is these people left the military system and became public servants and got lost in the big picture and forgot where the grass roots started. The same thing in Canberra the amount of ex military people who are advisers to the ministers and senior public is beyond belief. What advice do these people give the minister and such……….. maybe it’s the old thing of well I am not there any more not my problem well these people are there because they are capable of working, not like some veterans, and they should remember that these veterans sacrifices allowed these people to leave the defence force intact and not have to go to war. Well maybe they should visit there grass roots and not sell there souls to the pubic service dollar and there minds to their now political masters.

REGARDS KINGIE.

Keith

Sep 13th, 2006 - 7:21 PM

Re: Reply To DVA Minister On Economic and Non Economic Loss

MY COMMENT.
When we signed on the dotted line, we signed up under the existing CONDITIONS OF SERVICE. These conditions of service have been gradually eroded over the last 30 odd years, and if we didn't start fighting seriously in the late 90's, we would be in a far worse position than we currently are. We have achieved much since the late 90's, but much is yet to be achieved.

The Veterans of the post Vietnam conflicts and operations must organise themselves soon, and take up the fight, for we cannot go on forever, and the post Vietnam War era Vets cannot just sit back and let us do all the work, and expect us to fight for them as well as us. The current Peacekeeping ESO [ APPVA ] under President Copeland's leadership, is another ESO whose leadership is ineffectual and in the Government camp. This organisation, or another organisation, must install a competent, dedicated and fearless leadership to stand for Justice and Truth.

KT.
*************

From: Bill Dobell
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 1:15 PM
Subject: Discrimination

I may not be the first to express the following but it is the first time I have seen in in writing.

The more I read the more I see a starting point for the erosion of repatriation benefits that fits perfectly with the Vietnam war, one could easily be forgiven for thinking that the powers that be have been doing all in their power to discriminate against Vietnam era veterans, that of course has spilled over to include all veterans' since Vietnam.

Note the three main enquiries into veterans entitlements beginning with Toose in 1972, Baume sometime in the eighties I think and Clark in 2003 or 04, all appear to have been instructed to alter long standing veteran benefits that have stood the test of time but are now considered by some to be over generous, I am far underqualified to judge generosity and whether or not different conflicts should attract different benefits but I do believe that those that served and were made certain promises should not be expected to accept a benefit of less value than that which was promised. John Howard used the same argument when he introduced the reduced superannuation scheme for MPs stating words to the effect "a member who entered parliament under one system should not be disadvantaged by changes made during their tenure" should not the same be said for veterans?

My point in writing this is simply to point to the fact that entitlement reduction seems to be squarely aimed at Vietnam veterans, so once again we wear the brunt of the Governments displeasure at being involved in the Vietnam war.

Bill Dobell

http://mc2.vicnet.net.au/home/dobie/web/index.html

Veterans' pensions don't cost

They contribute to the economy

Author	Comment
Keith Sep 13, 06 - 12:36 PM	Reply To DVA Minister On Economic and Non Economic Loss Good morning Minister. Over the early part of this year, I and others have contacted your office, requesting a copy of the Legislation which authorises the Government, and it’s agent the Repatriation Commission, to divide the SR Compensation Payment [ the TPI payment] into economic and non economic loss. To date the Veteran community has still not been provided with a copy of the relevant Legislation. Yesterday I again received a reply via surface mail, from your office, to my latest request for a copy of the Legislative authority which the Government uses to divide the TPI payment into economic and non economic loss, and the latest letter again does not provide the requested Legislation. This is the third time your office has failed to send the requested Legislation. We are aware that you personally do not compile replies to emails and letters, and we are aware you use Staffers to do this work for you. In fact in all probability you do not even read all the rational, logical and honest requests for information which flow into your office. We are also mindful that many of your staffers have no Military experience, have little if any interest in Veteran Justice and Truth and are solely motivated by promoting the Government line, and protecting their jobs in your office by falling into line with what the Government demands of them, rather than protecting and standing for the interests of Veterans. This is human nature, but it is not good for Veterans who seek accurate and honest information from your office. The latest Staffer composed reply from your office does NOT provide us with the Legislation which authorises the Government to divide the TPI payment into economic and non economic loss. It simply points us to existing Legislation which explains what is being done, rather than giving us the authority for what is being done. The latest letter also refers to the Toose Enquiry and Baume Report. It ought to be noted that these learned gentlemen do not enact Legislation, and their Reports are not Legislation. The Government proposes Legislation, under usual circumstances, and the Parliament either passes the Bills into Law, or rejects them. Referring to Toose and Baume as authorities for what the Government does under Law is plainly mischievous and in error. The Government is responsible for the division of the TPI payment into economic and non economic loss, and nobody else. Once again the Government, via your Office, has failed to provide the TPI Veterans of this country with the relevant Legislation which YOU say empowers the Government to so divide the TPI payment. It might be noted that this division of the TPI payment has the effect of ensuring that over time the TPI payment will continue to lose value, unlike Social Security pensions and the Service Pension, which are indexed in line with the MTAWE or CPI, whichever if the higher. Nowhere does the Government divide any Social Security pension or the Service Pension into TWO parts for indexation purposes, which is what happens with the TPI payment. The Government is obviously determined to continue short changing the Nation’s most disabled Veterans, is determined to use false legalese to justify that theft of compensation and is determined to see the TPI payment continue to erode over time. The TPI payment has eroded by about 60% in the last 30 years. The Government does this to the Nation's most disabled Veterans, all the while engaging in hollow rhetoric and backslapping for Party political purposes to win elections. The Veterans of this country will continue to advise young Australians not to enlist in the Military as long as the Government continues to chew up severely disabled Veterans and spit them out. Sincerely. Keith Tennent. Email: excalibur@theaussiedigger.com Website: http://www.theaussiedigger.com
Keith Sep 13th, 2006 - 12:37 PM	Re: Reply To DVA Minister On Economic and Non Economic Loss From: Bodey L & R Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 1:04 AM Subject: Re: A YES MINISTER FROM THE DVA MINISTER I suggest that you analyse this reply (spin) very closely. It is very cleverly worded in order to mislead and deceive. They obviously think that they can fool you with spin. Take - "These concepts are expressed in the VEA as the General Rate and Above General Rate." Nobody disputes that. It is a fact. There is the GR and certain pensions (SR, IR and EDA) are above the GR - simple. Naturally they have to be included in the VEA otherwise they would not exist. Take - "For your information the authority to pay pensions at the General Rate is provide in section 22 of the VEA and authority to pay pensions Above the General Rate is provided in sections 23,24 and 27 of the VEA." Again, nobody disputes that. That is there for all to see. But where in the VEA does it state that the SR, IR or EDA is anything but one component - that one component being compensation ? What subsection specifically states that the SR, IR or EDA is made up of more than one component? It is all very nice to quote Baume, Toose and whoever and their "concept" of what constitutes the make-up of the Special Rate but where does the legislation differentiate different components of the SR ? When it comes to their respective "concepts" of the Special Rate Baume and Toose could not agree where compensation (non-economic) and income support (economic) finished and began. One argued that 100% of the General Rate constituted the boundary between eco and non-eco components. (this is the argument that currently suits the government) The other argued that that the EDA was the ultimate measure of disablement, therefore it constituted the boundary between the eco and non-eco components. The very failure of these two learned gentlemen to agree on a common boundary acknowledges that there is no legislated breakdown of the Special Rate. Therefore it is apparent that the Howard Government has acted illegally in its efforts to short change recipients of the Special Rate. The basic question remains - where is the legislation that enables the Special Rate to be broken down into more than one component - that one single component being compensation ? Please supply the specific subsection that details when or where economic and non-economic payments begin and finish. That simple request should be simple enough for any well-meaning office-holder in the DVA to provide. LB Email: excalibur@theaussiedigger.com Website: http://www.theaussiedigger.com
Keith Sep 13th, 2006 - 12:40 PM	Re: Reply To DVA Minister On Economic and Non Economic Loss From: Bill Dobell Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 7:54 AM Subject: RE: A YES MINISTER FROM THE DVA MINISTER I note that Billson keeps referring to the General Rate and Above General Rate and that they have been in the act since 1920, he is partially correct as I understand it but, all Special Rates are above the General Rate and all he is doing is interpreting the Act differently to interpretations that were the norm for about eighty years. There have always been several rates of compensation and to name a few there is Special Rate encompassing T&TI, T&PI and EDA, there is another rate known as Intermediate Rate (fifty percent of T&PI and of course General Rate. They are all separate and stand alone. Just something I noted, you may have already picked up on this but I thought it worth mentioning for others. Bill Dobell http://mc2.vicnet.net.au/home/dobie/web/index.html Veterans' pensions don't cost They contribute to the economy ******************** From: Bill Dobell Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 8:11 AM Subject: RE: A YES MINISTER FROM THE DVA MINISTER Keith I have just read the letters fully and it is my opinion that as usual the Minister is being very careful in what he refers to as evidence to support his contentions, there is far more in the act than the few docs he refers to and I am not well enough equipped to investigate the issue, do we have anybody that can carry out the investigation?? Just a thought mate Bill Dobell http://mc2.vicnet.net.au/home/dobie/web/index.html Veterans' pensions don't cost They contribute to the economy ***************** From: Bill Dobell Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 8:26 AM Subject: Economic vs non economic Just a thought mate, how come disabled veterans are entitled to two economic loss payments? SP and Above GR according to Billson are both Income Support while the below GR is for pain and suffering, (I might add that GR is a pittance for those that were seriously wounded physically or other.) if it were intended that SR was to be divided into two components we would not receive SP at all. Just a thought. Bill Dobell http://mc2.vicnet.net.au/home/dobie/web/index.html Veterans' pensions don't cost They contribute to the economy *************** From: B.J. Billing Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 9:15 AM Subject: Re: A YES MINISTER FROM THE DVA MINISTER I agree with all the arguments being put forward. However I rely on Division 2 s13 sub-section (1) and (2).......it says it's all Compensation by way of pension. This does not include the Service Pension. The whole damm thing is compensation, the Act says so. Black letter Law. *************** From: ron king Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 8:26 AM Subject: public service. I have been looking at some of the emails on the dept of veteran affairs (DVA) which have set my mind to thinking about the staff who work at DVA. You know one of the sad things about this is that a lot of the senior staff are ex snr ncos and officers who left the defence force and joined dva as case and pension officers and over the years have gone up the promotion ladder. Some of these people now sit on VRB for advice to the chairperson and to give support to the claimant. One recent review I attended with a ex member the mil rep asked one question and that was "you said you served in Darwin" the member answered yes sir I did and then said your record of service does not reflect that. One angry pensions officer said if you look you will see BSU DARWIN he then asked what BSU stood for well my reaction very calmly told him now my point was on this that he could not have done too much research into this if he did he'd understand the meaning of the BSU, SO WHAT OTHER ADVICE DID HE GIVE THE SITTING CHAIRPERSON........AND THE OTHER MIL REP SAT THEIR LIKE A STATUE AND SAID NOT ONE WORD. The sad thing is these people left the military system and became public servants and got lost in the big picture and forgot where the grass roots started. The same thing in Canberra the amount of ex military people who are advisers to the ministers and senior public is beyond belief. What advice do these people give the minister and such……….. maybe it’s the old thing of well I am not there any more not my problem well these people are there because they are capable of working, not like some veterans, and they should remember that these veterans sacrifices allowed these people to leave the defence force intact and not have to go to war. Well maybe they should visit there grass roots and not sell there souls to the pubic service dollar and there minds to their now political masters. REGARDS KINGIE. Email: excalibur@theaussiedigger.com Website:** http://www.theaussiedigger.com
Keith Sep 13th, 2006 - 7:21 PM	Re: Reply To DVA Minister On Economic and Non Economic Loss MY COMMENT. When we signed on the dotted line, we signed up under the existing CONDITIONS OF SERVICE. These conditions of service have been gradually eroded over the last 30 odd years, and if we didn't start fighting seriously in the late 90's, we would be in a far worse position than we currently are. We have achieved much since the late 90's, but much is yet to be achieved. The Veterans of the post Vietnam conflicts and operations must organise themselves soon, and take up the fight, for we cannot go on forever, and the post Vietnam War era Vets cannot just sit back and let us do all the work, and expect us to fight for them as well as us. The current Peacekeeping ESO [ APPVA ] under President Copeland's leadership, is another ESO whose leadership is ineffectual and in the Government camp. This organisation, or another organisation, must install a competent, dedicated and fearless leadership to stand for Justice and Truth. KT. *********** From: Bill Dobell Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 1:15 PM Subject: Discrimination I may not be the first to express the following but it is the first time I have seen in in writing. The more I read the more I see a starting point for the erosion of repatriation benefits that fits perfectly with the Vietnam war, one could easily be forgiven for thinking that the powers that be have been doing all in their power to discriminate against Vietnam era veterans, that of course has spilled over to include all veterans' since Vietnam. Note the three main enquiries into veterans entitlements beginning with Toose in 1972, Baume sometime in the eighties I think and Clark in 2003 or 04, all appear to have been instructed to alter long standing veteran benefits that have stood the test of time but are now considered by some to be over generous, I am far underqualified to judge generosity and whether or not different conflicts should attract different benefits but I do believe that those that served and were made certain promises should not be expected to accept a benefit of less value than that which was promised. John Howard used the same argument when he introduced the reduced superannuation scheme for MPs stating words to the effect "a member who entered parliament under one system should not be disadvantaged by changes made during their tenure" should not the same be said for veterans? My point in writing this is simply to point to the fact that entitlement reduction seems to be squarely aimed at Vietnam veterans, so once again we wear the brunt of the Governments displeasure at being involved in the Vietnam war. Bill Dobell http://mc2.vicnet.net.au/home/dobie/web/index.html Veterans' pensions don't cost They contribute to the economy Email: excalibur@theaussiedigger.com Website:** http://www.theaussiedigger.com

GO TO THE MAIN FORUM..CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE TO JOIN "The Fair Go" EMAIL LIST