JavaScript disabled. Please enable JavaScript to use My News, My Clippings, My Comments and user settings.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

Retired public servants on $120,000 a year claiming aged pension: govt

Social Services Minister Christian Porter says the government has ended a pension "anomaly".

Social Services Minister Christian Porter says the government has ended a pension "anomaly". Photo: Andrew Meares

Retired public servants were enjoying incomes of up to $120,000 and still claiming the age pension until the government ended the "anomaly", Social Services Minister Christian Porter says.

But pensioners accuse the minister of misrepresenting the issues in the debate and say only 120 people Australia-wide were receiving more than $80,000 a year from public service superannuation and claiming a part pension.

Nearly 35,000 former government workers around the nation will need to begin coping on Thursday with cuts to their incomes as they are either kicked off the pension or have their payments reduced.

The government says it is reducing access to the Centrelink age pension of retirees who are in state and federal "defined benefits" superannuation schemes, bringing their treatment in line with the vast majority of Australia's retired workers.

But retirees and their advocacy groups remain furious about the move, which reduces to 10 per cent the amount of superannuation income that can be exempted from Centrelink's income test.

Mr Porter said arrangements in place since 2007 left an "anomaly" allowing former public servants to draw six-figure annual incomes from their super while still being paid a part age pension by Centrelink.

The minister, in a letter to his Coalition colleague Mark Coulton, said a loophole had opened in 2007 allowing well-off public servants to claim the age pension.

"As a result of the changes made in 2007, there were people receiving over $100,000 a year from a defined benefit income stream and still receiving the age pension," Mr Porter wrote.

"For example, a retired state government public servant in receipt of age pension can receivea defined benefit pension of $120,000 a year with a deductible amount of 50 per cent, so that only $60,000 is assessed under the income test.

"Under this measure, the individual's deductible amount would reduce to $12,000 and $108,000 would be assessed under the income test and the individual would no longer be able to receive the age pension.

"At a time when expenditure on the age pension was projected to rise from $39.5 billion in 2013-14 to $72.3 billion in 2023-24 without any changes, the government considered this to be a fair and reasonable measure to support the sustainability of Australia' s welfare system."

But Mr Porter's words have infuriated one of Mr Coulton's constituents in his NSW central west seat, with retired public school principal Garry Grant saying the high-income comparisons were far removed from the reality for the majority of public-sector retirees.

"There is no mention that of the 47,500-approx victims of these unjust cuts, that over 60 per cent are on less than $30,000 per annum in defined benefit income," Mr Grant told Fairfax.

"Nor is there any mention that out of the 47,500 victims, 120 – yes, 120 – are in receipt of a defined benefit income stream of $80,000 plus."So much for the fat cats, rorters claims by Morrison and Abbott when this matter was on the floor of the lower house."

Mr Grant pointed to the exemption granted to retired Australian Defence Force personnel who will still be able to exempt 50 per cent of their defined benefits super payment from the Centrelink income test.

"This is good outcome for this group but it immediately brings on the glaring unfairness and anomaly of defined benefit recipient victims who are former police in various states' superannuation defined benefit schemes," he said.

78 comments

  • Death by a thousand cuts. Yet, global companies can still evade billions of dollars in tax without any repercussions.

    Commenter
    Ken of Brisbane
    Date and time
    January 13, 2016, 10:33PM
    • Yes, you would have to be silly to join the public service now.
      Loyalty means nothing. Hard work means nothing. Secrecy means nothing. Experience means nothing. I know people in the PS that took these things seriously but most are leaving as the private sector has so many more "perks".
      If you need to get anything done by a Government agency good luck to you.
      The government has ruined what was once a respected well running organisation with actually more low paid, but loyal workers who didn't mind being forced, when no one else was, to put money into super. They also expected to actually get something back as they would not be receiving the old age pension in full as others do.
      If you think you will be accessing your own super under the rules you have set in place for your retirement, think again. By the time you retire, a corporation will be given your super funds and probably your house, and will then provide you with food and a bed. Add some cost cutting to that.
      Enjoy your old age.

      Commenter
      Fred
      Date and time
      January 14, 2016, 11:42AM
  • How on earth can Garry Grant label anyone who has ceased employment & still receives $30,000 p.a. as a victim?

    Commenter
    entitled much?
    Date and time
    January 13, 2016, 11:15PM
    • Interested to know how much you live on? If its less than $30000 eager fro some budgeting tips.

      Commenter
      Balloon Burster
      Date and time
      January 14, 2016, 12:21PM
    • $30,000 is not a lot of money for someone to be living on.

      Commenter
      interested
      Date and time
      January 14, 2016, 7:13PM
  • As American baseball player Yogi Berra once put it, It's deja vu all over again". W A wonder Porter's predecessor Morrison used the same line, claiming the changes to defined benefits were to catch fat cat public service retirees with $100 000 plus defined benefits. This was trumpeted by tabloids owned by that foreigner Murdoch which somehow didn't mention that under 2% of defined benefits were over $100 000.Porter is recycling this deception, trying to avoid explaining why this mean and nasty policy was made retrospective: it applies to those who had retired on existing rules and due to their age/health no longer have the capacity to return to work to make up their substantial pension cuts.
    Changes to pension regulations are almost always not retrospective, that is they are not applied to those currently receiving pensions. This one was, and many have received substantial cuts delivered by a mean government that seemingly relishes beating up on seniors.
    Rather than dissembling and spinning fables Porter might explain to pensioners whose incomes his government has slashed why a different set of rules apply to pensioner Joe Hockey. Apparently he can access his pension--reported to be $270 000--way before normal retirement age to supplement his meagre ambassadorial salary. But then, there is one set of rules for privileged far-right pollies like Porter and another for the rest of us.

    Commenter
    Dan Quixoti
    Date and time
    January 13, 2016, 11:17PM
    • It would take a special mentality to claim an Age Pension when you receive $100,000 per annum. It's definitely not a 'run of the mill' public servant. So we have a sample of 120 people being used as the reason to punish the 30,000 on modest incomes. The Minister doesn't use a typical example to sell the change because it can't be justified. The advent of compulsory superannuation has not run its full course yet. As an interim measure the Age Pension was supposed to supplement the pension available to these people through work. Make no mistake, this is a vindictive Government which picks on easy targets.

      Commenter
      Anthony
      Location
      Victoria
      Date and time
      January 13, 2016, 11:21PM
      • The first requirement of Governments is that they be honest and tell the truth.

        In this case Porter is trying to give the impression that the LNP Government is simply trying to prevent a raft of fat cat public servants on $120,000 per year from double dipping and claiming the pension.

        Nothing could be further from the truth.

        What's really happening is that he's changing the ground rules already agreed to for Public Service retirees.

        He's taking money from people who've already retired so that they are battling to make ends meet.

        His lack of honesty continues the pattern already established by the Abbott Government and obviously continuing under Turnbull.

        Commenter
        Good to Go
        Location
        Melbourne
        Date and time
        January 13, 2016, 11:38PM
        • Can we have a bit of investigative journalism, for a change, rather than quotes from press releases and explanatory memoranda? There is a lot to drill down here. Some questions to ask: If the reduction from 50% to 10% is to bring public servants into line with the private sector, why are there exemptions for military pensions but not for police? Why were there no grandfathering arrangements? Doesn't this encourage prospective retirees to take a greater proportion of their super as a lump sum so they can claim a higher pension (there has to be a break even point)? What other benefits are affected, e.g., seniors health card? The "loophole" appeared through changes made by the Howard government. If it was right for the LNP in 2007, why is it not right for the LNP in 2016? It wouldn't have anything to do with a lesser need to buy votes, would it?

          Commenter
          Corbu
          Date and time
          January 14, 2016, 1:17AM
          • Corby - I totally agree- this is a very disappointing article. Towell has simply repeated statements, with no attempt to check their accuracy.
            I refer to Mr Grant's statement about military and DVA pensions. He is just plain wrong, and Towell should have checked and pointed that out.
            The changes don't apply to Military and DVA pensions simply because they can't - Defence pensions currently do not have that option of having a portion excluded for Centrelink consideration. They are already 100% assessible!
            Perhaps that adds to the case - why is my Defence pension fully assessed but some public servants like Mr Grant can apparently have part (or even all) their pensions discounted and thus became eligible for an age-pension top up??

            Commenter
            Kym
            Date and time
            January 14, 2016, 8:49PM

        More comments

        Comments are now closed

        HuffPost Australia

        Featured advertisers

        Special offers

        Credit card, savings and loan rates by Mozo