The Abbott SWOT Analysis on Grandfather

Anyone who has had anything at all to do with Marketing [Corporate or Governmental] will understand that questions like "Should we take our ship OUT of the harbour", eg Amend Legislation, are examined by the SWOT Analysis, which weighs up the competing issues of:

S - STRENGTHS
W - WEAKNESSES
O - OPPORTUNITIES
T - THREATS

But before we get the SWOT show on the road a bit of background will help.

Background

The issue here is the 1 January 2015 amendment to the Testing Rules for Age Pensions, commonly referred to as the "Grandfather Rules", where the Grandfathered Rules are those pre 1 January 2015 and the New Rules [Deeming of Capital] are those post 1 January 2015.

The BIG Problem is that our modelling says that there is a $10 billion dollar per annum difference between PRESENT Pensioners staying Grandfathered and "sweeping" their Account Based Pension so as to go under the New Rules.  To further explain, the Govt stands to LOSE that much, if all Pensioners TAKE that option.  At present Big Super is working overtime to SCARE Pensioners into the protective arms of Grandfather.

We don't think there is any need to PROVE that but if examples are needed then see Ennis and Alma Revisited or Margaret or Joe or worse still is when we TRIED HARD to disprove our own findings at Devil's Advocate but it simply got 4 times as bad.

We even tried a trumped up case [in favour of Grandfather] by a Big Super Advisor Case of Victoria but it still worked out Victoria was $120,000 worse off with Grandfather.

But back to the beginning, in 2009 we offered a "Hi-Tech" service at agepensionsolutions.com which modelled the Allocated Pension for 20 years or more AND equated that to the Age Pension to assist Pensioners plan their Retirement.  And it seems to have caused a bit of a stir in Big Super, or maybe just the Govt part of it.

Whatever, the seeds were sewn back then to start the process to enact [in 2015] the so called Grandfather Amendments and it seems this image is what caused the stir.  The wise rule of "If it ain't BROKE, don't MESS with it" is especially relevant to amending legislation, SO [as discussed below] a big problem MUST have been seen here litigation wise.

We have just now added the black "closet" [to be explained shortly] to highlight the area of our modelling which had inadvertently caused the Govt to SEE the effects of the Income Testing Rules once the Pensioner got to 75 or so.

It seems therefore that they had NOT done their own modelling many years ago when they introduced this Rule that divides your Allocated Pension Capital by your Life Expectancy, but certainly called in their own spreadsheet experts to check our modelling.  And of course there is the obvious "sexist discrimination" MINEFIELD that under Grandfather Rules a Female gets about $20,000 less Age Pension over 20 years purely because women live longer than men.

And here is Twist #1 - we had thought the legislation said to divide the remaining Capital by the revised Life Expectancy every year, whereas we have now fixed that to divide START Capital by START Life Expectancy, so the effect on the Pensioner is not as bad as in the black closet [but see below], BUT obviously the Govt has done its new modelling on the proper Rule and STILL considered the result a PROBLEM.

What we did on the website was to mimic the "trendoid" manner of explaining legislation in Explanatory Memoranda etc using fictitious names, so we used Ennis and Alma from Brokeback Mountain movie for no particular reason, not realizing the irony in that choice.

To explain, Ennis was married to Alma but for 20 years was having a homosexual affair with Jack, and the whole plot resolves right down to the All American Ellen Degenerate Closet at the end.

So here is the irony that Brokeback fans [called Brokies] say that because of the refusal of Ennis to come OUT of his Ellen Degenerate Closet in that second decade of THEIR 20 year period, things went really pear shaped for them [and of course "Gay Rights"].

Then for Abbott, he has simply DEALT with the matter in his own Ellen Degenerate closet [the black box showing the second decade of the life of a Pensioner] for better or worse.  BUT has he told the PENSIONER about the darker contents of his Closet?

"That's Not a Twist --"

To continue the movie analogy, we add the Paul Hogan "-- THIS is a Twist"

The horrific truth Abbott is trying to hide from the PRESENT Pensioners [of 75 to 85 age band] is that the gradual diminishing of their Age Pension year by year can be AVOIDED simply by "throwing overboard" their Big Super Advisor [and Grandfather], sweeping their Account Based Pension Residual and thus going onto the New Rules.

So we can now use the SWOT to EXAMINE the better/worse.

STRENGTHS

Please excuse the legalese to describe the situation, but it is necessary.

In 2009 or so the Govt carefully considered the situation where an AGGRIEVED person might well have a CHOSE IN ACTION in a COURT WITH JURISDICTION to SEEK RELIEF from the effects of the legislation [now called Grandfather].

If the person properly DEPOSED and ARGUED their case [ie did NOT use a lawyer] then such a court would logically [behind closed doors] CONCLUDE [but not DETERMINE] that "the shit had hit the fan" and it needed to go "into damage control" by continually ADJOURNING the case until the Govt fixed the legislation.

Now we don't know here if there WAS one or more court cases or if it was perhaps based upon our "closet evidence" or other. The only thing that matters is the Govt DID initiate and now execute an amendment.  Indeed, a nasty precedent case [eg Mabo] can have devastating consequences.

By DOING that the Govt has REMOVED the CHOSE IN ACTION [at least under the Grandfather legislation].  That is to say the court can now say that the legislation now allows the Pensioner to escape Grandfather by "sweeping" their Allocated Pension to a new one whereby they must use New Rules [so case dismissed with costs].

And as for a Pensioner pleading PAST losses, the Govt in 2011 was very quick to do a clandestine fiddle with S 8 of the Acts Interpretation Act [1901], and finally we have been "locked out" of our own website [for "Unknown Unknown" reasons to use the WMD/9/11 terminology].  So all this points to that lovely High Court euphemism from Luton "it looks like minds were turned in government".

So the STRENGTHS are that Abbott has "thrown overboard" the threat of court action [ie a Precedent Case to "Open the Floodgates"], and at same time pick up an extra $40 million pa from the NEW folk on the New Rule.

WEAKNESSES

Abbott has effectively drawn a line in the sand of 1 January 2015 and dug in his Sword to mark "Checkpoint Charlie" where "certain people are allowed to go in certain directions across the line at certain times".

But it is a TWO Edged Sword, because one edge helps Abbott by preventing any court challenges but the other edge simply allows Pensioners to escape the Grandfather Rules without the fuss of going to court.

And then the Sword becomes The Sword of Damocles because the thin thread that holds it up is MISinformation [and spin] by Big Super to Pensioners regarding the issue from above still hidden in the CLOSET.

That is to say Abbot plans to save $40 million pa because the New Rule "stings up front" so New applicants for the Age Pension will be worse off in the short term, BUT with the Grandfather Rule "the sting is in the tail" and as such DENYING the 1 million or so 75 years old plus Pensioners of about $10 billion pa.

And the thread holding up the Sword of Damocles is simply that they DON'T KNOW THAT, and the THREAT is they COULD - so we move to that part of the SWOT, as is quite normal, dealing with the SWOT elements out of strict order.

THREATS

As stated above the only issue that would prevent the Govt going down the gurgler by $10 billion pa is the IGNORANCE of the Pensioners to the true situation, and as stated the WMD Terror Campaign of Big Super is presently doing its job for the Govt in maintaining the ignorance.

On the other hand the ubiquitous "Social Media" can very quickly "spread the word" to bring about the "snowball effect" and down comes the Sword of Damocles on Abbott's Feast/Party [pun intended].

It's as simple as that, ie once the worm starts to turn it can very quickly turn totally.  At present the worm has not even started to turn but it is anybody's guess as to how soon it might start and how quickly it might DESTROY.

OPPORTUNITIES

The obvious answer/opportunity/imperative for Abbott is to END the THREAT.

To continue the analogy, he has created the Sword of Damocles as the means of solving the issue, but that does not mean he can't replace the present gossamer thread holding it up with a thumping great length of high tensile chain so that the Sword will STAY up there.

There are two ways to do that - a stupid way and a sensible [legal] way and while Abbott has traditionally taken the stupid way and insisted on putting both feet in his mouth, we will explain the options for him here.

The stupid way is to continue his "how bizarre" Brogdonian ways of 2005 and have ME [the author of the websites, LOPS and blogs] "taken out".

Firstly I have taken the usual "Pauline Hanson Personal Security" remedy here, so my death would point straight TO Abbott, but secondly it is not ME that is the problem but my websites, LOPS and blogs that are the problem.  My death would simply leave all the THREAT sitting "in the cloud"

The sensible way is to simply "convince me" via the legal paths available to Abbott to REMOVE all my web content.

I obviously will not be explaining here how those paths work but by way of a Ministerial to my Local MP [the democratic method of the Constitution].

So one remaining question lingers as to is it possible "others" might come forward and do the same "whistle-blowing"?

Of course I can't answer that but I can give my estimate on the chance of that happening as being "about 1 in 5 billion".

There is nothing egotistical in the estimate but simply a statement that the Good Lord or HAL deemed [no pun intended] to give me Lucy type powers to be able to "analyse situations" well beyond the normal capabilities of J Doe, and I have used them from time to time DESPITE the detriment to my personal life.

I don't think there are any others living in Australia at present that have that burden, hence my 1 in 5 billion estimate.

In other words the term Conspiracy Theory is very commonly used to describe crackpot ideas, most without any merit in fact.  But my Modus Operandi totally supports the suppositions WITH fact, so ceases to BE Conspiracy Theory. 

I rest my case/SWOT.