C0763
Ang Claim
“Sinira ang pangakong pang-eleksyon sa pamamagitan ng pagbabago sa indexation ng age pension, edad ng pagiging kwalipikado, at ang threshold.”
Orihinal na Pinagmulan: Matthew Davis
Orihinal na Pinagmulan
✅ FACTUAL NA BERIPIKASYON
Ang mga pangunahing katotohanan ng claim na ito ay **BERIPIKADO** - Sinira ng pamahalaang Coalition ang isang partikular na pangakong pang-eleksyon tungkol sa mga pensyon.
The core facts of this claim are **VERIFIED** - The Coalition government did break a specific election promise regarding pensions.
Bago ang eleksyon noong 2013, nangako si Tony Abbott na "walang pagbabago sa mga pensyon" [1]. Before the 2013 election, Tony Abbott promised "no changes to pensions" [1].
Gayunpaman, ang budget noong 2014 na ibinigay ni Treasurer Joe Hockey ay naglaman ng mga makabuluhang pagbabago sa pensyon [2]: **Mga pagbabago sa indexation**: Ipinanukala ng budget ang pagbabago sa indexation ng pensyon mula sa pamamaraang "mas mataas ng" (CPI, PBLCI, o MTAWE) patungo sa isang mas hindi maluwag na kalkulasyon [3]. However, the 2014 budget delivered by Treasurer Joe Hockey included significant pension changes [2]:
**Indexation changes**: The budget proposed changing pension indexation from the "higher of" method (CPI, PBLCI, or MTAWE) to a less generous calculation [3].
Sa ilalim ng kasalukuyang kaayusan na itinatag ng Labor noong 2009, ang mga pensyon ay ini-index sa pinakamataas sa CPI, Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index (PBLCI), o Male Total Average Weekly Earnings (MTAWE) [4]. Under the existing arrangement established by Labor in 2009, pensions were indexed to the highest of CPI, Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index (PBLCI), or Male Total Average Weekly Earnings (MTAWE) [4].
Ipinanukala ng Coalition na ilink ang indexation sa CPI lamang, na magreresulta sa mas mababang pagtaas ng pensyon sa paglipas ng panahon [5]. **Edad ng pagiging kwalipikado**: Ipinanukala ng budget noong 2014 ang pagtaas ng edad ng pensyon mula 67 patungong 70, na unti-unting ipatutupad mula 2025 hanggang 2035 [6]. The Coalition proposed linking indexation to CPI only, which would have resulted in lower pension increases over time [5].
**Eligibility age**: The 2014 budget proposed increasing the pension age from 67 to 70, phased in from 2025 to 2035 [6].
Ito ay makakaapekto sa mga taong ipinanganak mula 1966 pataas. **Assets test**: Ipinatight ang budget noong 2017 sa mga threshold ng assets test, na nagresulta sa humigit-kumulang 166,000 na part-pensioners na nawalan ng ilan o lahat ng kanilang mga karapatan sa pensyon [7]. This would have affected people born from 1966 onwards.
**Assets test**: The 2017 budget tightened the assets test thresholds, resulting in approximately 166,000 part-pensioners losing some or all of their pension entitlements [7].
Ang taper rate ay binago kaya nawalan ang mga pensioner ng $3 bawat dalawang linggo sa bawat $1,000 ng mga ari-arian sa ibabaw ng threshold, mula sa $1.50 bawat $1,000 [8]. The taper rate was changed so that pensioners lost $3 per fortnight for every $1,000 of assets above the threshold, up from $1.50 per $1,000 [8].
Nawawalang Konteksto
Ang claim ay nagpabaya ng ilang kritikal na mga impormasyon sa konteksto: **1.
The claim omits several critical pieces of context:
**1.
Naipasa na ng Labor ang pagtaas ng edad ng pensyon**: Ang claim ay nagpapakita ng pagbabago sa edad ng pensyon bilang isang inisyatiba ng Coalition, ngunit ang pagtaas mula 65 patungong 67 ay talagang naipasa ng pamahalaang Rudd Labor noong 2009-2010 [9]. Labor had already legislated pension age increases**: The claim presents the pension age change as a Coalition initiative, but the increase from 65 to 67 was actually legislated by the Rudd Labor government in 2009-2010 [9].
Ang repormang ito ng Labor ay unti-unting ipinatutupad mula 2017 hanggang 2023 [10]. This Labor reform was being implemented gradually from 2017 to 2023 [10].
Ang panukala ng Coalition ay ang palawakin pa ito hanggang 70, ngunit ang base na pagtaas sa 67 ay patakaran ng Labor. **2. The Coalition's proposal was to extend this further to 70, but the base increase to 67 was Labor policy.
**2.
Ang edad ng pensyon na 70 ay hindi kailanman naipatupad**: Bagama't ipinanukala noong 2014, ang plano na itaas ang edad ng pensyon sa 70 ay iniwan ng Coalition noong Setyembre 2018 sa ilalim ni Prime Minister Scott Morrison [11]. The 70-year pension age was never implemented**: While proposed in 2014, the plan to raise the pension age to 70 was abandoned by the Coalition in September 2018 under Prime Minister Scott Morrison [11].
Ang edad ng pensyon ay nananatili sa 67, na ang target na naipasa ng Labor. **3. The pension age remains at 67, which was Labor's legislated target.
**3.
Ang mga pagbabago sa indexation ay binago, hindi ganap na naipatupad**: Ang mga iminungkahing pagbabago sa indexation ay malaking binago at hindi nagpatuloy nang eksakto tulad ng inanunsiyo noong 2014 [12]. Indexation changes were modified, not fully implemented**: The proposed indexation changes were significantly modified and did not proceed exactly as announced in 2014 [12].
Ang pamamaraang "mas mataas ng" indexation (CPI, PBLCI, MTAWE) ay nanatiling nakalagay. **4. The "higher of" indexation method (CPI, PBLCI, MTAWE) remained in place.
**4.
Ang rasyunal ng patakaran**: Sinabi ng pamahalaan na ang mga pagbabagong ito ay kinakailangan para sa "sustainability ng budget" at upang gawing "abordable ang mga pensyon sa mga darating na dekada" [13]. The policy rationale**: The government argued these changes were necessary for "budget sustainability" and to make pensions "affordable for decades to come" [13].
Ang Intergenerational Report ay nag-highlight ng pangmatagalang mga presyon sa mga gastos sa pensyon dahil sa pagtanda ng populasyon. **5. The Intergenerational Report had highlighted long-term pressures on pension costs due to population aging.
**5.
Ang sariling mga reporma sa pensyon ng Labor**: Ang pamahalaang Rudd ay gumawa ng mga makabuluhang pagbabago sa pensyon noong 2009, kabilang ang pamamaraan ng indexation na sinubukan ng Coalition na baguhin sa ibang pagkakataon [14]. Labor's own pension reforms**: The Rudd government made substantial pension changes in 2009, including the indexation method that the Coalition later sought to modify [14].
Ang mga pagbabagong ito noong 2009 ay malaking nagtaas ng mga rate ng pensyon (tumaas ang single pension ng humigit-kumulang $30/semana) [15]. These 2009 changes significantly increased pension rates (single pension increased by about $30/week) [15].
Pagsusuri ng Kredibilidad ng Pinagmulan
Ang mga orihinal na pinagmulan ay kabilang ang: - **News.com.au**: Isang Murdoch-owned na outlet ng balita na may dokumentadong right-center bias ayon sa Media Bias/Fact Check [16].
The original sources include:
- **News.com.au**: A Murdoch-owned news outlet with a documented right-center bias according to Media Bias/Fact Check [16].
Pangkalahatang factual sa pag-uulat ngunit gumagamit ng loaded language. Generally factual in reporting but uses loaded language.
Bahagi ng News Corp Australia network na na-criticize para sa political bias [17]. - **The Conversation**: Isang academic-sourced na outlet ng balita na may mataas na kredibilidad. Part of News Corp Australia network which has been criticized for political bias [17].
- **The Conversation**: An academic-sourced news outlet with high credibility.
Ito ang unang Australian fact-checking team na na-accredit ng International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) [18]. It was the first Australian fact-checking team accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) [18].
Pangkalahatang itinuturing na center-left sa bias ngunit mataas sa factual accuracy. - **YouTube video**: Hindi nakilala at hindi na-verify - hindi maaaring suriin ang kredibilidad. Generally considered center-left in bias but high in factual accuracy.
- **YouTube video**: Source unidentified and unverified - cannot assess credibility.
Ang parehong News.com.au at The Conversation ay mga mainstream media sources, bagama't ang News.com.au ay may conservative leaning. Both News.com.au and The Conversation are mainstream media sources, though News.com.au has a conservative leaning.
Ang The Conversation ay pangkalahatang mas mataas ang pagkilala para sa factual accuracy. The Conversation is generally more highly regarded for factual accuracy.
⚖️
Paghahambing sa Labor
**Gumawa ba ng katulad na bagay ang Labor?** **OO** - Ang mga pamahalaang Labor ay gumawa ng mga makabuluhang pagbabago sa pensyon, kabilang ang: 1. **Pagtaas ng edad ng pensyon sa 67**: Ang pamahalaang Rudd ay naipasa ang pagtaas mula 65 patungong 67 noong 2009-2010, na may unti-unting pagpapatupad mula 2017-2023 [19].
**Did Labor do something similar?**
**YES** - Labor governments made significant pension changes, including:
1. **Pension age increase to 67**: The Rudd government legislated the increase from 65 to 67 in 2009-2010, with gradual implementation from 2017-2023 [19].
Ito ay kondisyon para sa mga pagtaas ng rate ng pensyon sa Secure and Sustainable Pension reform package. 2. **Reporma sa indexation**: Noong 2009, ipinakilala ng Labor ang kasalukuyang pamamaraang "mas mataas ng" indexation (CPI, PBLCI, MTAWE) at itinakda ang single pension sa humigit-kumulang 27.7% ng MTAWE [20]. This was a condition of the pension rate increases in the Secure and Sustainable Pension reform package.
2. **Indexation reform**: In 2009, Labor introduced the current "higher of" indexation method (CPI, PBLCI, MTAWE) and set the single pension at approximately 27.7% of MTAWE [20].
Ito ay pumalit sa dating indexation na CPI lamang. 3. **Mga pagbabago sa assets test**: Ang iba't ibang mga pamahalaang Labor ay gumawa ng mga pagbabago sa pension means testing sa loob ng mga dekada. **Pangunahing pagkakaiba**: Ang mga pagbabago ng Labor ay kabilang ang mga *pagtaas* ng pensyon kasabay ng mga reporma, samantalang ang mga panukala ng Coalition noong 2014 ay pangunahing mga hakbang para makatipid. This replaced the previous CPI-only indexation.
3. **Assets test changes**: Various Labor governments made adjustments to pension means testing over decades.
**Key difference**: Labor's changes included pension *increases* alongside reforms, whereas the Coalition's 2014 proposals were primarily cost-saving measures.
Gayunpaman, ang parehong partido ay gumawa ng mga makabuluhang pagbabago sa istruktura ng sistema ng pensyon. **Komparatibong sukat**: Ang iminungkahing edad ng pensyon na 70 ng Coalition ay higit pa sa 67 ng Labor, ngunit ang threshold na 67 ay sariling reporma ng Labor. However, both parties have made significant structural changes to the pension system.
**Comparative scale**: The Coalition's proposed pension age of 70 would have gone beyond Labor's 67, but the 67 threshold was itself a Labor reform.
Iniwan ng Coalition ang panukalang 70 noong 2018. The Coalition abandoned the 70-year proposal in 2018.
🌐
Balanseng Pananaw
Bagama't ang claim na sinira ng Coalition ang isang pangakong pang-eleksyon tungkol sa mga pensyon ay katotohanan, ang buong larawan ay nangangailangan ng pag-unawa: **Mga lehitimong pagpuna:** - Si Tony Abbott ay eksplisitong nangako na "walang pagbabago sa mga pensyon" bago ang eleksyon noong 2013 [21] - Ang budget noong 2014 ay naglaman ng maraming pagbabago sa pensyon na taliwas sa pangakong ito - Ang mga pagbabago sa assets test noong 2017 ay talagang nagbawas ng mga bayad para sa humigit-kumulang 166,000 na part-pensioners [22] **Mga pagtatanggol ng pamahalaan:** - Sinabi ng pamahalaan na ang mga pagbabago ay kinakailangan para sa pangmatagalang fiscal sustainability [23] - Ang pagtaas ng edad ng pensyon sa 70 (iminungkahi) ay magdadala ng Australia sa linya ng ilang mga internasyonal na trend (UK, Germany, US ay nagtataas din ng mga edad) [24] - Ang Intergenerational Report ay nagpakita ng hindi sustainable na pangmatagalang trajectory para sa mga gastos sa pensyon **Konteksto sa paghahambing:** - Ang pagtaas ng Labor sa 67 ay naipasa na at ipinatutupad - Ang iminungkahing 70 ng Coalition ay iniwan bago ang pagpapatupad - Ang parehong partido ay gumawa ng mga malaking reporma sa pensyon nang nasa pamahalaan - Ang patakaran ng pensyon ay likas na kontrobersyal anuman ang partido na nagpanukala ng mga pagbabago **Pangunahing konteksto:** Ito ay **hindi kakaiba sa Coalition** - ang mga pagbabago sa pensyon ay isang paulit-ulit na tampok ng mga budget ng Australian government sa parehong mga pangunahing partido.
While the claim that the Coalition broke an election promise on pensions is factually accurate, the full picture requires understanding:
**Legitimate criticisms:**
- Tony Abbott explicitly promised "no changes to pensions" before the 2013 election [21]
- The 2014 budget contained multiple pension changes contrary to this commitment
- The assets test changes in 2017 did reduce payments for approximately 166,000 part-pensioners [22]
**Government justifications:**
- The government argued changes were needed for long-term fiscal sustainability [23]
- The pension age increase to 70 (proposed) would have brought Australia in line with some international trends (UK, Germany, US also raising ages) [24]
- The Intergenerational Report showed unsustainable long-term trajectories for pension costs
**Comparative context:**
- Labor's increase to 67 was already legislated and being implemented
- The Coalition's 70-year proposal was abandoned before implementation
- Both parties have made major pension reforms when in government
- Pension policy is inherently contentious regardless of which party proposes changes
**Key context:** This is **not unique to the Coalition** - pension changes are a recurring feature of Australian government budgets across both major parties.
Ang aspeto ng sirang pangako ay tiyak sa pangako ng Coalition sa eleksyon noong 2013, ngunit ang mga istruktural na reporma sa pensyon ay naipatupad ng parehong Labor at Coalition governments. The broken promise aspect is specific to the Coalition's 2013 election commitment, but structural pension reforms have been implemented by both Labor and Coalition governments.
TOTOO
7.0
sa 10
Sinira ng Coalition ang isang pangakong pang-eleksyon sa pamamagitan ng pagpanukala ng mga pagbabago sa indexation ng pensyon, edad ng pagiging kwalipikado, at mga threshold ng assets test matapos ang eksplisitong pangako na "walang pagbabago sa mga pensyon" bago ang eleksyon noong 2013.
The Coalition did break an election promise by proposing changes to pension indexation, eligibility age, and assets test thresholds after explicitly promising "no changes to pensions" before the 2013 election.
Gayunpaman, ang paghahatid ng claim ay nagpabaya ng: (1) ang pagtaas ng edad ng pensyon sa 67 ay patakaran ng Labor, hindi ng Coalition; (2) ang iminungkahing pagtaas sa 70 ay hindi kailanman naipatupad; at (3) ang parehong partido ay gumawa ng mga makabuluhang reporma sa pensyon nang nasa pamahalaan. However, the claim's framing omits that: (1) the pension age increase to 67 was Labor policy, not Coalition; (2) the proposed increase to 70 was never implemented; and (3) both parties have made significant pension reforms when in government.
Ang sirang pangako ay katotohanan, ngunit ang paghahatid ay kulang sa konteksto tungkol sa mas malawak na kasaysayan ng mga pagbabago sa patakaran ng pensyon sa mga pamahalaan. The broken promise is factual, but the presentation lacks context about the broader history of pension policy changes across governments.
Huling Iskor
7.0
SA 10
TOTOO
Sinira ng Coalition ang isang pangakong pang-eleksyon sa pamamagitan ng pagpanukala ng mga pagbabago sa indexation ng pensyon, edad ng pagiging kwalipikado, at mga threshold ng assets test matapos ang eksplisitong pangako na "walang pagbabago sa mga pensyon" bago ang eleksyon noong 2013.
The Coalition did break an election promise by proposing changes to pension indexation, eligibility age, and assets test thresholds after explicitly promising "no changes to pensions" before the 2013 election.
Gayunpaman, ang paghahatid ng claim ay nagpabaya ng: (1) ang pagtaas ng edad ng pensyon sa 67 ay patakaran ng Labor, hindi ng Coalition; (2) ang iminungkahing pagtaas sa 70 ay hindi kailanman naipatupad; at (3) ang parehong partido ay gumawa ng mga makabuluhang reporma sa pensyon nang nasa pamahalaan. However, the claim's framing omits that: (1) the pension age increase to 67 was Labor policy, not Coalition; (2) the proposed increase to 70 was never implemented; and (3) both parties have made significant pension reforms when in government.
Ang sirang pangako ay katotohanan, ngunit ang paghahatid ay kulang sa konteksto tungkol sa mas malawak na kasaysayan ng mga pagbabago sa patakaran ng pensyon sa mga pamahalaan. The broken promise is factual, but the presentation lacks context about the broader history of pension policy changes across governments.
📚 MGA PINAGMULAN AT SANGGUNIAN (24)
-
1
Then and now: the Abbott government's broken promises - Sydney Morning Herald
On the eve of the 2013 federal election Tony Abbott promised no cuts to education, health, or the ABC and SBS, and no changes to pensions. Fairfax Media looks at how those promises fared in the Abbott government's first budget.
The Sydney Morning Herald -
2
Budget 2014: Entitlements for older Australians cut in Hockey budget - ABC News
The Government will eliminate or cut a range of entitlements for older Australians, in what Treasurer Joe Hockey says is an attempt to make pensions "affordable and sustainable for decades to come".
Abc Net -
3PDF
ACOSS Budget Bills Submission - Pension Indexation
Acoss Org • PDF Document -
4
Explainer: the policy challenge of indexing welfare payments - The Conversation
Australia’s rising number of pensioners leaves the government conflicted on pensions and how they are indexed.
The Conversation -
5
Federal Budget 2014: Joe Hockey hurts his way into history - SMH
An unprecedented $80 billion cut to health and education spending over the next decade leads a list of tough savings measures affecting age pensioners, seniors concession card holders, family payments and people on the disability support pension in the Abbott government's first budget.
The Sydney Morning Herald -
6
Morrison does about-face on age pension eligibility rising to 70 - The Conversation
The controversial plan to raise the age of the pension to 70 has been scrapped, with eligibility rising to 67 in 2023, where it will stay.
The Conversation -
7
How pension asset test changes will ripple through the economy - ABC News
Changes to the pension on January 1 will affect the way people plan and behave.
Abc Net -
8
Retirement income and savings trap caused by Coalition's 2017 superannuation and age pension changes - Save Our Super
by Jack Hammond and Terrence O’Brien Note: SuperGuide has invited advocacy group, Save Our Super, to highlight the immediate and long-term implications of the federal government’s latest changes to super and the Age Pension. The authors of this article, Jack Hammond QC, founder of Save Our Super, and Terrence (Terry) O’Brien, a retired Treasury official, … Continue reading
Save Our Super -
9
Increasing age pension to 67 was Labor policy - Former Ministers (DSS)
Formerministers Dss Gov -
10
Who can get Age Pension - Services Australia
Servicesaustralia Gov
-
11
Scott Morrison scraps plans to raise pension age to 70 - ABC News
The Federal Government dumps a plan to make people wait until they turn 70 to be eligible for the aged pension.
Abc Net -
12
2014 Australian federal budget - Wikipedia
Wikipedia -
13
2014 Budget: what did the Abbott Government achieve? - News.com.au
News Com
-
14PDF
Pension Review Report and 2009 Reforms - Treasury
Treasury Gov • PDF Document -
15PDF
Indexation & the budget long-term impacts - Parliamentary Budget Office
Pbo Gov • PDF Document -
16
News.com.au - Bias and Credibility - Media Bias/Fact Check
RIGHT-CENTER BIAS These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words
Media Bias/Fact Check -
17
Murdoch propaganda machine catastrophic for democracy - Independent Australia
News Corp publications and television shows offer little in the way of actual news and rely heavily on biased commentary.
Independent Australia -
18
The Conversation - Bias and Credibility - Media Bias/Fact Check
LEAST BIASED These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or
Media Bias/Fact Check -
19
Retiring at 70 was an idea well ahead of its time - UNSW
Unsw Edu
-
20
Article 3 - Towards higher retirement incomes for Australians - Treasury

Towards higher retirement incomes for Australians: a history of the Australian retirement income system since Federation | Treasury.gov.au -
21
Promise check: No unexpected adverse changes to superannuation - ABC News
As opposition leader, Tony Abbott promised on at least 12 separate occasions in 2013 not to make any unexpected adverse, negative or detrimental changes to superannuation.
Abc Net -
22
Pension changes - ACOSS
From 1 January 2017, the asset test for the pensions has been tightened, meaning that some part-pensioners with assets of more than $291,000 (single homeowner) or $453,500 (couple homeowner) will […]
ACOSS -
23
Coalition scraps proposal to lift retirement age - Sky News Australia
SkyNews.com.au — Australian News Headlines & World News Online from the best award winning journalists
Sky News -
24
Scott Morrison ditches Coalition plan to lift retirement age to 70 - The New Daily
Prime Minister Scott Morrison says his newly-minted government has abandoned a coalition commitment to raise Australia's retirement age to 70.
Thenewdaily Com
Pamamaraan ng Rating Scale
1-3: MALI
Hindi tama sa katotohanan o malisyosong gawa-gawa.
4-6: BAHAGYA
May katotohanan ngunit kulang o baluktot ang konteksto.
7-9: HALOS TOTOO
Maliit na teknikal na detalye o isyu sa pagkakasulat.
10: TUMPAK
Perpektong na-verify at patas ayon sa konteksto.
Pamamaraan: Ang mga rating ay tinutukoy sa pamamagitan ng cross-referencing ng opisyal na mga rekord ng pamahalaan, independiyenteng mga organisasyong nag-fact-check, at mga primaryang dokumento.