A reader writes with a reminder about a precedent for pension changes: when Mark Latham shamed the Howard government into trimming excessively generous parliamentary pensions in 2004, politicians successfully argued (between themselves) that retrospective changes would financially disadvantage them in retirement, which would be unfair. The changes therefore only applied to newly-elected members.

Fast forward to January 1, 2017, and the pension rules for ordinary folk – the aged, the disabled and so on – are being changed. For some 171,500 pensioners, there should be a little more. For nearly a third of a million pensioners, there will be less.

Those receiving less will do so because the upper limit on allowable assets is being rather sharply lowered. For example, a single homeowner this year was allowed to have other assets of $793,750 before losing the last of the pension. Next year that limit shrinks to $542,500.

Many of those having their pension lowered or scrapped altogether would have taken some care previously to "arrange their affairs" to qualify for the part pension. They might think the changes will financially disadvantage them in retirement, but according to the government, that is now fair.