Xangsamhua

Can you provide a link that shows you must restart the 2-year waiting time? I recently left Australia for 10 days in my first year of return as a former resident and had my pension stopped for the ten days. It was restarted as soon as I arrived back (I'd given them the dates before I left). It would seem odd if another two years waiting time was stacked onto the return date. That could mean that one never becomes a resident.

My understanding is that two years residence in Australia dated from the time the Age Pension was granted is all that is required to re-establish full resident status. But I guess if you stay away longer than six weeks that might be another story.

If you returned to live in Australia and were granted or transferred to Age Pension within the last two years, you will not be able to receive your Age Pension outside the country. After you return, to be paid outside the country, you must have been living in Australia for two years since your last arrival for residence. If you travel to a country that Australia has a social security agreement with, you may be able to continue to get your payment under that social security agreement.

Does not seem fair to me either.

http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/outside-australia#AgePensionPensionSupplement

Thanks.

I've sent a message to Centrelink to seek clarification on "last arrival for residence". If it means the date of return from a short trip, such as my 10 day visit to LOS, I might pursue it further.

Finally got a response from Centrelink. The two-year waiting period recommences after any offshore trip, no matter how short, that you undertake during the two years. So I returned to Australia permanently in November 2012 and went to Thailand for 10 days in September 2013. As a result my two years was restarted on return and I must now wait until September 2015 before my pension becomes portable. Also, for any period that I am offshore during that time, my pension payments are suspended.

Well, I'm watching the walk through the city (not really a march) on FMTV, and the crowds are welcoming Suthep like a conquering hero.

(And I don't have a dog in this fight.)

Is Thailand subject to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice? The kingdom is not a signatory, i.e. it has not declared that it recognizes "as compulsory .... the jurisdiction of the court".

http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/?p1=5&p2=1&p3=3

This being the case, there appears to be no obligation on Thailand's part to accept today's ruling. Thai nationalists will argue that, in agreeing to accept the ruling, the Yingluck government is agreeing to sell out the country.

With OAP you can apply immediately you return but it can only be paid as long as you remain in Australia. If you leave before you have been on it for 2 years it stops. It can be restarted when you come back but you restart the 2 year waiting time before it can be recieved overseas.

Can you provide a link that shows you must restart the 2-year waiting time? I recently left Australia for 10 days in my first year of return as a former resident and had my pension stopped for the ten days. It was restarted as soon as I arrived back (I'd given them the dates before I left). It would seem odd if another two years waiting time was stacked onto the return date. That could mean that one never becomes a resident.

My understanding is that two years residence in Australia dated from the time the Age Pension was granted is all that is required to re-establish full resident status. But I guess if you stay away longer than six weeks that might be another story.

If you returned to live in Australia and were granted or transferred to Age Pension within the last two years, you will not be able to receive your Age Pension outside the country. After you return, to be paid outside the country, you must have been living in Australia for two years since your last arrival for residence. If you travel to a country that Australia has a social security agreement with, you may be able to continue to get your payment under that social security agreement.

Does not seem fair to me either.

http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/outside-australia#AgePensionPensionSupplement

Thanks.

I've sent a message to Centrelink to seek clarification on "last arrival for residence". If it means the date of return from a short trip, such as my 10 day visit to LOS, I might pursue it further.

With OAP you can apply immediately you return but it can only be paid as long as you remain in Australia. If you leave before you have been on it for 2 years it stops. It can be restarted when you come back but you restart the 2 year waiting time before it can be recieved overseas.

Can you provide a link that shows you must restart the 2-year waiting time? I recently left Australia for 10 days in my first year of return as a former resident and had my pension stopped for the ten days. It was restarted as soon as I arrived back (I'd given them the dates before I left). It would seem odd if another two years waiting time was stacked onto the return date. That could mean that one never becomes a resident.

My understanding is that two years residence in Australia dated from the time the Age Pension was granted is all that is required to re-establish full resident status. But I guess if you stay away longer than six weeks that might be another story.

My bottom 4 from 15 to 18 are Brisbane, St Kilda, Melbourne and GWS. Gold Coast and the Dogs will be the big improvers but will miss the 8

Groan...

I don't think Brisbane can afford another year of disappointment. Their attendances are low enough as they are, GCFC having pulled away a substantial support base.

There's conflict in the club and the AFL have told them to sort it out or there'll be no money for their football department, but I think this will be sorted. The club's in a much better position overall than it was in 2010 before the review.

If new coach Justin Leppitch can regain player morale (knocked a bit by the Voss-Roos fiasco) and make best use of his experience as an assistant then the Lions could shift up a gear.

There was markedly more enthusiasm and confidence among players and supporters in the second half of the season. There's some momentum to take in to 2014. I think the bottom 4 is too pessimistic.

Is it possible it's จิตรลดา without ร ?

The ร is probably part of รโหฐาน in จิตรลดารโหฐาน

If so, it's pronounced จิด-ตฺระ-ละ-ดา according thai-language.com and the RID but if you look around on the internet you'll find most Thai people pronounce it as จิด-ละ-ดา

The ร​ is part of จิตร, which by itself means "drawing, painting, portrayal".

I was referring to the the the second ร in จิตรลดาร (in the original post).

The second ร was my error (cut and paste). Sorry.

Thank you, AyG and David.

I find the Thai explanation a bit small and hard to read, and my reading skills are not wonderful.

"Indra's garden" seems appropriate for a palace in Indra's city, but his garden is normally called Nandana, Kandasara or Parushya, I believe.

Is Chitralada then just a pleasant sylvan spot frequented by Indra? That would suggest that the palace is a temporary thing.

Is the Thai proper noun จิตรลดาร (Chitralada, as in the royal palace) derived from the Sanskrit name Chitraratha, king of the Gandharvas?

@Xangsamhua. just another hypocritical politician fighting for power, remember Howard & his "Core and Non-Core promises"?

Agreeing with you.

The current policy is not about those who seek (rightly or wrongly) asylum in Australia ... but about the electoral fortunes of a Political Party.

But, neither party would do this unless they thought the majority of Australians wished this ... because they are chasing the vote ... hence popular politics.

.

Indeed, and the immediate response has been favourable. However, some doubt seems to be emerging about the practicality, morality and longer-term wisdom of the deal.

Australians are not an unkind people, but they don't like being taken advantage of by the unscrupulous. They may be starting to wonder who is trying to take more advantage of them - people smugglers, fraudulent asylum seekers, or their new (well, resuscitated) Prime Minister.

@Xangsamhua. just another hypocritical politician fighting for power, remember Howard & his "Core and Non-Core promises"?

No. But I don't have a great political memory. I had to look it up in Wikipedia.

I guess a "non-core promise" is a Clayton's promise. A nonsense. Something you give if, like politicians, you live only in the perceivable present, a world in which the future is, to misquote L. P. Hartley, "a foreign country; they will do things differently there".

There is some negative reaction in Oz to PM Rudd's cynical and hypocritical deal with Peter O'Neill.

Apparently there are no written guarantees that the refugees will be resettled in PNG. There's also widespread acknowledgement that PNG's state of violence and criminal targeting of foreigners makes it quite inappropriate as a location for refugees and displaced persons. Most people are believing Christians (combined with animism) and may find an influx of Muslims difficult to accept, and as the country has no welfare system, it will be entirely dependent on Australian largesse to settle refugees there. Poor indigenous residents of the cities and towns may wonder why the refugees are in receipt of support when they do not get any.

I guess the intention is to scare off asylum seekers from even beginning their journey. It's a gamble, and in the first boat to arrive at Christmas Island since the policy was announced, fewer than half the people will be sent to PNG.

Rudd's monumental hypocrisy on this issue is highlighted in this morning's Courier-Mail, by Canberra correspondent, Dennis Atkins.

Party Games: Prime Minister Kevin Rudd once likened his asylum seeker stance to the Good Samaritan parable

In a 7500-word essay published in The Monthly, Rudd argued the case for Christian Social Democracy, using it as a buttress against what he portrayed as the harsh, political approach of John Howard.

In retrospect, it was a brazen declaration from a politician who has as much contact with shame as the NSW State of Origin team has with victory.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/party-games-prime-minister-kevin-rudd-once-likened-his-asylum-seeker-stance-to-the-good-samaritan-parable/story-fnihsr9v-1226682716478

You need to take that up with Bob Carr then. He has said there are far too many illegal economic migrants pretending to be asylum seekers and the criteria is too lenient at present.

Calling illegal immigrants asylum seekers or refugees is just PC. If they were genuine refugees in fear for their life, they'd stay in the first safe country they come to.

Well, short of shooting them, it looks like they're going to come anyway.

$5000 - $10,000 doesn't seem a lot, but it would be better paid to the Commonwealth than to the smugglers. I don't know what a reasonable amount to charge would be, but if it's that important for these people to come here, where they're likely to have a support network, find jobs and raise their children well, then I would think a properly researched charge could be levied on them, such that they can come here legally and safely (I don't like seeing babies and children drown) without all the points that are required at present.

We don't need to restrict ourselves to well educated and well-off Asians, who are the ones getting through on the current points system. We can handle some Hazari Shi'ites, Iraqi Christians, Sri Lankan Hindus and the like. Perhaps we need to be looking at a policy that recognizes the rights as freedoms of people to cross borders, and to regain some of the openness and generosity of spirit that Australia showed towards the boat people of the 70s and 80s (and many of them weren't really political refugees either).

It's a difficult matter, I know. But perhaps Australia is just a bit too picky in regard to whom it welcomes and whom it wants to keep at bay. In the eyes of the world we must look a bit like a continent-sized Trekboer stockade.

PS. Letting them come doesn't mean they should be entitled to welfare payments and easy citizenship. Knowing they'll have to get by without these for perhaps 5 - 10 years might put some of them off, but will not deter those who really want to have a go.

The problem with your suggested approach is that it would cut out 'real' refugees who have nothing, not even 5-10k for the processing fee. . . .

As for the 'well-educated' Asians, nothing wrong with that - we have, unfortunately, created a ghetto-sytem in Australia by taking in fairly well everyone during the 'open doors' stage - not to be confused with the White Australia stage, that created - well, ghettos.

I happened to catch an ABC show on Cabramatta the other night and remember driving through there once to search fro some good food and it was made quite clear to me that I wasn't wanted. No big deal, I dn't claim ownership of the country or any suburb, nor do I resent them for wanting to be among themselves - - - everyone has gone through that, the Italians, Greeks etc...

Well educated Asians, and other well-educated migrants help build Australia, help create and maintain the environment we are used to as a nation.

As for being too picky . . . well, I think we should be and as for well-educated Asians . . . the current flavour of the month by Oz Immigration starts at accounting, goes through to HR and aircraft maintenance and ends with plumbing and printing with many trades in between

Yes, we would need to retain a Humanitarian Program to cater for genuine political and religious refugees and displaced people. The fee would not apply to these people.

Those who by-pass UNHCR holding centres and make their way to Australia in leaky boats are indeed queue-jumpers, but once having got here they are recognized as asylum-seekers, and "asylum" means protection from persecution. If there's no evidence they need protection then they should be deported to their place of origin or an agreed destination. Displaced people would need to be able to show that their displacement is likely to be permanent or of lengthy duration. With refugees and displaced persons, access to welfare payments should be available, but citizenship only after an extended period, say 5 - 10 years.

Re. the well-off and well-educated Asians, it's a cliche, but many of my friends in Oz are these people and I would be diminished if they were not able to live here. Freeing up the criteria for permanent residence (and they were freer, but unfortunately abused, before 1996) and levying a charge won't damage the prospects of the well-off and well-educated. It'll just give more chance to people on a lower rung (not able to meet the points criteria now), but able through their families, or perhaps Australian employer or community sponsorship, to get the money together and get themselves here.

I'm surprised, Sing_Sling, at what you said about Cabramatta. I've only been there once, maybe 15 years ago, during the day and didn't sense any hostility. Our builder, who used to hang out with the gangs in Cabramatta as a teenager, says it's much better now. There are still drug dealers, but the streets are safer at night. I know it's anecdotal, but he may be right.

Incidentally, I think a good part of the gang scene in Sydney and Melbourne in the late 80s and 90s arose from the numbers of unaccompanied adolescent boys in the boats coming from Vietnam. Although they had access to benefits and schooling, it was too late for most of them to succeed in an English-speaking school or academic program. Strong and unscrupulous mentors took them in hand and introduced them to the drugs and gang scene. There is a potential danger in my argument for freeing up entry requirements without access to benefits if some who get in just can't make the grade and turn to gangs or religious fanaticism. This would have to be considered. We don't want a repetition of what happened with the Vietnamese unaccompanied adolescents.

It's all rather complex, but none of the solutions proposed by Libs or Lab or Air Marshal Houston's enquiry seem to be succeeding.

Should Rudd call the election for august? Or should he wait.

He should call it ASAP. He needs to go to the people as an unelected PM. However, I guess he wants to enjoy being PM as long as possible, so will probably put it off as LONG as possible. If the Oz public can't see through him, they deserve to have Labour for another 3 years, along with many many thousands of illegal immigrants off the boats.

Sorry, but those arriving by boat are processed as asylum seekers or refugees; not illegal immigrants. If they are assessed as economic refugees they are eventually returned to their home country. For facts, as opposed to urban myths, go to following URL:

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/docs/news&events/rw/2010/4%20-%20Myths%20and%20facts%20about%20refugees%20and%20asylum%20seekers%202010.pdf

You need to take that up with Bob Carr then. He has said there are far too many illegal economic migrants pretending to be asylum seekers and the criteria is too lenient at present.

Calling illegal immigrants asylum seekers or refugees is just PC. If they were genuine refugees in fear for their life, they'd stay in the first safe country they come to.

Well, short of shooting them, it looks like they're going to come anyway.

$5000 - $10,000 doesn't seem a lot, but it would be better paid to the Commonwealth than to the smugglers. I don't know what a reasonable amount to charge would be, but if it's that important for these people to come here, where they're likely to have a support network, find jobs and raise their children well, then I would think a properly researched charge could be levied on them, such that they can come here legally and safely (I don't like seeing babies and children drown) without all the points that are required at present.

We don't need to restrict ourselves to well educated and well-off Asians, who are the ones getting through on the current points system. We can handle some Hazari Shi'ites, Iraqi Christians, Sri Lankan Hindus and the like. Perhaps we need to be looking at a policy that recognizes the rights as freedoms of people to cross borders, and to regain some of the openness and generosity of spirit that Australia showed towards the boat people of the 70s and 80s (and many of them weren't really political refugees either).

It's a difficult matter, I know. But perhaps Australia is just a bit too picky in regard to whom it welcomes and whom it wants to keep at bay. In the eyes of the world we must look a bit like a continent-sized Trekboer stockade.

PS. Letting them come doesn't mean they should be entitled to welfare payments and easy citizenship. Knowing they'll have to get by without these for perhaps 5 - 10 years might put some of them off, but will not deter those who really want to have a go.

Lets see, an unelected foreign head of state who is chosen based on birth and who can't be Catholic, let alone Australian, gets to choose who nominally holds the reigns of power in Australia. Whether it is based on advice from the far flung regions of an non-existent empire matters not a jot. A resident for president, please.

The monarchy does not 'normally' decide who holds the reigns of power. Where did you get that idea?

1975

Is 1975 considered a 'normal' occurrence?

And you may recall the monarchy did not get a vote in the election to decide who governed the country.

The word Samran used was "nominally", not "normally".

Thailand's English-language proficiency among Asian countries has slipped from 43rd in 2012 to 52nd. Among Southeast Asian countries, it is ranked eighth, ahead only of Laos and Myanmar.

They're gilding the lily a bit. According to a seminar earlier this year, Thailand's TOEFL scores are the lowest in the ASEAN region, on average 50 points lower than those for Laos and Myanmar.

http://www.edvantage.com.sg/edvantage/news/news/1626270/Thais_score_lowest_in_English_proficiency.html

If Rudd can win this election I give up... Gave up a long time ago. Abbott might be an wanke_r but surely he is better than the joke of a Labour party?

Why compare them? Neither Labour nor the coalition is going to govern well. That is no longer possible. Just choose the party you think will govern less badly. It's probably the one that will govern less.

"Age Pension

You can get Age Pension for the whole time you are overseas, regardless of whether you leave Australia temporarily or permanently.

However, the amount of pension you receive may change if you remain outside Australia for more than 26 weeks. Whether or not your payment amount changes will depend on how long you have lived in Australia between age 16 and age pension age. "

From the Human Services web site. Where's the ambiguity?

Thank you SLB.

I can now see the sentences you've quoted on the website.

That looks quite clear to me. But it looks like Centrelink branches have been advising people differently.

I have been told by three people that they can't have their pensions transferred abroad now. One is a dual (Thai-Australian) national; another is a friend who has cut back to six weeks a planned 3-month trip to the States paid for by people over there. Another is a friend of a friend who was planning to spend six months in the US and six months in Oz each year, but has been advised to abandon that idea.

I guess people in this situation should always seek advice from Centrelink International in Hobart.

Cheers

Xangsamhua

Has anyone spoken to Centrelink International regarding the changes in pension portability since 1 July and their impact on people who may be planning to retire in Thailand and have met all the requirements to access the OAP?

I'm in Oz now and have kept open the possibility of returning to Thailand for an extended period once I've been back here for two years, but pensioners I know have been advised that portability is now reduced to 6 weeks, and have changed their plans as a result.

I have been aware of the (now in place) reduced allowable period outside Australia for quite a while, but understood it to apply to (1) people who are resident in Australia and (2) to allowances, not the core pension. However others have been advised differently.

I assume from the absence of complaint in this forum that Australian age pension recipients resident in Thailand have not been affected. However, I'm not sure how potential retirees in Thailand may be affected.

There is some ambiguity in my mind in the following statements from the Australian Government page on the topic. I've highlighted in red the parts that seem especially relevant.

From 1 January 2013 generally all payments are portable for up to 6 weeks (for most payments, only for temporary absences). Specific conditions must be met for some payments.

The 6 week portability period is subject to continuing qualification for the payment and nothing in the portability rules confers a right on a recipient to continue to be paid if the recipient is not qualified for the payment (section 1212D). This means that qualification for the payment overrides any portability provisions.

Portability is defined in terms of payability, i.e. as long as a person qualifies for a payment the payment can be paid for temporary absences of up to 6 weeks. Ancillary payments such as RA and PhA are also portable for up to 26 weeks (6 weeks for TAL) for temporary absences only if the main payment is portable indefinitely.

Entitled WidB, entitled WP and Age are portable indefinitely. Terminally ill DSP recipients who are severely disabled and those who have a severe and permanent impairment and no future work capacity, may also have unlimited portability for permanent departures. These recipients with unlimited portability may have their payments proportionalised after 26 weeks of absence if their AWLR is less than 25 years (there are special rules if the recipient is departing to New Zealand). Some of these recipients may also retain the 20 September 2000 savings provision (see below).

http://guidesacts.fahcsia.gov.au/guides_acts/ssg/ssguide-7/ssguide-7.1/ssguide-7.1.1/ssguide-7.1.1.10.html

Why not open up? What's wrong with immigrants/refugees/displaced people/people who tell porkies to get in? The United States and Australia have benefited enormously from immigrants, regardless of their motivations.

But should every immigrant be entitled to social security? Should citizenship be freely available after only 3 years? Should ghettoization of the less assimilable be encouraged and nurtured? Probably not.

I'd be happy to see Waziri Afghans, Sri Lankan Tamils, and whoever, come to make a new life in Australia, but they should pay for the right. Let them come, but pay the money their families have got together for them to the Australian taxpayer rather than to people smugglers. Let them pool their resources and work hard for 10 years in Oz before gaining citizenship. In the meantime they can send their kids to school and have all the rights of permanent residence, but citizenship and the right to vote should be a highly prized privilege.

Australia opened its arms to Indochinese refugees in the 1970s and 80s and, with small exceptions, they've worked hard and been good citizens. I suspect others, if they've got the initiative to get to Australia, will be the same. We just have to remove (1) the middle man/people smuggler, (2) the red tape (points system) in emigration to Australia, and (3) the host society's fear of the stranger, especially if he or she looks different and speaks another language.

Of course, security and health checks will be necessary, and people who enter illegally and do not meet the requirements will be deported (as will those who arrive legally and commit serious crimes), but there will be no reason to arrive illegally unless you have something to hide.

Australia needs my "None Of the Above" as a legal choice on any ballot.

That's when a majority of the electorate votes "None Of the Above" and if that choice wins a majority vote of all the candidates ..... then the vote is nulled, the election is declared invalid, and another election must be scheduled after a minimum of 90 days for a campaign and a breathing period.

My slogan for my "None of the above" party vote would be this

"This country's future is to important to let the d_mn fool politicians run the country".

I suspect most Australian politicians aren't too bad. Not angels, no, but how many of the voters are angels?

It's the ones that'll do anything to be leader that worry me.

Rudd knows more about the CCP-PRC than perhaps any political leader in Australia, is fluent in Mandarin. How many leaders of countries, or FMs, are fluent in Mandarin?

Not everyone in the China field is impressed with Kevin Rudd's abilities.

In order to understand the nature of this problem, one needs to go no further than the example of a former Prime Minister with credible spoken Chinese but no evident comprehension of Chinese or other Asian cultural and political realities.

Reg Little, The Crisis in Western Thought, http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15109&page=2

It is easy to see the faults of others; we winnow
them like chaff. It is hard to see our own; we
hide them as a gambler hides a losing draw.

But when one keeps dwelling on the faults
of others, his own compulsions grow worse,
making it harder to overcome them.

Dhammapada 252-253

Would love to go, but a bit too far from where I live now (Brisbane).