2 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Sure, but as other's have pointed out, the loss of supplement/s money may not justify the the return to Australia every 3 months, based on a cost versus reward analysis.

The whole game MAY change where it definitely becomes justified should one have 30% of their pension withheld if / when the residency laws change.

So, those ruling it out, solely based on the loss of supplements, should also consider the potential lose of 30% of their pension, and whether that would change their stance, thus, the idea you put forward takes on further significance, so, totally on topic.

Fair enough, but the tax residency side of things is still speculative at this stage and could easily become a lengthy discussion in its own right. It would probably work better as a separate thread so this one can remain focused on the current supplement arrangements 👍

8 minutes ago, Nemises said:

Fair enough, but the tax residency side of things is still speculative at this stage and could easily become a lengthy discussion in its own right. It would probably work better as a separate thread so this one can remain focused on the current supplement arrangements 👍

I'll leave it at that.

I merely wanted to raise the point that whilst the loss of supplement/s money would not sway many to return, the loss of 30% of their pension certain would.

I stand by my suspicion of the government for increasing this time outside of Australia before losing supplement/s.

Why have they done this? Why now? What put it on the radar for them? Why would they accept the loss of revenue from this policy? They haven't done it out of the kindness of their heart. It will be tied into something else at some stage.

18 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

I'll leave it at that.

I merely wanted to raise the point that whilst the loss of supplement/s money would not sway many to return, the loss of 30% of their pension certain would.

I stand by my suspicion of the government for increasing this time outside of Australia before losing supplement/s.

Why have they done this? Why now? What put it on the radar for them? Why would they accept the loss of revenue from this policy? They haven't done it out of the kindness of their heart. It will be tied into something else at some stage.

All fair questions, but they’re probably better explored in a dedicated tax residency/government policy thread. This thread was really just intended to discuss the practical impact of the supplement change itself 👍

51 minutes ago, Nemises said:

All fair questions, but they’re probably better explored in a dedicated tax residency/government policy thread. This thread was really just intended to discuss the practical impact of the supplement change itself 👍

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

I'll leave it at that.

I merely wanted to raise the point that whilst the loss of supplement/s money would not sway many to return, the loss of 30% of their pension certain would.

I stand by my suspicion of the government for increasing this time outside of Australia before losing supplement/s.

Why have they done this? Why now? What put it on the radar for them? Why would they accept the loss of revenue from this policy? They haven't done it out of the kindness of their heart. It will be tied into something else at some stage.

Read the article I posted earlier in this thread.

One reason they have changed rules is to save money.

A quote from the article,

"It’s expected to save the budget $218 million over five years and deliver ongoing savings of around $63.8 million per year"

So they are not accepting a loss

Edited May 19May 19 by ozfarang

23 hours ago, ozfarang said:

Read the article I posted earlier in this thread.

One reason they have changed rules is to save money.

A quote from the article,

"It’s expected to save the budget $218 million over five years and deliver ongoing savings of around $63.8 million per year"

So they are not accepting a loss

I read the article.

I fail to see how paying supplement/s for an extra 6 weeks will save the government money, not to mention, the loss of GST and other taxes, fees, levies, tolls etc from pensioners not purchasing inside the Australian economy for the extra 6 weeks away.

The savings could come from the honesty of some pensioners who declare they are moving permanently and the supplements are cut from day one, but I think most would just leave and take the 3 months supplement/s and then just have the government cut the supplement/s off. This would involve stronger enforcement. Does this ring a bell in relation to the impending 183 days non resident tax changes? 🙂

Edited May 20May 20 by KhunHeineken

On 5/19/2026 at 4:34 AM, Nemises said:

All fair questions, but they’re probably better explored in a dedicated tax residency/government policy thread. This thread was really just intended to discuss the practical impact of the supplement change itself 👍

Well, the practical impact is pensioners can now holiday longer before losing their supplements.

This also means pensioners who are leaving Australia permanently, but don't declare their true intentions to Centerlink, get 3 months of supplement/s instead of 6 weeks, before being cut off.

Is there any "punishment" for a pensioner who leaves Australia without informing Centerlink they are not returning to Australia? As far as I know, Centerlink knows you are outside of Australia for 6 weeks, and cuts off the supplement/s. No "fine" or other fee to pay for not informing them you will be outside of Australia for more than 6 weeks, or not returning to Australia.

As mentioned in another post, somehow, the government says this policy is going to same them money.

9 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Well, the practical impact is pensioners can now holiday longer before losing their supplements.

This also means pensioners who are leaving Australia permanently, but don't declare their true intentions to Centerlink, get 3 months of supplement/s instead of 6 weeks, before being cut off.

Is there any "punishment" for a pensioner who leaves Australia without informing Centerlink they are not returning to Australia? As far as I know, Centerlink knows you are outside of Australia for 6 weeks, and cuts off the supplement/s. No "fine" or other fee to pay for not informing them you will be outside of Australia for more than 6 weeks, or not returning to Australia.

As mentioned in another post, somehow, the government says this policy is going to same them money.

Sure, but now we’re drifting into hypothetical Centrelink compliance scenarios rather than the actual supplement change itself.

If someone deliberately misleads Centrelink about permanently leaving Australia, that’s obviously a separate issue from whether the grace period is 6 weeks or 3 months. The policy change affects everyone equally — holidaymakers, long-stay travellers and permanent departures alike 👍

As for the “saves money” claim, governments usually model these things across the whole system, not just one example scenario someone can think up on a forum.

18 minutes ago, Nemises said:

Sure, but now we’re drifting into hypothetical Centrelink compliance scenarios rather than the actual supplement change itself.

No, it's not a hypothetical, it is statistical fact.

If we ran an informal poll here, how many members would say they informed Centerlink they would be outside of Australia for more than 6 weeks, as opposed to those who didn't bother?

20 minutes ago, Nemises said:

If someone deliberately misleads Centrelink about permanently leaving Australia, that’s obviously a separate issue from whether the grace period is 6 weeks or 3 months. The policy change affects everyone equally — holidaymakers, long-stay travellers and permanent departures alike

I don't see how one not informing Centerlink they will be outside of Australia for 6 weeks, or in the future 12 weeks, is off topic.

22 minutes ago, Nemises said:

As for the “saves money” claim, governments usually model these things across the whole system, not just one example scenario someone can think up on a forum.

Perhaps you can explain how this policy is going to save the government money.

37 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

No, it's not a hypothetical, it is statistical fact.

If we ran an informal poll here, how many members would say they informed Centerlink they would be outside of Australia for more than 6 weeks, as opposed to those who didn't bother?

That may well be true, but it’s still a different discussion to the actual policy change itself.

You’re now debating whether some people comply with reporting obligations — which exists regardless of whether the threshold is 6 weeks, 12 weeks, or anything else.

41 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Perhaps you can explain how this policy is going to save the government money.

I never claimed it would save money — I said governments generally model policy changes across the broader system before implementing them.

Sometimes the goal is administrative simplicity, consistency, or reducing compliance overhead, not necessarily direct savings from every individual case someone can imagine on a forum.

43 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

I don't see how one not informing Centerlink they will be outside of Australia for 6 weeks, or in the future 12 weeks, is off topic.

Because the thread is about the supplement rule changing from 6 weeks to 12 weeks — not about whether some people comply with reporting requirements.

You’ve shifted the discussion from “what changed and how it affects pensioners” to “some people might not tell Centrelink things,” which is a broader compliance debate that exists under any timeframe.

1 minute ago, Nemises said:

Because the thread is about the supplement rule changing from 6 weeks to 12 weeks — not about whether some people comply with reporting requirements.

You’ve shifted the discussion from “what changed and how it affects pensioners” to “some people might not tell Centrelink things,” which is a broader compliance debate that exists under any timeframe.

If that's the case, I suggest you request a Mod close the thread.

We have all been informed of the change from 6 weeks to 12 weeks for the supplement/s payment.

You call any discussion around the change as off topic, so the thread becomes useless and should be closed.

8 minutes ago, Nemises said:

I never claimed it would save money

The government claimed it would save money. Can you see how / where?

9 minutes ago, Nemises said:

Sometimes the goal is administrative simplicity, consistency, or reducing compliance overhead, not necessarily direct savings from every individual case someone can imagine on a forum.

So, they pay out more for an extra 6 weeks and make it up in administration savings. 🤣

4 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

If that's the case, I suggest you request a Mod close the thread.

We have all been informed of the change from 6 weeks to 12 weeks for the supplement/s payment.

You call any discussion around the change as off topic, so the thread becomes useless and should be closed.

Not at all. Discussion about the change itself is obviously on topic — impacts on travel patterns, admin processes, pensioner behaviour, costs, convenience etc.

What I called off topic was the repeated pivot into “some people might secretly emigrate and not tell Centrelink,” because that’s a generic compliance issue that exists under virtually any policy setting.

2 minutes ago, Nemises said:

Not at all. Discussion about the change itself is obviously on topic — impacts on travel patterns, admin processes, pensioner behaviour, costs, convenience etc.

What I called off topic was the repeated pivot into “some people might secretly emigrate and not tell Centrelink,” because that’s a generic compliance issue that exists under virtually any policy setting.

No "repeated pivot." So, let's hear from members in an informal poll.

Question: Do you inform Centerlink when you are going overseas and you know it will be for longer than 6 weeks?

Nothing to do "secretly emigrating." It could simply be a 3 month holiday. Think, "Snowbirds."

10 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

No "repeated pivot." So, let's hear from members in an informal poll.

Question: Do you inform Centerlink when you are going overseas and you know it will be for longer than 6 weeks?

Nothing to do "secretly emigrating." It could simply be a 3 month holiday. Think, "Snowbirds."

If the discussion is going to shift into compliance habits and polling behaviour, that’s a different thread topic altogether.

Back for a day, already made > 30 posts but added next to nothing. Only here to stir up trouble.

No change from every other "holiday" absence.

1 minute ago, treetops said:

Back for a day, already made > 30 posts but added next to nothing. Only here to stir up trouble.

No change from every other "holiday" absence.

The Australia Forum was thriving while I was away. YOU contributed soooooooo much. 🤣

29 minutes ago, Nemises said:

If the discussion is going to shift into compliance habits and polling behaviour, that’s a different thread topic altogether.

If YOU think such a small shift is off topic, once again, request the thread be closed.

We have all been informed of the change in policy. There's nothing else left to discuss, otherwise, you call it "shifting" and "pivoting."

7 minutes ago, treetops said:

Back for a day, already made > 30 posts but added next to nothing. Only here to stir up trouble.

No change from every other "holiday" absence.

How Bl$#&y true. Always the same, always has to have the last say.

Pathetic individual

18 minutes ago, ozfarang said:

How Bl$#&y true. Always the same, always has to have the last say.

Pathetic individual

Where did you say the savings in the article you posted were coming from again? 🤣

1 hour ago, ozfarang said:

How Bl$#&y true.

Why did you disguise 'Bloody'?

5 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

No, it's not a hypothetical, it is statistical fact.

If we ran an informal poll here, how many members would say they informed Centerlink they would be outside of Australia for more than 6 weeks, as opposed to those who didn't bother?

I don't see how one not informing Centerlink they will be outside of Australia for 6 weeks, or in the future 12 weeks, is off topic.

Perhaps you can explain how this policy is going to save the government money.

As others have said the basic reason for this is to cut the basic supplement to those overseas leading to significant savings. To make it look less bad they have extended the period you can get the full supplement while overseas from 6 to 12 weeks. They have worked out they'll save a lot as most won't regularly come and go in the way noted here.

15 hours ago, SAFETY FIRST said:

Why did you disguise 'Bloody'?

So you could add 1 more post to you 11,900 🤣

26 minutes ago, ozfarang said:

So you could add 1 more post to you 11,900 🤣

Thankyou, now 11901.👍

13 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

As others have said the basic reason for this is to cut the basic supplement to those overseas leading to significant savings. To make it look less bad they have extended the period you can get the full supplement while overseas from 6 to 12 weeks. They have worked out they'll save a lot as most won't regularly come and go in the way noted here.

I think that’s probably spot on, especially for people living far from Australia where regular trips back just aren’t practical or affordable. Extending it from 6 to 12 weeks softens the optics a bit while still likely reducing long-term payments overall.

But as already pointed out on here, for those of us living relatively close by in Asia, the new timeframe actually makes the “come and go” option far more realistic than it used to be.

As I’ve already mentioned in this thread, going back 4 times a year could equate to roughly a $2,600 gain annually, plus the bonus of catching up with family and mates while restocking easy-to-carry essentials like decent cheese, chocolate and other things that are either expensive or hard to get locally.

On 5/19/2026 at 10:48 AM, KhunHeineken said:

That's why I said, "On a side note."

My point being, returning to Australia every 3 months MAY see aged pensioners save / keep more than just their supplement/s in the future.

Returning could be worth thousands of dollars more than just the supplement/s money. It's worth considering, and forming a strategy, not only for retaining the supplement/s, but also for the inevitable changes to tax residency laws, keeping in mind that the pension is deemed an income at law.

The old BS theory from you was 'inevitable' 🙋

On 5/20/2026 at 11:59 AM, Fat is a type of crazy said:

As others have said the basic reason for this is to cut the basic supplement to those overseas leading to significant savings.

It already gest cut after 6 weeks, so why the "free" extra 6 weeks?

Unless, they have enforcement issues, meaning it's not actually getting cut off after 6 weeks, and they will put better enforcement in place.

On 5/20/2026 at 11:59 AM, Fat is a type of crazy said:

To make it look less bad they have extended the period you can get the full supplement while overseas from 6 to 12 weeks. They have worked out they'll save a lot as most won't regularly come and go in the way noted here.

What is there to make "look less bad" unless there's something to hide?

I don't trust the Australian government, particularly the ATO.

They are giving away 6 weeks more supplements, which are cut off after 6 weeks anyway, and then claiming it's going to save them money, not to mention lost GST etc for the extra time people are away.

"Beware of a wolf in sheep's clothing." I would not be surprised if down the track the government declares 3 months outside of Australia, on a full pension, and with full supplements is more than generous for pensioners, then BOOM, the 183 days kicks in.

Let the trolling begin. 😃

26 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

It already gest cut after 6 weeks, so why the "free" extra 6 weeks?

Unless, they have enforcement issues, meaning it's not actually getting cut off after 6 weeks, and they will put better enforcement in place.

What is there to make "look less bad" unless there's something to hide?

I don't trust the Australian government, particularly the ATO.

They are giving away 6 weeks more supplements, which are cut off after 6 weeks anyway, and then claiming it's going to save them money, not to mention lost GST etc for the extra time people are away.

"Beware of a wolf in sheep's clothing." I would not be surprised if down the track the government declares 3 months outside of Australia, on a full pension, and with full supplements is more than generous for pensioners, then BOOM, the 183 days kicks in.

Let the trolling begin. 😃

Not sure if you missed it but it seems people were entitled to a full supplement for 6 weeks and then a basic supplement for ever. Now they are extending the full one from 6 to 12 weeks and then removing the entitlement to the basic supplement. So most people worse off if staying overseas but with a slight sweetener for those who come and go from time to time.

12 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Not sure if you missed it but it seems people were entitled to a full supplement for 6 weeks and then a basic supplement for ever. Now they are extending the full one from 6 to 12 weeks and then removing the entitlement to the basic supplement. So most people worse off if staying overseas but with a slight sweetener for those who come and go from time to time.

Yes, I did miss that. Thanks.

Now I can see where they are making the savings.

So, they give with one hand and take with the other. Nothing new about that. 🙂