Australian Aged Pension

[OLDAUSSIE]

So how did the meeting go in Phuket last Thursday?

[catwho]

So how did the meeting go in Phuket last Thursday?

IS someone writing a book on the phuket meeting ....seems that way OZZIE,well anyone GO.

cat

Edited June 17, 2011 by catwho

[OLDAUSSIE]

From Kenny's Aussie Bar - Phuket

"Information session on rules regarding claims and qualification for Australian Pensions, presented by currrent Centrelink representative with 21 years' experience (in Centrelink International Services and International Program in Hobart). Hear it straight from someone who knows and , rather than from hearsay and "that's what I heard from a friend of a friend of mine" type stuff that you get from forums. Will be able to explain rules regarding qualification, payment outside Australia, and anything else relating to pensions (not visas or immigration matters). No advice can be provide on individual cases - this is a general information session only - with the intention of explaining legislation and dispelling rumours and myths which appear on forums, and providing details of who to contact for further information and advice if required before making life altering decisions."

This is being held in Karon, at Kenny's Aussie Bar, on Thursday, 9th June at 2:00pm.

Speaker is from Hobart office.

I phoned C/L international about this so called meeting and they told me that they have "No Knowledge" at all about such a meeting.....

This was just a hype add put on thaivisa by Kenny's Aussie Bar to try & increase busines.

Is Business really that bad in Phuket?

Edited June 19, 2011 by OLDAUSSIE

[HPOS]

Dear Old Aussie

The meeting was run and very well attended. It was an information session, presented by me, on my own time, for no payment, as a community service to the ex-pats living in the Phuket area. It was fully sanctioned by the International Program in Hobart, and those who attended will attest to the fact that I was there representing Centrelink. Note that no payment was received by me at all, either from Kenny's Aussie Bar, attendees or indeed my employer. The 4 hours that I spent talking and fielding questions, as well as the several hours spent preparing for the session, were in my own time and taken as part of my annual Recreation Leave. The Call Centre in Hobart would not have had any knowledge of this - it was all done through the International Program (part of National Support Office outposted in Hobart) rather than International Services ( the operational side).

Those who attended were very grateful for the information provided.

From Kenny's Aussie Bar - Phuket

"Information session on rules regarding claims and qualification for Australian Pensions, presented by currrent Centrelink representative with 21 years' experience (in Centrelink International Services and International Program in Hobart). Hear it straight from someone who knows and , rather than from hearsay and "that's what I heard from a friend of a friend of mine" type stuff that you get from forums. Will be able to explain rules regarding qualification, payment outside Australia, and anything else relating to pensions (not visas or immigration matters). No advice can be provide on individual cases - this is a general information session only - with the intention of explaining legislation and dispelling rumours and myths which appear on forums, and providing details of who to contact for further information and advice if required before making life altering decisions."

This is being held in Karon, at Kenny's Aussie Bar, on Thursday, 9th June at 2:00pm.

Speaker is from Hobart office.

I phoned C/L international about this so called meeting and they told me that they have "No Knowledge" at all about such a meeting.....

This was just a hype add put on thaivisa by Kenny's Aussie Bar to try & increase busines.

Is Business really that bad in Phuket?

[HPOS]

Hi Old Croc

This is where the fact that different Acts have different definitions of different terms gets confusing.

In the Social Security Act 1991 (SSA 1991), Part 1.2 is devoted to defining terms which have a specific meaning in the legislation. All definitions start off with the phrase : "In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears...." This is common among all legislative acts in Australia. So, for the purposes of Social Security law, Section 7 starts off as saying "In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears, "Australian resident" has the meaning given by subsection 2. This means that this definition, and no other, is to be used when interpretting the SSA 1991.

So while the Migration Act and Australian Citizenship Act (and even the Taxation laws, Immigration, Health legislation etc) say one thing, for the purposes of social security and the administration of payments made under the SSA 1991, the definitions in that Act are all that matter. So, as such, being a citizen/permanent visa holder and residing in Australia are both paramount to being an Australian resident for social security purposes. The only words which must have the same meaning in every act are stipulated in the "Acts Interpretation Act 1901" and covers such things as references to distance, time, offices etc.

Interestingly under the Citizenship Act, Norfolk Island is defined as being part of Australia, hence, those born on Norfolk Is are Australian citizens. However, under the SSA (S7(4), residence Norfolk Is is specifically excluded as being residence in Australia for pension purposes......

I am aware of a number of cases which have followed the appeal process to the top, and this has never been challenged or identified as being unconstitutional.

Something else which may help is the "Guide to Social Security Law" which is the official statement from FaHCSIA on how social security law is to be interpretted. It is available on the FaHCSIA website at http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/guides_acts/ssg/ssg-rn.html

Hope this helps!

C

As yes, S7(3) is pretty crappy!

To Old Croc, the rule is 2 years out of the last 5 , as a permanent resident in Oz..I hadn't achieved that, as I had been a permanent resident in Thailand for more than 5 years. That is why I was forced to spend at least a minimum of 2 years ,as a permanent resident in Oz..Before my pension became "portable ,and I was able to return to Thailand.And Centrelink are linked in to Immigrations computers,

I've been in Thailand for nearly a year, just had my 63rd birthday. I would be ok with a 2 years out of the last 5 in Australia (before 65) rule, by about 3 weeks. I had thought you had to be in Oz for the last 2 years before 65.

There is no 2 years out of the last 5 years rule! It depends on whether you can still be considered an Australian resident or not as defined by social security law. Are you living in THailand or just there on an extended holiday? Did you sell up and move (in the same way as you would do if you moved from Melbourne to Sydney, or is your "stuff" such as assets, immediate family etc still in Australia waiting for you to come "home"? What were your intentions when you left for Thailand? Is it considered to be a holiday or a change in permanent location? All of this is taken into account. If, based on all of this, it is determined that you are living in Thailand, then, once you are 65, you would have to prove that you are back in Australia to live permanently in order to be granted, and then that pension would not be payable to you outside Australia until you had been a resident of Australia since return for 2 years.

I stress, there are no rules such as 2 years out of the last five - I could leave Australia tomorrow and be considered to have left permanently if all the indicators pointed to that! Section 7(3) of the Social Security Act 1991 states what must be taken into account when a Centrelink officer with appropriate delegation makes the determination as to whether a claimant is a resident or not, and whether past absences are to count as Australian residence.

I have some questions:

Under "The Australian Citizenship Act" and "The Migration Act" an Australian Citizen has complete rights of residence in Australia and is entitled to the same rights and privileges as all other citizens.

So, how can your department interpret S.7(3) of your Act to exclude an Australian Citizen, in Australia, of the same rights as every other citizen??

How can your department decide a citizen has to complete a 2 year residential period in the same manner as a Chinese citz on a Temporary Entry Permit???

Has this been tested in Federal or High Court?

I'm still studying 7(3) (a crappy piece of legislation!), but so far I think your interpretations, in regards to Citizens, are incorrect and unconstitutional.

[DangerousDavies]

Hi C,

what exactly is this "International Program"?

Can you provide a link to it please, some of us who missed the Kenny's Bar show might like the information as well.

Can you also provide a link to the cases that went "äll the way to the top" of the appeals process. The top being the High Court of Australia it shouldn't be too difficult.

Where the Social Security HandBook defines residency it uses the term "depends on". Why doesn't it define residency implicitly? It should be easy enough to include phrases like "a resident under the Act is some one who spends three months, ...or six months ...or nine months... a year in Australia"?

Why is Centrelink removing people's residency without warning? If their residency status is in danger aren't they entitled to know, considering the vagueness of the Act?

DD

[OLDAUSSIE]

Hi C,

what exactly is this "International Program"?

Can you provide a link to it please, some of us who missed the Kenny's Bar show might like the information as well.

Can you also provide a link to the cases that went "äll the way to the top" of the appeals process. The top being the High Court of Australia it shouldn't be too difficult.

Where the Social Security HandBook defines residency it uses the term "depends on". Why doesn't it define residency implicitly? It should be easy enough to include phrases like "a resident under the Act is some one who spends three months, ...or six months ...or nine months... a year in Australia"?

Why is Centrelink removing people's residency without warning? If their residency status is in danger aren't they entitled to know, considering the vagueness of the Act?

DD

I would also like the answers to DD questions, if you can spare the time C

[OLDAUSSIE]

Hi C,

what exactly is this "International Program"?

Can you provide a link to it please, some of us who missed the Kenny's Bar show might like the information as well.

Can you also provide a link to the cases that went "äll the way to the top" of the appeals process. The top being the High Court of Australia it shouldn't be too difficult.

Where the Social Security HandBook defines residency it uses the term "depends on". Why doesn't it define residency implicitly? It should be easy enough to include phrases like "a resident under the Act is some one who spends three months, ...or six months ...or nine months... a year in Australia"?

Why is Centrelink removing people's residency without warning? If their residency status is in danger aren't they entitled to know, considering the vagueness of the Act?

DD

I would also like the answers to DD questions, if you can spare the time C

HPOS We are still waiting for your answers.

[Jessi]

I have been watching this thread for some time waiting for HPOS to answer DD questions...

It looks as if HPOS has disappeared just as quick as he/she appeared.

Perhaps oldaussie was correct in saying that it was just some hype put on by a bar in Phuket to get some extra business. Sad if true.

[electau]

Definition of residence requirements for DSS (Centrelink). RE Age Pension.

http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/payments/age_residence.htm

International.

http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/international/index.htm

[cheynewalk]

I was told by a centrelink staff member of a way to get around the 2 years residency in the last 5 years rule. You return to oz say, when you're 64 years 6 months, tell them you're broke and go on the dole. When you hit 65 you automatically click over to the age pension and you have portability straight away. Of course you must remain in oz for 6 months whilst on the dole beforehand.

[Will27]

I have been watching this thread for some time waiting for HPOS to answer DD questions...

It looks as if HPOS has disappeared just as quick as he/she appeared.

Perhaps oldaussie was correct in saying that it was just some hype put on by a bar in Phuket to get some extra business. Sad if true.

I don't know why people seem to think that HPOS is obliged to answer questions.

He has stated that he works for Centrelink and provided a free information session

in a bar in Phuket that was sanctioned by Centrelink.

Other than that, he is just another forum member.

He probably realises that for every question he answers, there is going to be a dozen more

and he has neither the time or inclination to keep answering them.

There have been some good links to websites for more information.

Regards

Will

[fishhooks]

Yes those links a few posts above, basically state the nuts and bolts of it all.

[malt25]

Hi.

I'm pretty much in the same boat, want to retire in LOS when I turn 65 in 2 years from now. I've been doing plenty of research. I've visited my local Centrelink office. They referred me to International Services.

Centrelink International Services:

• can advise you whether or not your payment from Centrelink can be paid outside Australia
• can advise you whether an International Social Security Agreement may be able to help you claim an Australian pension
• are the central clearing point for processing non-Australian pension claims. If we can't help you claim your pension from another country, we can tell you who can help you.

Centrelink International Services has staff available who can speak a range of languages including Spanish, Italian, Greek, Dutch, Danish, Serbian, Portuguese, French, Macedonian, German, Croatian, Polish and Bosnian.

For more information about Centrelink International Services, you can:

• view the Centrelink International Services factsheet in the We Speak Your Language section of the website
• phone 13 1673 from within Australia or see International Numbers if you are outside Australia
• fax (03) 6222 2799 from within Australia or +61 3 6222 2799 if you are outside Australia
• email [email protected] - Note: Attachments can not be opened. Ensure your entire message is included in the body of your email
• send a letter to Centrelink International Services at PO Box 7809, Canberra BC ACT 2610, Australia.

I've had indepth conversation & gave all my personal info. I've worked in Oz all my life. Main point is 25 years + I'll lodge my aged pension claim here in Oz.. I'm entitled to basic pension till the day I fall off the perch no matter where I live. They even commented they will pay into thai bank account if I wish.. it'll go into my Oz account. No additional benefits will apply, just the basic aged pension.

Hope this helps a bit.

Cheers.... Mal.

[fishhooks]

Guess everyone's retired and happy, the thread has gone on vacation.

Heard briefly on a radio news a couple of days back that Oz Pensions have risen. Very 'slightly' I imagine

[catwho]

Guess everyone's retired and happy, the thread has gone on vacation.

Heard briefly on a radio news a couple of days back that Oz Pensions have risen. Very 'slightly' I imagine

My mate just came back doing the 2yrs eligbility,he use still go back for months at a time and has a unit there.

he has a condo in wifes name,in pattaya,[was in he's]he told them against account's advice,they took this as an asset.He informed them he wanted to return to thailand, they said ok but he will be reviewed in 6 mts,he also was told if he stayed in thailand longer than 12 mts [if approved]his unrented unit would be classed as an asset and he's pension would drop again,he gets $490 a fortnight.

he did this through the international branch.

cat

[guapo]

Politicians are the once rotting the system, and spending money that it's not theirs to spend.

The age Pension fund in this country was established in 1946 as an obligation payment of 7 1/2 % passed by legislation to the tax department , previous and current governments have been in fact up and till now collecting it as a tax .

It's not the young Australians that are funding it, as they wont us to believe, it has nothing to do with the current recession or world economies, citizens have been funding their own Pension but all government have very little or no intention to pay it, because the money has been wasted elsewhere, instead they continue to legislate and change the goal posts forcing citizen to believe whatever.

1942 - the Federal Government gained sole control over Australian Income Tax. Labor Prime minister (Ben Chifley) introduced three bills to establish the National Welfare Fund, to be financed by a Compulsory Contribution (levy) of one and sixpence in the Pound (20/-) on all personal income.

1943- Opposition Leader (Robert Menzies) stated that the Compulsory Contribution (levy) should be kept completely separate. That it should be shown separately on the Taxation Assessment and paid straight into a “TRUST” account and not mixed with the General Revenue.

Menzies said “The stigma of charity should be removed from the Age Pension.” “It should be an entitlement earned by the person’s personal contribution to the fund.”

1946- Prime Minister Chifley agreed and established The National Welfare fund as at 1/1/1946. A “Trust” Fund with the Parliament as “Trustee.”

The Compulsory Contributions (levy) commenced as at 1st January 1946. It was shown separately on the personal Tax Assessments for 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949 and 1950 and the compulsory levy was properly paid straight into the Special “Trust” fund and welfare claims were paid out of the fund.

The balance in the fund in 1950 was almost 100 million pounds.

1949- Robert Menzies became Prime Minister and he introduced Bills to amend the acts governing the National Welfare Funds.

The Compulsory Contributions (levy) was then grouped with the Taxation Assessment and appeared as one amount on the Taxation assessments and was paid as one amount straight into the Consolidated Revenue Account.

1951 - 1985

The compulsory levy of 7.5% now included in the tax continued to be collected and placed in the Consolidated Revenue Account treated as General Revenue and spent, until 1985.

1974 - 1975

Labor Prime Minister (Gough Whitlam) abolished income test for all persons 70 years of age and over and paid pensions to all people over that age.

1975- Liberal Prime Minister (Malcolm Fraser) cancelled the Whitlam achievement of abolishing the tests for all 70 years of age and over.

1977- Liberal Prime Minister (Malcolm Fraser with Treasurer Philip Lynch) transferred the balance in the Welfare Fund Account (approximately $470,000,000) to Consolidated Revenue Account.

1985- Australian Labor Government repealed acts No. 39, 40 and 41 of 1945 (The National Welfare Fund Acts). Thus the funds finally ceased to exist yet the 7.5% levy continued to be collected as a proportion of the Income Tax revenue. It also introduced the Income and Asset Tests, thereby excluding millions of levy and tax paying Australians from receiving Social Services Pensions.

Actuaries have calculated the non-means tested entitlement due to each retiree, today is in excess of $500 per week.

Most Politicians never have been able to call a "Spade a spade" their greed forces them to keep changing rules just to secure their re election and promise all those fantastic achievements, spending money that it is not their own. If they knew their history and honesty was their motto they would understand that.

THIS TAX IS STILL COLLECTED TO THIS DAY TO PROVIDE FOR THE SUPPLY AND CONTINUATION OF THE OLD AGE PENSION. ELEDERLY CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY WHO HAVE WORKED FOR DECADES OF THEIR LIVES TO BUILD A NATION AND HAVE FROM WORKING DAY ONE OF THEIR LIVES, BEEN PAYING 7% PLUS OF THEIR TAXES DIRECTLY TOWARDS THEIR PENSION.

Politicians must get their facts right and stop the BULL SHIT The old age pension is just that “Old Age Pension” it’s not welfare that we as a nation can not any longer afford, as they put it , but instead it's money owned and accrued by each Australian Citizen who has funded this asset from their very own purse.

The governments of the day were employed to amass, secure, invest and manage a fund that in its first 5 years bulged to almost £100,000,000 ( an amount in that day that equates to this day to approximately Au $240 million.

So take out this money that has been hidden into the consolidated Revenue bucket,…. and pay it out without any strings attached. That bucket has been simmering with a 7.5% tax, collected specifically and only, for the Old Age Pension.

If need be , stop paying , dole recipients and the bludgers, there are few millions in this country..make them work so that they to can fund their own retirement.

Some historic facts were sourced at:

http://static.moadoph.gov.au/ophgovau/media/images/apmc/docs/16-Chifley-Web.pdf

http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/chifley-joseph-benedict-ben-9738

http://www.menziesera.com/people/menzies.htm

http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/search/?keyword=wellfare+fund

http://www.cotaaustralia.org.au/e107_files/COTA_documents/publications/media_releases/truth_about_pensions.pdf

[AussieBernie]

I have just read all the information here and thank you to all that have given such a lot of information.

Here is my case;

I have lived in Thailand for the last 10 years and have never returned to Australia in that time.

I would definitely be classified as a former resident and I am sure that I have to do my 2 years back in OZ.

I turn 63 in July next year and intend to go back and front up to Cenrelink and say, that I have lost all my money in Thailand and have come back to OZ to retire.

I think I can get a disability pension because I had a heart attack 11 years ago, have type 2 diabetes and a bad cataract in one eye. ( who is going to employ a 63 year old with health problems)

My Question is, during the 2 years there, can I leave Aust. for a holiday ?

I know one guy who went into the Innaloo CL office in Perth and was told that during the 2 years qualifying, he can leave Australia for no more than 56 days a year and a duration of no more than 42 days at a time.

Can anyone confirm that this information is true or not ?

[catwho]

I was told by c/link if i had to do the 2 yrs..... if i left the country for any time my pension would be stopped the day i left till i return and it starts again.

Time spent away ADDS on to the 2yr period.EG,if you had 4, 1 month hols,in that 2 yr period,its 2.4 months u have to wait for pension qualifying period to end.

Once qualified,as with my mate was,, you can come back to thailand for 6 months and be reacessed again,after that time.

Others may have heard different.

cat

[kevjohn]

I was told by c/link if i had to do the 2 yrs..... if i left the country for any time my pension would be stopped the day i left till i return and it starts again.

Time spent away ADDS on to the 2yr period.EG,if you had 4, 1 month hols,in that 2 yr period,its 2.4 months u have to wait for pension qualifying period to end.

Once qualified,as with my mate was,, you can come back to thailand for 6 months and be reacessed again,after that time.

Others may have heard different.

cat

This is the same thing I was told.

[ozzydom]

I was told by c/link if i had to do the 2 yrs..... if i left the country for any time my pension would be stopped the day i left till i return and it starts again.

Time spent away ADDS on to the 2yr period.EG,if you had 4, 1 month hols,in that 2 yr period,its 2.4 months u have to wait for pension qualifying period to end.

Once qualified,as with my mate was,, you can come back to thailand for 6 months and be reacessed again,after that time.

Others may have heard different.

cat

A friend of mine went to Bali for a 6 week holiday 0ne year into his two year period and on his return was told that his two year waiting period had to start again from the date he returned as the regulation states "two years continuous residence".

Maybe the C/L officer got it wrong ,I dont know.

[guapo]

Does anyone know when this 2 year (continious residency) loophole was introduced ??

Thank you

[zorro1]

Guess everyone's retired and happy, the thread has gone on vacation.

Heard briefly on a radio news a couple of days back that Oz Pensions have risen. Very 'slightly' I imagine

My mate just came back doing the 2yrs eligbility,he use still go back for months at a time and has a unit there.

he has a condo in wifes name,in pattaya,[was in he's]he told them against account's advice,they took this as an asset.He informed them he wanted to return to thailand, they said ok but he will be reviewed in 6 mts,he also was told if he stayed in thailand longer than 12 mts [if approved]his unrented unit would be classed as an asset and he's pension would drop again,he gets $490 a fortnight.

he did this through the international branch.

cat

Owning a condo weather its in pattaya or sydney makes no difference if its not producing an income (rent). I don't understand why his pension would reduce.

[harrry]

Guess everyone's retired and happy, the thread has gone on vacation.

Heard briefly on a radio news a couple of days back that Oz Pensions have risen. Very 'slightly' I imagine

My mate just came back doing the 2yrs eligbility,he use still go back for months at a time and has a unit there.

he has a condo in wifes name,in pattaya,[was in he's]he told them against account's advice,they took this as an asset.He informed them he wanted to return to thailand, they said ok but he will be reviewed in 6 mts,he also was told if he stayed in thailand longer than 12 mts [if approved]his unrented unit would be classed as an asset and he's pension would drop again,he gets $490 a fortnight.

he did this through the international branch.

cat

Owning a condo weather its in pattaya or sydney makes no difference if its not producing an income (rent). I don't understand why his pension would reduce.

Pensions are based on both an asset test and an income test. The condo is part of his assets and his income will be reduced if his total assets passes a threshold.

[zorro1]

A good friend was approved 2 weeks ago for the Disability Pension. His only asset was a 200k condo in BKK and approved no problems. Even though its an asset its not income producing and he can keep it for ever if he wants considering he may never be able to sell it for market value

Its an illiquid asset .

[catwho]

A good friend was approved 2 weeks ago for the Disability Pension. His only asset was a 200k condo in BKK and approved no problems. Even though its an asset its not income producing and he can keep it for ever if he wants considering he may never be able to sell it for market value

Its an illiquid asset .

My Mate owned the condo in pattaya,now in wifes name,that was declared an asset,if he is allowed to stay in thailand on his pension,after the 6 months review,after 12 months of him staying here,,, his OZ unit will become his asset [rented or not]and worth alot more than his pattaya one,which will drop his pension,,he was stupid enough to tell them about his condo here,you are allowed to own one property as your home,other propertys are assets,[Not sure though if your ONE property is allowed outside OZ].your friend i hope dose not have property in oz.

cat

[harrry]

A good friend was approved 2 weeks ago for the Disability Pension. His only asset was a 200k condo in BKK and approved no problems. Even though its an asset its not income producing and he can keep it for ever if he wants considering he may never be able to sell it for market value

Its an illiquid asset .

If this is the cse he must have over half a milloin dollars in other assets.

Read the ruoles on the asset test regarding homeowners.

[zorro1]

Nope just the one condo he was living in for 12 months before he became ill. I know because I did most of his paper work. He is now in BKK on the 13 week return rule regarding DSP which is different to OAP

Edited October 12, 2011 by zorro1

[fishhooks]

I understand that if successful in obtaining the OAP at 65, your on-going status is based on either income or assett tested.

Is there any advantage in being classed as one of these methods, compared to the other, but I take it you have no choice as to how they class you anyway?

If your assetts or income change significantly after the grant of the pension, do they switch you to the other method.

Let's say if you are classed as per income and you liquidate your owned Aus home to retire in Thailand, do they immediately cut your pension because you now have a few more bob in your pocket, even though you have used the funds to purchase a new home.

[Old Croc]

I understand that if successful in obtaining the OAP at 65, your on-going status is based on either income or assett tested.

Is there any advantage in being classed as one of these methods, compared to the other, but I take it you have no choice as to how they class you anyway?

If your assetts or income change significantly after the grant of the pension, do they switch you to the other method.

Let's say if you are classed as per income and you liquidate your owned Aus home to retire in Thailand, do they immediately cut your pension because you now have a few more bob in your pocket, even though you have used the funds to purchase a new home.

With income and assets you are assessed on whichever is the greatest. Whichever is closest to the cut off point.