Australian Aged Pension

[giddyup]

1 minute ago, nev said:

Why bother buying keep your money in the bank and rent it makes more sense!!!.

Not if your house is a home, not just a roof over your head.

[nev]

5 minutes ago, giddyup said:

Not if your house is a home, not just a roof over your head.

I can see your point, my point is with renting you can move if the home becomes a nightmare, who knows who you end up living next too or what other problems might occur, plus if he is single not being able to own in his name only by a company when he dies it is a major problem selling and leaving to relatives in the will.

[giddyup]

28 minutes ago, nev said:

I can see your point, my point is with renting you can move if the home becomes a nightmare, who knows who you end up living next too or what other problems might occur, plus if he is single not being able to own in his name only by a company when he dies it is a major problem selling and leaving to relatives in the will.

Different strokes etc. I've lived in the house I bought for 8 years now, absolutely no regrets, but it's whatever suits the individual. One thing I know, if you want to sell you need to be patient, and don't always expect to get your money back. There are pluses and minuses for sure.

[scorecard]

1 hour ago, giddyup said:

Different strokes etc. I've lived in the house I bought for 8 years now, absolutely no regrets, but it's whatever suits the individual. One thing I know, if you want to sell you need to be patient, and don't always expect to get your money back. There are pluses and minuses for sure.

 

If your meaning sell the house in Thailand, there is more to understand.

 

How often do you see a Thai property agent focused on the total Thai market (Thai sellers / Thai buyers)?

 

The answer is never.

 

Why, because:

 

- Thais generally don't see any status value in buying second-hand anything, especially houses (reality is that if a Thai person buys a second hand house it's obvious to all 'it's second-hand', and therefore has low status building value).

 

- Many Thai folks would be concerned about what past history is attached to a second-hand house; did someone die in the house, are there ghosts in the house?

 

- Many Thais believe when you acquire a piece of land you would never sell it. 

 

And more...

 

[giddyup]

4 minutes ago, scorecard said:

How often do you see a Thai property agent focused on the total Thai market (Thai sellers / Thai buyers)?

 

- Thais generally don't see any status value in buying second-hand anything, especially houses (reality is that if a Thai person buys a second hand house it's obvious to all 'it's second-hand', and therefore has low status building value).

 

There at least 6 houses for sale in my village of 39 houses, most have been on the market for several years, and there's nothing wrong with the village, well maintained, security etc. So I agree, that it's likely to be a falang only that will buy a secondhand house, and that market has pretty much dried up, at least in Pattaya (dark side).

[Kimber]

6 hours ago, giddyup said:

Not if your house is a home, not just a roof over your head.

 

How long for when you tire of the place, or neighbors ?

 

I believe renting in Thailand is the way to go, you can't own land, you take a high risk if you put it a Thais name;  and chances are if you do want to live in Thailand sooner or later you'll want a change of view. 

 

I have farang friends who've paid out for condos, town houses; and houses and regretted it.  I also have farang friends who rent and don't regret it. 

 

[giddyup]

9 minutes ago, Kimber said:

 

How long for when you tire of the place, or neighbors ?

 

I believe renting in Thailand is the way to go, you can't own land, you take a high risk if you put it a Thais name;  and chances are if you do want to live in Thailand sooner or later you'll want a change of view. 

 

I have farang friends who've paid out for condos, town houses; and houses and regretted it.  I also have farang friends who rent and don't regret it. 

 

And then you have me and my long term falang neighbours who bought and don't regret it.

[Will27]

46 minutes ago, Kimber said:

 

How long for when you tire of the place, or neighbors ?

 

I believe renting in Thailand is the way to go, you can't own land, you take a high risk if you put it a Thais name;  and chances are if you do want to live in Thailand sooner or later you'll want a change of view. 

 

I have farang friends who've paid out for condos, town houses; and houses and regretted it.  I also have farang friends who rent and don't regret it. 

 

Like giddyup said, different strokes for different folks.

 

We rented our house for 18 months before the owner decided to sell due to a divorce.

We really didn't want to move anywhere else so we/she purchased it. We've done the condo thing etc.

 

Been here over 7 years and wouldn't change a thing and the wife has some security if something happens

to me.

 

If things with the wife went tit's up, I would walk away with no regrets.

She's welcome to the house having put up with me for over a decade.

 

Having said that, if I was single, I would rent a condo.

[Lizard2010]

I thought this Forum was about Old Age Pensions

 

It seems to have gone off the rails

Talking about everything else

Most of us know about renting, buying, dogs, and neighbors

We dont need to be reminded about all these

Is there ant more information about changes

This month The Pensions go up with the normal increase

As well as in September

That is you are eligible and get the OAP

 

Edited March 16, 2018 by Lizard2010

[transam]

54 minutes ago, giddyup said:

And then you have me and my long term falang neighbours who bought and don't regret it.

And me too, though l have no neighbours.....

[sceadugenga]

Yeah, back onto Centrelink issues guys, this theme has been well thrashed out elsewhere.

[Freed1948]

On 3/16/2018 at 5:00 PM, Lizard2010 said:

I thought this Forum was about Old Age Pensions

 

It seems to have gone off the rails

Talking about everything else

Most of us know about renting, buying, dogs, and neighbors

We dont need to be reminded about all these

Is there ant more information about changes

This month The Pensions go up with the normal increase

As well as in September

That is you are eligible and get the OAP

 

Yep!!! A whole 250-300 Baht a F/N.

What to do with it???

[ELVIS123456]

On 3/16/2018 at 12:29 PM, roskruge said:

Currently getting the full Aus pension (for overseas Aus pensioners) every 28 days. I have the chance to acquire a townhouse in Thailand valued at about 1.800,000 Thai Baht Aus$74,052.80 for purposes of self living. not for renting. How would this affect my pension. I own no property in Australia for rental or living. I know all about Thai laws re foreigner and land ownership. Only now concerned with possible reduction of pension.

The answer depends on many factors, but assuming the basics (such as but not limited to no house in Aus and no massive savings tucked away), then it will have very little affect.  It will become your home and will be excluded from your total assets. The issues of where you get the money from may be more relevant on affecting OAP - eg. is it taxable income and therefore it will affect the OAP, or is it classified as an asset and therefore not income and therefore will not affect OAP much.  You should start research and find out - where this money stands is something you should research and then ask Centrelink. 

 

Be careful, if you lose the OAP when overseas, you will need to re-apply and that means you must be living in Australia when you re-apply. And I think the two years term would start again - and you may have other problems with this issue (see my next post).  

[ELVIS123456]

The two years 'rule' is NOT a rule or a policy.

 

I see many people posting about this issue as if it is a set rule/policy, and I feel I need to point out that IMO it is not.

 

Yes - if you return to Oz and get the OAP (immediately), you will need to stay living in Oz for at least 2 years, before portability will be approved.  But it is not a 'sentence' that once served, means you are going to get portability automatically approved.  It is a MINIMUM period of time before CLink can approve portability.  But if they believe that you never intended to remain in Australia, and that you only came back so you could get the OAP and return overseas, then they can delay approval - and they can refuse to approve portability indefinitely.  But to do this they must have 'evidence' of your intent (property in your name, wife and kids in Thailand, etc etc).

 

Anyone considering this course of action should look at the possibility that you may have to wait more than 2 years - if you were to do it in say the next few years.  If you are looking at this as a course of action in 5-10+ years, then keep in mind that it is likely that the 2 years 'minimum qualification' will be extended to 3 or 4 or 5 years AND that they will get harder and harder on approvals.   

 

A far easier approach (IMO) is to move back to Aus before you qualify for the OAP (at least 2 years), and either get a job (not easy) or go on to Newstart (very easy once over 60) and then the 'transition' from work/dole to OAP will be very easy, AND approval for portability will be much easier.  But the same applies - you must tell everyone that you have come back to work and intend living in Aust permanently.  Some times things just dont work out - even though you gave it your best shot - nudge nudge wink wink  

 

 

 

[keithpa]

3 hours ago, ELVIS123456 said:

The two years 'rule' is NOT a rule or a policy.

 

I see many people posting about this issue as if it is a set rule/policy, and I feel I need to point out that IMO it is not.

 

Yes - if you return to Oz and get the OAP (immediately), you will need to stay living in Oz for at least 2 years, before portability will be approved.  But it is not a 'sentence' that once served, means you are going to get portability automatically approved.  It is a MINIMUM period of time before CLink can approve portability.  But if they believe that you never intended to remain in Australia, and that you only came back so you could get the OAP and return overseas, then they can delay approval - and they can refuse to approve portability indefinitely.  But to do this they must have 'evidence' of your intent (property in your name, wife and kids in Thailand, etc etc).

 

Anyone considering this course of action should look at the possibility that you may have to wait more than 2 years - if you were to do it in say the next few years.  If you are looking at this as a course of action in 5-10+ years, then keep in mind that it is likely that the 2 years 'minimum qualification' will be extended to 3 or 4 or 5 years AND that they will get harder and harder on approvals.   

 

A far easier approach (IMO) is to move back to Aus before you qualify for the OAP (at least 2 years), and either get a job (not easy) or go on to Newstart (very easy once over 60) and then the 'transition' from work/dole to OAP will be very easy, AND approval for portability will be much easier.  But the same applies - you must tell everyone that you have come back to work and intend living in Aust permanently.  Some times things just dont work out - even though you gave it your best shot - nudge nudge wink wink  

 

 

 

149 pages of info on the Oz age pension. The Oz Government regulations on the pension arnt that long. Give it a rest or read what the regulations say.

[Will27]

1 hour ago, keithpa said:

149 pages of info on the Oz age pension. The Oz Government regulations on the pension arnt that long. Give it a rest or read what the regulations say.

Another one of your insightful and helpful posts I see.

 

Keep up the good work.

[Nemises]

Below letter today to the editor of The Sydney Telegraph, mentions among things, that the degree of OAP entitlement (for AU residents) is equivalent to having $A1.3M invested:

 

———————————

 

 

WELFARE IS THE WAY TO GO!

 

Bill Shorten’s proposal to stop franking dividend rebates is simply another nail in the coffin for selffunded retirees.

 

Mr Shorten and his mates have the imagination of a razor blade but he is no dope. Come the next election, he knows the majority of voters will simply vote for the party that hands out the most money and they won’t care where it comes from, whether borrowed, or from more tax paid by our grandkids or from the so-called rich self-funded retirees.

 

This is more of an attack on people who don’t want welfare, have imagination and drive and simply don’t want their grandkids to pay more tax to support them in their old age.

 

The whole purpose of super was to encourage people to move away from dependency and be more responsible.

 

Now we find that it is simply more financially prudent for most retirees to spend their money and access the pension as soon as possible so they can access entitlements.

 

You need $1.3 million invested to get the same degree of entitlement and security as the full pension.

 

If you fund yourself, apart from the risk and effort of investment, you get slugged extra for rego, rates, insurance, medical — the list goes on and on. Plus if you have anything left when you go into a retirement home, it will cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars, while for a person on the full pension, it is free.

 

Mr Shorten wants an Australia full of drones. He is terrified of people who have imagination, incentive, who want to get ahead and simply do the right thing.

 

Saying it will only affect rich retirees is rubbish.

 

It will affect the attitude and finances of every Australian, young or old. The result will be more people on welfare.

 

———————————-

 

 

 

[Lizard2010]

5 hours ago, Gregster said:

Below letter today to the editor of The Sydney Telegraph, mentions among things, that the degree of OAP entitlement (for AU residents) is equivalent to having $A1.3M invested:

 

———————————

 

 

WELFARE IS THE WAY TO GO!

 

Bill Shorten’s proposal to stop franking dividend rebates is simply another nail in the coffin for selffunded retirees.

 

Mr Shorten and his mates have the imagination of a razor blade but he is no dope. Come the next election, he knows the majority of voters will simply vote for the party that hands out the most money and they won’t care where it comes from, whether borrowed, or from more tax paid by our grandkids or from the so-called rich self-funded retirees.

 

This is more of an attack on people who don’t want welfare, have imagination and drive and simply don’t want their grandkids to pay more tax to support them in their old age.

 

The whole purpose of super was to encourage people to move away from dependency and be more responsible.

 

Now we find that it is simply more financially prudent for most retirees to spend their money and access the pension as soon as possible so they can access entitlements.

 

You need $1.3 million invested to get the same degree of entitlement and security as the full pension.

 

If you fund yourself, apart from the risk and effort of investment, you get slugged extra for rego, rates, insurance, medical — the list goes on and on. Plus if you have anything left when you go into a retirement home, it will cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars, while for a person on the full pension, it is free.

 

Mr Shorten wants an Australia full of drones. He is terrified of people who have imagination, incentive, who want to get ahead and simply do the right thing.

 

Saying it will only affect rich retirees is rubbish.

 

It will affect the attitude and finances of every Australian, young or old. The result will be more people on welfare.

 

———————————-

 

 

 

This is probably another LNP propergander storey

If you had read many articles about the wealthy you would know that the rich get more social secrity payment

Than most people because they have there money hidden away so they look poor

Plus

another post of useless information

As the moderator said the other day

Keep on track obviously many do  not

Untill what ever or whoever says anything

We just have to wait till it happens

2 pension increases per year

Thats all i think about till something else happens

IMHO

[Nemises]

This is probably another LNP propergander storey

If you had read many articles about the wealthy you would know that the rich get more social secrity payment

Than most people because they have there money hidden away so they look poor

Plus

another post of useless information

As the moderator said the other day

Keep on track obviously many do  not

Untill what ever or whoever says anything

We just have to wait till it happens

2 pension increases per year

Thats all i think about till something else happens

IMHO

 

Can you give some examples of where the rich have their money hidden away to enable them to receive the OAP?

 

Plus

 

This thread is about the OAP. My last post was entirely related to the OAP.

[ELVIS123456]

19 hours ago, keithpa said:

149 pages of info on the Oz age pension. The Oz Government regulations on the pension arnt that long. Give it a rest or read what the regulations say.

What you said lacks one key ingrediant ........... a point.

Are you saying I have something wrong?  Wouldnt be the first time - but if you think so, then say what it is - then you will have made a point.  Otherwise, I can not see the point of your reply. 

 

[ELVIS123456]

12 hours ago, Gregster said:

Below letter today to the editor of The Sydney Telegraph, mentions among things, that the degree of OAP entitlement (for AU residents) is equivalent to having $A1.3M invested:

———————————

WELFARE IS THE WAY TO GO!

Bill Shorten’s proposal to stop franking dividend rebates is simply another nail in the coffin for selffunded retirees.

 

Now we find that it is simply more financially prudent for most retirees to spend their money and access the pension as soon as possible so they can access entitlements.

 

You need $1.3 million invested to get the same degree of entitlement and security as the full pension.

 

If you fund yourself, apart from the risk and effort of investment, you get slugged extra for rego, rates, insurance, medical — the list goes on and on. Plus if you have anything left when you go into a retirement home, it will cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars, while for a person on the full pension, it is free.

I would estimate that the benefits of being on the OAP is a lot more than having $1.3M in Super when you retire as a self-funded retiree in Australia.  Many years ago I started attending 'retirement seminars' and started doing the numbers on what would be needed - and one thing was very very clear (unless you are 100% healthy and then drop dead at 80).  You must own your own home, and you must have at least either $1M in Super (single) or $1.5M (couple) to be able to live comfortably into your 90s, as a self-funded retiree.

 

That was over 15 years ago and two things have changed since then.

1.  $1M over 15 years at 3%PA (inflation) equals $1.6M.

2.  There has been a lot of additional benefits given to people on the OAP in the last 15 years - and SFA to self-funded retirees.

 

I would reckon that if you had less than $2M as a self-funded retiree, you would be better off planning on becoming an OAP recipient before you reach 80. I dont know of one 80+ person who does not have a lot of medications and other costs, and they are all heavily subsidised by the Govt for those on the OAP.  

 

Same now as is was back then - you either have to be very rich or you have to be able to get the OAP by the time you are 80.  I know one guy that has enough  money and will be self-funded for life.  But I know a lot more that (like me) who are planning on getting the OAP and all the associated benefits at some point. I also know a few who think they have enough and dont want the 'stigma' of being an OAP - good luck to them is all I can say. 

 

[sceadugenga]

They never had any problem taking the tax break "hand outs" when they were paying into the super funds.

 

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/its-super-tax-concessions-not-pensions-that-are-killing-the-budget-20140421-zqx7p.html

 

 

 

[ELVIS123456]

5 minutes ago, sceadugenga said:

They never had any problem taking the tax break "hand outs" when they were paying into the super funds.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/its-super-tax-concessions-not-pensions-that-are-killing-the-budget-20140421-zqx7p.html

Mate - the Australia Institute is a left-wing Canberra-based think tank who has a very clear political agenda and make a lot of silly statements

 

The very precept that tax subsidies for Super contributions 'costs' the Budget money, is like saying the taxpayers 'cost' the Budget money because they are not paying enough tax - so lets increase the tax rates. 

 

Contributions into Super are given a tax incentive, and are compulsory, because the Govt of Australia decided a long time ago to encourage Australians to save for their retirement, by forcing them to save for their retirement through Super contributions taken from their salaries with or without their consent. We all agreed because the tax incentives made it a valid thing to support and to go along with. 

 

Any change that makes it any less of a tax advantage for Super contributions, would be met with outrage and probably legal challenges - and it would probably put most Super funds into financial trouble - and cause a massive stock market crash (they control nearly have of the total ASX - see below).

 

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/australian-super-funds-now-own-almost-half-of-the-australian-stock-market-2018-3

 

No mate - taxing Super contributions is not a good idea at all.

 

[sceadugenga]

We'll agree to disagree.

[Nemises]

My financial advisor tells me to keep pumping money into “his” super fund. My accountant mate tells me to spend the money and grab the pension, because the pension is potentially worth around $2M if I live to an old age.

It was a tough decision, but after lengthy and serious consideration (about 2 seconds) I decided it was time to spend up big now and grab the OAP later.

[scorecard]

 

 

I thought I posted this message a few days ago but now I can't find it (old age, I very probably forgot to 'submit'). So start again. 

 

I'm interested to get deeper information and comments from folks aware of cases similar to my situation. I'm 73 years old, born in Oz, got posted by an international multinational to Singapore then Thailand, stayed in Thailand. From 16th b.day to date departed for job in Singapore = 33 years.  

 

I'm in quite poor health (but not life threatening), either in wheelchair or in bed, with debilitating severe lower back pain, severe knee pain, chronic severe recurring painful bronchitis, recurring post traumatic stress problems (from Vietnam service), and more. I have no surviving family in OZ and no property or other assets of any kind in OZ.

 

Today I live in LOS with my adult Thai son and his Thai wife you devote a lot of time to my daily extensive  living needs, care and support.

 

Many years ago from Thailand I called the predecessor of Centrelink and was told very clearly that for Australians living outside of OZ the OAP was totally absolutely impossible, no further discussion. 

 

It's only recently I discovered there seems to be the possibility of receiving the OAP, or part OAP, for those living outside of OZ and it seems (by my reading) to have 2 major items (please correct me if I'm wrong):

 

#1:  Must be physically in Australia to lodge the OAP application (but I don't understand whether this means in Oz for 1 yr, 2 yrs or ? yrs before lodging the application. Or can it be to arrive in OZ (after many years outside OZ) and lodge the application the next day?).

 

#2 :  Must remain in Australia for the vast majority of the next 2 years after OAP granted (if it is granted) then full portability is possible.

 

My health situation makes it close to impossible return to OZ (except in a bed set-up on a flight, with a nurse - very expensive and painful), to lodge the application.

 

If OAP is granted then staying in OZ alone without the daily support, personal care and love of my Thai son and his wife and kids) family, is just not possible. (And back to the application stuff, would I need to stay in Oz to wait for a decision?)

 

So here's my ultimate question; has anybody heard of any similar cases and Centrelink has agreed to some compromise arrangement?

 

One possible example could perhaps be no return to Australia at all (just my thoughts, I have no actual past example), Centrelink approve the OAP but on the basis of a 2 year waiting period (perhaps even more generous - 1 year waiting period) before payments start.

 

To be honest I'm looking for facts and details of any known real cases, rather than opinions of what Centrelink should do.

 

My plan is to look for any similar past case details, then call Centrelink in Hobart, any guidance hints on this are very welcome and will be appreciated.

 

Thanks.

 

 

Edited March 22, 2018 by scorecard

[giddyup]

10 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

To be honest I'm looking for facts and details of any known real cases, rather than opinions of what Centrelink should do.

 

My plan is to look for any similar past case details, then call Centrelink in Hobart, any guidance hints on this are very welcome and will be appreciated.

I think the only way to get answers to your questions is to ring Centrelink on their international number and have a talk with someone. Normally to qualify you would have to either have lived in Australia for 2 years prior to becoming eligible or return at 65 (or whatever age you qualify) and spend 2 years in Oz to meet the conditions to make the pension portable. I don't know if Centrelink makes exceptions to that rule in special circumstances, but why have you waited until turning 73 to do anything about it?

[Lizard2010]

10 hours ago, Gregster said:

 

Can you give some examples of where the rich have their money hidden away to enable them to receive the OAP?

 

Plus

 

This thread is about the OAP. My last post was entirely related to the OAP.

Well i do not believe everything i read in Australian Newspapers

Fpr the obvious resons

Its just propergander

The only thing i believe is if it had been passed by the Government

Or is on the Government Website

IMHO

 

[Lizard2010]

29 minutes ago, giddyup said:

I think the only way to get answers to your questions is to ring Centrelink on their international number and have a talk with someone. Normally to qualify you would have to either have lived in Australia for 2 years prior to becoming eligible or return at 65 (or whatever age you qualify) and spend 2 years in Oz to meet the conditions to make the pension portable. I don't know if Centrelink makes exceptions to that rule in special circumstances, but why have you waited until turning 73 to do anything about it?

He would have to prove when in OZ that he has a residential address 

Bank account utilities bill

This is normal after being out of the country for so long

Can prove that has closed all accounts in Thailand

They are getting more strict now

Good advise to ring Clink Int to see what they say

[ELVIS123456]

32 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

 

I thought I posted this message a few days ago but now I can't find it (old age, I very probably forgot to 'submit'). So start again. 

 

I'm interested to get deeper information and comments from folks aware of cases similar to my situation. I'm 73 years old, born in Oz, got posted by an international multinational to Singapore then Thailand, stayed in Thailand. From 16th b.day to date departed for job in Singapore = 33 years.  

 

I'm in quite poor health (but not life threatening), either in wheelchair or in bed, with debilitating severe lower back pain, severe knee pain, chronic severe recurring painful bronchitis, recurring post traumatic stress problems (from Vietnam service), and more. I have no surviving family in OZ and no property or other assets of any kind in OZ.

 

Today I live in LOS with my adult Thai son and his Thai wife you devote a lot of time to my daily extensive  living needs, care and support.

 

Many years ago from Thailand I called the predecessor of Centrelink and was told very clearly that for Australians living outside of OZ the OAP was totally absolutely impossible, no further discussion. 

 

It's only recently I discovered there seems to be the possibility of receiving the OAP, or part OAP, for those living outside of OZ and it seems (by my reading) to have 2 major items (please correct me if I'm wrong):

 

#1:  Must be physically in Australia to lodge the OAP application (but I don't understand whether this means in Oz for 1 yr, 2 yrs or ? yrs before lodging the application. Or can it be to arrive in OZ (after many years outside OZ) and lodge the application the next day?).

 

#2 :  Must remain in Australia for the vast majority of the next 2 years after OAP granted (if it is granted) then full portability is possible.

 

My health situation makes it close to impossible return to OZ (except in a bed set-up on a flight, with a nurse - very expensive and painful), to lodge the application.

 

If OAP is granted then staying in OZ alone without the daily support, personal care and love of my Thai son and his wife and kids) family, is just not possible. (And back to the application stuff, would I need to stay in Oz to wait for a decision?)

 

So here's my ultimate question; has anybody heard of any similar cases and Centrelink has agreed to some compromise arrangement?

 

One possible example could perhaps be no return to Australia at all (just my thoughts, I have no actual past example), Centrelink approve the OAP but on the basis of a 2 year waiting period (perhaps even more generous - 1 year waiting period) before payments start.

 

To be honest I'm looking for facts and details of any known real cases, rather than opinions of what Centrelink should do.

 

My plan is to look for any similar past case details, then call Centrelink in Hobart, any guidance hints on this are very welcome and will be appreciated.

 

Thanks.

Mate - sorry to hear of your situation - hope things improve or at least stabilise.

 

This issue has come up many times on this and other forums, and I have done a lot of searching as have others. No one has ever found an example of anyone being approved for OAP (or any other payment like DSP or Dole), who is not residing in Australia at the time of their application.  You can check this latest ruling that I found to show this is still the case:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/AATA/2017/2749.html

 

The 2 year period before portability can be approved, is mandatory and a CLink officer can only make an exception in one rare situation.  The exception relates to someone in Australia who already has the OAP and who has to go overseas to receive an 'approved' life-saving treatment that is not available in Australia.  Quote:  Exception: The 24 month former resident waiting period does not apply if the person is eligible for financial assistance under the Medical Treatment Overseas Program in respect of their absence from Australia or needs to accompany such a person.

 

I agree you should be able to claim the OAP as you have met the minimum  10 years eligibility (you almost make the 35 max), but the law in Australia is set in concrete on this issue. The number one reason I think it will not change is because it would not be hard for some people overseas to get fake medical certificates and reports. 

 

 

I agree with your thoughts - call the Centrelink overseas people and talk with them about your situation.  Best wishes and good luck - please let us know how you go.