|
|
Post by Banjo on Jul 13, 2015 8:40:56 GMT 7
The Injustice of the Portability of the Australian Age Pension.With the decision by many Australians to take early retirement or being affected by redundancy we find people moving overseas and living off savings or investments for their final working life years. Most are not aware that this can cause problems when they reach the Age Pension age qualification and return home to claim this. People who may have spent over 40 years in Australia working and paying taxes can find themselves in a position where although they are entitled to the pension, or part of if they have investments, it is not portable for 2 years. Another person who stays in the country until he is 65, or whatever age he now needs for the Age Pension, can cheerfully leave the country the day he qualifies and be paid while overseas. This is not a situation where people who have worked overseas for years can claim a full pension outside of Australia, the Australian Working Life Residency law makes sure of this, you must have spent 35 years in Australia at working age to take a full pension offshore for any length of time. I can see no rhyme or reason to the 2 year portability law, a person who returns to Australia for a few years before he applies for the Age pension will qualify for portability while someone who does not wont, even though they may have worked longer in Australia in total. To make it even more unfair, the decision whether the time spent overseas is too long to qualify for the pension portability is not in any legislation, it is made by Centrelink. Someone who spends the final 12 months of his working life period can possibly be at the same risk of portability loss as someone who may have been away for 10 years. Most people I know who have been forced into this situation have accepted it and returned to Australia for 2 years, often undergoing considerable hardship with partners or family left behind and finding themselves placed in a position of having to make a new home for a 2 year period while trying to spend as little as possible. I think everyone effected should appeal and complain to the highest level, become a serial pest, write, ring and email the relevant ministers, camp on your MP's doorstep and in particular ask WHY?  It is a law that benefits no one, self funded retirees are not restricted and the taxpayer support their pensions through tax breaks to the same extent as the Age Pension.
|
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Jul 13, 2015 8:41:58 GMT 7
People affected by this or consider themselves at risk are welcome to send a copy of this to the minister and their Federal MP.
|
|
|
|
Post by surveyor68 on Jul 13, 2015 9:28:16 GMT 7
Thanks for that Banjo. You have encapsulated my thoughts completely.
I will be sending a copy of this to my local member (temporary for the next 20 months!), realistically not expecting much but the effort must be made by all of us in order for any notice to be taken of us. It is very clear that the vocal minority has attention paid to it in this country, while the silent majority are led by the ring in their noses.
I intend becoming a serial pest over this illogical and unfair section of law which penalises genuine Australian citizens while still allowing major loopholes for non Australian born citizens to exploit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Jul 13, 2015 10:30:12 GMT 7
Our member Bruce Bickerstaff has been kind enough to post the letter on his blog. www.burning-bison.com/blog/Also a message from a member who appealed the 2 year wait and claims Centrelink withdrew at AAT level. He used this argument. Portability restrictions were originally brought in because of the Italian and Greek immigrants who came here in the 1950's. They worked for a couple of years and then went home . Later they came back and claimed the pension and returned home again. They were not meant to affect rigidig Australians.
I pointed this out to the Centrelink lawyer who rang me just before the AAT hearing was about to commence. His reaction was to agree with me and he restored my pension.
Appeal, appeal, appeal. |
|
|
|
Post by nomadic on Jul 13, 2015 18:55:49 GMT 7
Good luck S68. Serial pest is good just make sure never to loose your cool or swear at them.I never did either But my continued attempts to get answers was met by a numer of calls and visits from the federal police not to abuse, threaten or harrass politicians. It was total intimidation as i did nothing other than ask questions which i was continually fobbed off by numerous of them, liberal and labour. They are all tarred with the same brush so tread warily please. try to get an impartial witness may even be a good idea. Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Jul 14, 2015 7:46:21 GMT 7
I think I've posted this before but it's worth another look. 1. Overview of portability policy and cost-benefit methodology
1.1 Purpose of the research
1.2 Development of Australian portability policy
1.3 Application of cost-benefit methodology to portability study
1.4 Stages of cost-benefit analysis of portability policy
The term 'portability' refers to the continuation of social security payments during a recipient's absence from Australia. The portability provisions of social security law set out which payments are portable, the periods for which they are portable and the rate payable during any period of portability.
Portability is the cause of some 'systemic' friction within the Australian social security system. Contributory social security systems, which are found worldwide, acknowledge the acquired right of an individual to benefits. This right is derived from the financial contributions made during a person's working life. Portability is an extension of that right. Most contributory systems, particularly those operating in the member states of the European Union, have for many years encouraged the portability of benefits for the major contingencies of life: age, invalidity and widowhood. However, some of these systems link portability to social security agreements (for example, Belgium and Switzerland) or to reciprocal portability rights (for example, the United States).
The Australian social security system is based on residence and pays benefits according to need. Qualification for payments is dependent upon a claimant having spent a minimum period as an Australian resident. A claimant must also be an Australian resident at the time of the claim and/or while the payment is current. Also, before a payment may be granted, a claimant must satisfy the asset and income tests. The portability of benefits may be seen as compromising this policy objective and as creating particular administrative and control problems.
Nevertheless, in line with international practice, Australia has made many of its social security benefits portable, beginning with limited portability under its long-standing agreements with New Zealand (1949) and the United Kingdom (1953), and progressing to indefinite portability under new portability legislation in 1973.
During the 1972 parliamentary debate on the payment overseas of Australian social security pensions, two major issues were discussed. In principle, the Government (the Coalition) and the Opposition (the Australian Labor Party) agreed that,'if people have earned social service benefits in Australia, it should be no business of the government where those people choose to receive their benefits'.1 The central issue was how long people should be required to have resided in Australia in order to be entitled to overseas payment of their pensions. Arguments also revolved around how much tax a resident should had to have paid before being able to choose to leave the country. In the context of this debate, the right to portability of Australian pensions was linked to the period of tax contributions.
More recently, the arguments for and against the portability of Australian pensions have been concentrated around the issues of reciprocity, globalisation and human rights. Portability is considered good international practice in a globalised world. The introduction of a proportional rate of Australian pension for people with less than 25 years' working-life residence was not done in relation to the payment of taxes. The major concern during the parliamentary debate was that payment of Australian pensions overseas should reflect international practice.2
From the very beginning, portability policy has also been discussed in the context of Australian social security agreements. As a unilateral initiative to pay Australian pensions overseas, portability policy was considered too generous. However, quite often during parliamentary debate the unique character of the Australian social security system also emerged as a major obstacle to the negotiation of new agreements. Ideally, Australia would have a network of shared-responsibility agreements with all migrant source countries. Since this outcome was not seen as practicable, portability policy has usually been supported because it is considered to be a right of Australian residents.
Another context for portability policy is the diverse composition of Australian society. Having spent their working life in Australia, many migrants want to retire to their country of origin. Australian-born people are also increasingly deciding to live overseas. But portability policy is often incorrectly seen as designed to satisfy the needs of the migrant community and to be of little value to 'mainstream society'.
www.dss.gov.au/about-the-department/publications-articles/research-publications/social-policy-research-paper-series/number-16-cost-benefit-analysis-of-portability-policy?HTML=#sec1 |
|
|
|
Post by writingboy on Jul 20, 2015 8:27:07 GMT 7
If I've already qualified for the Aged (not OLD Aged) pension; what restrictions on travel overseas are in place for travelling Age Pensioners?
|
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Jul 20, 2015 8:31:17 GMT 7
None, you can even get your pension paid into an overseas account.
|
|
|
|
Post by writingboy on Jul 20, 2015 11:40:31 GMT 7
Thanks for that Banjo.
|
|
|
|
Post by dave3478 on Nov 8, 2015 19:33:31 GMT 7
UNJUST TREATMENT OF OLDER AUSTRALIANS AND PENSIONERS
I have been unemployed a year and have decided enough is enough. At 62 I might as well retire on my Superannuation in a cheaper country in Asia. Does this sound familiar to any one reading this post.
The story goes like this. I tried to get centre link to give me some unemployment help but as I took my Superannuation out at 61 I am not entitled to any Financial or retraining help.Why is this I asked my self.
The money in super is exactly the same money that’s in the bank.No difference what so ever.I get interest and no fees.Unlike super where you get fees and interest.
So why,I asked Well you can top up your poverty unemployment money with it same as with super.No difference. I am still wondering on this question.
My next thing was I will save the government Thousands of dollars by going over seas on my Superannuation and not claim the unemployment.But on investigation I find out if i return at 65 to claim my rightful old age pension I can not take it over seas for 2 years. In other words , I have to return to Australia for 2 years prior to claiming my Pension . Centre link call it Portability . It just means you can get paid your old age pension over seas.
Next question. If Iam saving the country Australia thousands of dollars by living in another country ,Why is that wrong.Some people including politicians think if they give us our pension we should spend it in Australia and live in Poverty. It wont cut with me that argument.
I worked for 46 years in this country. I paid my taxes every week so my parents could have a pension and good life. I am unemployed and I still pay tax due to a GST on most things we buy or do. Its just not right simple as that.
I want people to please comment on any of my comments good or bad as I intend to fight for pensioner rights and no government will ever discriminate against the elderly again.
I think about this a lot and when it all boils down its call communism .No rights for the people that are controlled by Government .They give you a pension,then tell you how and were to spend it.
CANT FIND A JOB IN AUSTRALIA AND CANT LIVE OVER SEAS AT MY OWN EXPENSE.
Unjust treatment of Older Australians and Pensioners
I AM 62 AND UNEMPLOYED.I CAN LIVE ON MY SUPERANNUATION FOR THE NEXT 3 YEARS IN AN ASIAN COUNTRY QUITE EASILY BUT HERE’S THE RUB. I HAVE TO BE LIVING IN AUSTRALIA FOR 2 YEARS PRIOR TO APPLYING FOR MY OLD AGE PENSION .
|
|
|
|
Post by dave3478 on Nov 8, 2015 20:01:15 GMT 7
I believe after studying this portability program centre link have. It is now being used against genuine Australian citizens of 25 years or more so they have control of your destiny.
There is no reason to have such a law when Australians can live on there meagre super fund overseas till pension age saving the government of the day Thousand of dollars in unemployment and training. It just don't make any sense at all to stop your portability of the aged pension considering you have 3 or less years to go for you pension.Retraining is a waste of tax dollars for such a short time.Its a win win for every one if they just let you get your pension at 65.The Government has No medical or travel expenses that you can claim etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2015 20:27:59 GMT 7
UNJUST TREATMENT OF OLDER AUSTRALIANS AND PENSIONERS I have been unemployed a year and have decided enough is enough. At 62 I might as well retire on my Superannuation in a cheaper country in Asia. Does this sound familiar to any one reading this post. The story goes like this. I tried to get centre link to give me some unemployment help but as I took my Superannuation out at 61 I am not entitled to any Financial or retraining help.Why is this I asked my self. The money in super is exactly the same money that’s in the bank.No difference what so ever.I get interest and no fees.Unlike super where you get fees and interest. So why,I asked Well you can top up your poverty unemployment money with it same as with super.No difference. I am still wondering on this question. My next thing was I will save the government Thousands of dollars by going over seas on my Superannuation and not claim the unemployment.But on investigation I find out if i return at 65 to claim my rightful old age pension I can not take it over seas for 2 years. In other words , I have to return to Australia for 2 years prior to claiming my Pension . Centre link call it Portability . It just means you can get paid your old age pension over seas. Next question. If Iam saving the country Australia thousands of dollars by living in another country ,Why is that wrong.Some people including politicians think if they give us our pension we should spend it in Australia and live in Poverty. It wont cut with me that argument. I worked for 46 years in this country. I paid my taxes every week so my parents could have a pension and good life. I am unemployed and I still pay tax due to a GST on most things we buy or do. Its just not right simple as that. I want people to please comment on any of my comments good or bad as I intend to fight for pensioner rights and no government will ever discriminate against the elderly again. I think about this a lot and when it all boils down its call communism .No rights for the people that are controlled by Government .They give you a pension,then tell you how and were to spend it. CANT FIND A JOB IN AUSTRALIA AND CANT LIVE OVER SEAS AT MY OWN EXPENSE. Unjust treatment of Older Australians and Pensioners I AM 62 AND UNEMPLOYED.I CAN LIVE ON MY SUPERANNUATION FOR THE NEXT 3 YEARS IN AN ASIAN COUNTRY QUITE EASILY BUT HERE’S THE RUB. I HAVE TO BE LIVING IN AUSTRALIA FOR 2 YEARS PRIOR TO APPLYING FOR MY OLD AGE PENSION . I agree with you Yes i believe the 2 year rule will apply Even though you will be receiving your Superannuation You may be eligible for a Part Pension Payment It all depends if your money is in a Annuity Fund i think that’s what they call it It is harder when you have your superannuation Its a different ball game There may be others that know about Superannuations |
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Nov 8, 2015 21:33:14 GMT 7
I believe after studying this portability program centre link have. It is now being used against genuine Australian citizens of 25 years or more so they have control of your destiny. There is no reason to have such a law when Australians can live on there meagre super fund overseas till pension age saving the government of the day Thousand of dollars in unemployment and training. It just don't make any sense at all to stop your portability of the aged pension considering you have 3 or less years to go for you pension.Retraining is a waste of tax dollars for such a short time.Its a win win for every one if they just let you get your pension at 65.The Government has No medical or travel expenses that you can claim etc. With three years to go you could maintain your residency, keep ties to Australia, come back regularly and make sure that you have a long stay there when you're due to apply. It's not rocket science, you've lived in Australia for 62 years, you're a resident now, make sure you stay that way. |
|
|
|
Post by onemore on Nov 9, 2015 17:51:13 GMT 7
Is it true that you are only allowed out of the country for 13 weeks for any period, leading up to age pension entitlement?
|
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Nov 9, 2015 19:02:56 GMT 7
From a previous post you don't seem to be on the DSP so there are no restrictions on your travel as there is no benefit to stop.
If you have a 2 year wait for portability of the Age Pension then when you leave the country your pension stops immediately, then is reinstated on return. The time away is added to the remainder of the 2 years.
|
|
