|
|
Post by Banjo on Oct 21, 2015 7:18:00 GMT 7
Can I live Overseas and Get the Australian Aged Pension?Australian residents can claim an Age Pension on returning to Australia after a period working overseas provided that they had lived here for ten years before going overseas. The prime statement regarding this issue is shown at: dss.gov.au A person arriving in or returning to Australia (1.1.A.320) must satisfy the Act’s definition of Australian resident in order to lodge a proper claim for a pension. A former resident who returns to Australia and is granted a pension (Age, DSP, WP, WidB, BVA), or who transferred under SS(Admin)Act section 12 to Age CANNOT take that pension outside Australia if they leave again within 24 months after having again become an Australian resident. The purpose of this legislation is to discourage people from coming to Australia just to get an Australian pension to take back overseas. Note that last sentence, and consider what may happen in the future if more pension payments begin to be sent overseas. How will governments react when Australian taxpayers are paying more to send pensions to people living overseas? The two year restriction is to cover situations such as this example: Immigrant to Australia leaves Australia at age 40, and returns home. Comes back to Australia at Pension age (65’ish) and claims aged pension, then returns home (overseas) with a permanent aged pension from Australia.They must now LIVE IN AUSTRALIA for TWO years to get the ability to receive that pension overseas. There are already Reduced Aged Pension Rates for anyone outside the country for 6 weeks or more. The information on this is is shown at: www.humanservices.gov.au These reduced rates are assessed FOUR times each year. www.abcdiamond.com/australia/australian-aged-pension-and-living-overseas/
|
|
|
|
Post by dave3478 on Nov 9, 2015 16:26:05 GMT 7
Hi Banjo,
are these rules for younger Immigrants only. I was born in Perth WA and lived here for 62 years.Maybe those rules don't apply to citizens born in Australia and lived here all there lives.After all we are not ripping off the system,just trying to get a good life on little money. 2 or 3 years out of the country does not constitute abandoning our Australian citizen status as centrelink try s to imply .
|
|
|
|
Post by itsmylife08 on Dec 4, 2015 23:13:01 GMT 7
Budget 2015-16: Australian Working Life Residence - tightening proportionality requirements Information update: this Budget measure is subject to the passage of legislation. Description of the measure From 1 January 2017, pensioners travelling overseas will be paid their full basic means-tested rate of pension for up to 6 weeks instead of 26 weeks. Once the pensioner has been overseas for a period of 6 weeks, their payment rate will change depending on the number of years they lived in Australia during their working life. Currently, customers can remain absent from Australia for 26 weeks before their pension rate is adjusted. This will decrease to 6 weeks for those who leave Australia on or after 1 January 2017. Questions and answers Who will be affected by this measure This measure will affect Age Pensioners who travel overseas on or after 1 January 2017. It may also affect pensioners granted unlimited portability and in receipt of Disability Support Pension, Wife Pension or Widow B Pension. Pensioners who are already outside Australia on 1 January 2017 will keep the 26 week period until they return to Australia. All future overseas travel will be affected by the new 6 week rule. Pensioners who choose to remain outside of Australia for more than 6 weeks will have their pension adjusted according to their Australian Working Life Residence. For more information about Australian Working Life Residence visit our website. The date this measure will start and finish This measure will start on 1 January 2017 and is ongoing. Hi guys I was just informed about this measure , can someone clarify , does it mean after this date if I'm in Australia I'll be only able to travel outside for 6 weeks... or if I'm outside Australia on this date I can continue to stay outside for 26 weeks , if I return then I'll be subject to the 6 week rule. Has it passed legislation yet ? Oh and what if you're married like I am what then  ?? Department of Human Services Payment Finder Service Finder |
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Dec 5, 2015 7:47:15 GMT 7
No, AWLR means the amount of time you have lived in Australia during the years would normally be working.
I think they take 15 as the school leaving age so if you went on the DSP at 45 and left the country with UP then you would have 30 years AWLR.
This would mean that after 6 weeks your pension would be reduced to 30/35 of the normal total, or about 85%.
This already applies if you're out the country for 26 weeks
Not sure about wives, if they were on a benefit that was portable I assume the same would apply.
|
|
|
|
Post by itsmylife08 on Dec 5, 2015 8:33:40 GMT 7
No, AWLR means the amount of time you have lived in Australia during the years would normally be working. I think they take 15 as the school leaving age so if you went on the DSP at 45 and left the country with UP then you would have 30 years AWLR. This would mean that after 6 weeks your pension would be reduced to 30/35 of the normal total, or about 85%. This already applies if you're out the country for 26 weeks Not sure about wives, if they were on a benefit that was portable I assume the same would apply. Hi Boss I hear what you are saying re the above.. My situation is somewhat different as I'm on DSP with Indefinite Portability , at present I've got an exemption from proportionality under section 7.2.2.10 of the SSact , people with a permanent disability are exempt providing it happened within Australia , also they must have no future work capacity. In regards to being married my wife is A Filipina and has never been to Australia , so therefore does not come into the equation as such , my question and concern is should this legislation be passed it may override any exemption I currently have . My reading of it all is , if I go back to Australia after the 1st January 2017 I would only receive the DSP for 6 weeks if I return to my good lady wife in the Philippines / If I'm out of the country on the said date , then my pension will be reduced after 26 weeks . please tell me I'm wrong as it would be akin to being imprisoned on the great ship Australia..... |
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Dec 5, 2015 9:47:40 GMT 7
No, if you have portability and go back to Australia, then leave again you would only receive a full pension for 6 weeks if it was effected by AWRL, but you're entitled to a full pension anyway so it's not going to be adjusted for AWLR after that period, so a full entitlement would continue after that period.
Anyone else want to comment?
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Dec 5, 2015 13:26:44 GMT 7
No, AWLR means the amount of time you have lived in Australia during the years would normally be working. I think they take 15 as the school leaving age so if you went on the DSP at 45 and left the country with UP then you would have 30 years AWLR. This would mean that after 6 weeks your pension would be reduced to 30/35 of the normal total, or about 85%. This already applies if you're out the country for 26 weeks Not sure about wives, if they were on a benefit that was portable I assume the same would apply. Hi Boss I hear what you are saying re the above.. My situation is somewhat different as I'm on DSP with Indefinite Portability , at present I've got an exemption from proportionality under section 7.2.2.10 of the SSact , people with a permanent disability are exempt providing it happened within Australia , also they must have no future work capacity. In regards to being married my wife is A Filipina and has never been to Australia , so therefore does not come into the equation as such , my question and concern is should this legislation be passed it may override any exemption I currently have . My reading of it all is , if I go back to Australia after the 1st January 2017 I would only receive the DSP for 6 weeks if I return to my good lady wife in the Philippines / If I'm out of the country on the said date , then my pension will be reduced after 26 weeks . please tell me I'm wrong as it would be akin to being imprisoned on the great ship Australia..... You are introducing and mixing, DSP with unlimited portability, with OAP portability. The legislation was already passed, and it addresses OAP.
You are on DSP. So whatever you are on now, with the exemption you quote, would continue.
I don't know your age, but let me make the broad assumption that you are below 65. If ever, for any reason, you went on OAP, from January 2017, after 6 weeks out of the country, the pension rate will change. If you have 35 years AWLR, you can still stay out indefinitely, losing only the supplements after 6 weeks. Previously you could have stayed out 6 months, with no reduction in pension.
|
|
|
|
Post by itsmylife08 on Dec 5, 2015 15:01:32 GMT 7
Hi Chris I've got UP since February of this year effective from August 2013 . I left Oz in April so I missed out on all the good news contained in the May Budget hence my lack of knowledge on the issues . I only saw them last night and didn't quite comprehend as it stated on Human services website that people on DSP may be affected also , but that it was subject to legislation.... Thanks for your input any further information would be greatly appreciated... Oh by the way I'm 59 as of now 60 in April  |
|
|
|
Post by chris on Dec 5, 2015 15:30:36 GMT 7
Copy mate. That's what I know.
I'm still in Philippines, trying to get back for my OAP plus the 2 years resumption of residency.
NB. I don't know much about DSP, Just what I read here.
I'm up here in Vigan City.
|
|
|
|
Post by nomadic on Dec 5, 2015 16:44:17 GMT 7
All of the above makes me a tad nervous. I will check it all out next year on my return. When I won Up my lawyer told me they can't just keep changing the boundaries as they see fit. Or should I say not fit. But even for old age pensions it again seems an utter disgrace. Meaning people in their retirement can't travel for more than six weeks if that is how I read things. Although the above does not seem very clear at all at this stage so we should all stop shaking and wait for clarity i guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Dec 5, 2015 16:57:39 GMT 7
It's clear to me nomadic, it's now something that they cannot change easily, and if they do they cannot point to people living overseas on "loopholes" in the legislation and say that they have no responsibility to those whose lives they wrecked as those people should have known better.
We now have the right to live overseas legally and if they want to change the legislation, the right to be grandfathered.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2015 18:03:26 GMT 7
agree, there is now the AWLR rule, which I think I have the acronym correct. Aust working life residency etc. Harsh as it may seem, its simply based on this : and I will use an example : Person A leaves Aust when born there, and as a 3rd generation as an example and goes to find his or her time in another land. What I do have a problem with is this : Person A is born here and is from what we know as natural justice and that may be argued, but not here now, that they have a birth right, and therefore access to all things to all citizens. So, Person A leaves and spends time elsewhere, doing what is allowed under international law. AWLR though is inflicted on them, regardless of their circustance in latter life. IF though, another australian citizen was to, after being within the guidelines of 35 years of AWLR to abscond, then they would be able to access all welfare that is allowed to all others who dont. And thats the point. That those who stay till 65 and do leave are not embattled at all. Those who return within a period are. We now have another issue and this is those who come to Australia who are not born here. The AWLR is now attempting to decide whether a person who arrives under a protection visa some years before is now able to gain access to portability of payment that under natural justice, would be determined to not be correct. And here we have the contrast, as should a person who has been a resident of Australia for a period of time be allowed to have their payment portable elsewhere? The fairness test must always be applied and this is why for many there are complications.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Dec 6, 2015 21:16:08 GMT 7
The person with the 35 year AWLR (NOT ME, I FALL BELOW), deserves the most consideration of personal circumstances. However, it is not a good idea to be outside of Australia in the last 6 months prior to turning 65. A person should study and have some awareness of the rules.
If a person is turning 65 without having deeply studied the rules, there is no point blaming Centrelink at that time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Dec 6, 2015 21:35:30 GMT 7
I think the government has a certain duty to inform all citizens or PRs approaching retirement age of their obligations under the Act.
I realise that many would be hard to contact now but a start would be including information in every new passport like customs do and maybe a leaflet with the immigration departure cards.
The law is ridiculous anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Denis-NFA on Dec 6, 2015 22:44:20 GMT 7
The law is ridiculous anyway. What more needs to be said. |
|
??
