|
|
Post by Banker on Sept 21, 2011 19:10:11 GMT 7
|
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Sept 21, 2011 22:40:18 GMT 7
Some of these prices are unbelievably low, the only problem being that with most of them you have to book the flights next year.
Be a good opportunity for some of these people to start planning and saving now!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2011 9:09:46 GMT 7
I saw them. I also priced the Malaysian Flights from Adelaide, boy were they much cheaper than Singapore Airlines. It is hard to get too many cheap flights without getting too many flights. Especially from Adelaide, i did show wife the new costs but said no. So will decide after out November trip what we do next year, probably miss out on any cheap flights.  |
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Sept 22, 2011 13:15:34 GMT 7
It's always the way, when you want to travel, prices are sky high.
I had an email from Flight Centre yesterday offering ADL-BKK return $548.
|
|
|
|
Post by zorro1 on Sept 22, 2011 14:06:46 GMT 7
Also Thai air are still doing bkk-perth around $780 return in December, not bad considering its peak season
|
|
|
|
Post by Banker on Sept 22, 2011 14:35:38 GMT 7
If you doing the 13 week turn around you can just fly into Darwin, if you can find cheap flights.
|
|
|
|
Post by barnsy on Sept 23, 2011 11:47:14 GMT 7
Hi Banker,
Can we fly back to aus and then turn around the next day and fly back and keep our pension ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Banker on Sept 23, 2011 13:24:04 GMT 7
Should be able to.
|
|
|
|
Post by zorro1 on Sept 23, 2011 13:37:17 GMT 7
In theory you should be able to exit customs tell them you have arrived and are leaving again on the same plane. Had a look at the Darwin flights Banker . Jet star do them but my body would be carried of on a stretcher after 16 hours  |
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Sept 23, 2011 16:38:53 GMT 7
Hi Banker, Can we fly back to aus and then turn around the next day and fly back and keep our pension ? This is what Centrelink believes themselves... International section emails from my own file. “… a DSP recipient does not have to remain an Australian resident to continue to qualify dor the DSP from a residence perspective unless they rely on having a qualifying residence exemption from the residence requirement due to being a refugee.
This means that a DSP recipient can leave Australia permanently or be deemed to no longer be residing in Australia by Centrelink and still qualify for the DSP in their absence. Payability will cease after 13 weeks and therefore they need to return to Australia to maintain payability. There is no minimum time required for which they must remain in Australia to reset the 13 week portability clock and so technically they may land in Australia, go through customs and leave Australia the same or next day and be payable for a further 13 weeks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Banker on Sept 23, 2011 16:52:31 GMT 7
Can anyone tell me why this 13 week rule was brought in?
When I first started one had to return within 12 months, then in 2002 things started to change.....WHY?
Is there a good reason for it or did C/L just want to prove what R.SOLES they can be?
|
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Sept 23, 2011 18:41:12 GMT 7
It was changed back in the 90's then again in about 2002 to 13 weeks. While I was researching portability I found a speech by present treasurer Wayne Swan attacking the Howard government for reducing the time allowed overseas so I immediately wrote to him demanding to know why the Labor government hadn't reversed it when they came to power. I had no reply on this, or from Minister Macklin or my local MP when I drew their attention to it. I wonder though, whether it had affected their change of heart regarding portability for the seriously disabled as mentioned in M. Macklin's May 2011 media release. Mr SWAN (Lilley) :
"I now move to the specific provisions of this bill relating to portability. The measure within this legislation that concerns the opposition is the plan to limit the generosity of the portability provisions relating to work force age social security payments. In particular, this bill seeks to reduce the allowable period of temporary overseas absence for portable social security payments from 26 weeks to 13 weeks. This new portability period will also apply to a range of payments, including the disability support pension and family tax benefit. Labor is particularly concerned about the impact of this measure on some of our larger communities that have a heritage overseas. This includes former UK citizens and also the Greek community.
There are good reasons why the portability provisions should be 26 weeks and not 13. Many families who have parents or siblings living overseas are called upon to go to their aid when they get sick or are dying. In some cases this may involve finalising a person's estate. Often there is a need for a person to spend considerable time overseas. There has never been any evidence presented that shows the current rules have been abused. In fact, the net savings the government is claiming for this provision amount to $4.1 million, and I think they confirm the fact that the government also does not believe that the rules have been abused. These are mean changes that will have a direct impact on people who have loved ones in other countries and they are changes which we will be urging Senator Patterson to join with us in rejecting when this bill reaches the Senate."
People writing to a Labor MP about the 13 week rule might like to quote this.  |
|
|
|
Post by Banker on Sept 24, 2011 4:37:41 GMT 7
It was changed back in the 90's then again in about 2002 to 13 weeks. While I was researching portability I found a speech by present treasurer Wayne Swan attacking the Howard government for reducing the time allowed overseas so I immediately wrote to him demanding to know why the Labor government hadn't reversed it when they came to power. I had no reply on this, or from Minister Macklin or my local MP when I drew their attention to it. I wonder though, whether it had affected their change of heart regarding portability for the seriously disabled as mentioned in M. Macklin's May 2011 media release. Mr SWAN (Lilley) :
"I now move to the specific provisions of this bill relating to portability. The measure within this legislation that concerns the opposition is the plan to limit the generosity of the portability provisions relating to work force age social security payments. In particular, this bill seeks to reduce the allowable period of temporary overseas absence for portable social security payments from 26 weeks to 13 weeks. This new portability period will also apply to a range of payments, including the disability support pension and family tax benefit. Labor is particularly concerned about the impact of this measure on some of our larger communities that have a heritage overseas. This includes former UK citizens and also the Greek community.
There are good reasons why the portability provisions should be 26 weeks and not 13. Many families who have parents or siblings living overseas are called upon to go to their aid when they get sick or are dying. In some cases this may involve finalising a person's estate. Often there is a need for a person to spend considerable time overseas. There has never been any evidence presented that shows the current rules have been abused. In fact, the net savings the government is claiming for this provision amount to $4.1 million, and I think they confirm the fact that the government also does not believe that the rules have been abused. These are mean changes that will have a direct impact on people who have loved ones in other countries and they are changes which we will be urging Senator Patterson to join with us in rejecting when this bill reaches the Senate."
People writing to a Labor MP about the 13 week rule might like to quote this. Thanks for this Banjo, I might start a page on our web site for some history about Australian Pensions. |
|
|
|
Post by Banker on Sept 24, 2011 4:39:36 GMT 7
It was changed back in the 90's then again in about 2002 to 13 weeks. While I was researching portability I found a speech by present treasurer Wayne Swan attacking the Howard government for reducing the time allowed overseas so I immediately wrote to him demanding to know why the Labor government hadn't reversed it when they came to power. I had no reply on this, or from Minister Macklin or my local MP when I drew their attention to it. I wonder though, whether it had affected their change of heart regarding portability for the seriously disabled as mentioned in M. Macklin's May 2011 media release. Mr SWAN (Lilley) :
"I now move to the specific provisions of this bill relating to portability. The measure within this legislation that concerns the opposition is the plan to limit the generosity of the portability provisions relating to work force age social security payments. In particular, this bill seeks to reduce the allowable period of temporary overseas absence for portable social security payments from 26 weeks to 13 weeks. This new portability period will also apply to a range of payments, including the disability support pension and family tax benefit. Labor is particularly concerned about the impact of this measure on some of our larger communities that have a heritage overseas. This includes former UK citizens and also the Greek community.
There are good reasons why the portability provisions should be 26 weeks and not 13. Many families who have parents or siblings living overseas are called upon to go to their aid when they get sick or are dying. In some cases this may involve finalising a person's estate. Often there is a need for a person to spend considerable time overseas. There has never been any evidence presented that shows the current rules have been abused. In fact, the net savings the government is claiming for this provision amount to $4.1 million, and I think they confirm the fact that the government also does not believe that the rules have been abused. These are mean changes that will have a direct impact on people who have loved ones in other countries and they are changes which we will be urging Senator Patterson to join with us in rejecting when this bill reaches the Senate."
People writing to a Labor MP about the 13 week rule might like to quote this. But does anyone know the reason for the change? |
|
