|
|
Post by fedup on Jan 27, 2015 2:11:40 GMT 7
|
|
|
|
Post by fedup on Jan 27, 2015 2:37:34 GMT 7
|
|
|
|
Post by fedup on Jan 27, 2015 2:46:51 GMT 7
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Jan 27, 2015 9:00:41 GMT 7
Thanks but nothing new there.
What happens if you are returning, like me, applying for OAP, but no fixed address. Only hostel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Jan 27, 2015 9:08:11 GMT 7
I don't think you need to have an address, or any local address would do, you just have to be in Australia and meet the other requirements like age.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Jan 27, 2015 9:40:24 GMT 7
I'm going to be a year late. How great if I could get back pay for a year. But I'm 100% sure I wont. To the government's credit and our detriment, those rules and regs are locked up tighter than a drum and getting tighter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Jan 27, 2015 11:35:02 GMT 7
Why to the governments credit?
Sure if you have worked most of your life overseas I can see why pensions should be restricted but if someone goes away after working in Australia and paying taxes for 40 years and comes back for the age pension why shouldn't it be portable?
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Jan 27, 2015 13:26:08 GMT 7
Why to the governments credit? Sure if you have worked most of your life overseas I can see why pensions should be restricted but if someone goes away after working in Australia and paying taxes for 40 years and comes back for the age pension why shouldn't it be portable? My statement is generic to all government regs. They are locked up tight as a drum to avoid loopholes. Whether I agree with them or not is another matter.
The current government did not set the rules. Now my statement can get contentious if I'm seen to support the current gov't stance on many issues, DSP, being the most topical. I'm neutral on that one Banjo, I am not involved.
"If someone works 40 years, they can't have been away that long". Like here I'm talking about the OAP. On the other thread, I think Buhana was talking about the OAP, but he's still a few years away from age 65. He has a chance to comply with the residency requirements before he turns 65. If you see my reply, I'm talking to him about that.
Like me returning at 65. I will comply with the regs because that's the law. Again, I have to do that whether I agree or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Jan 27, 2015 13:46:00 GMT 7
I know people who have worked in Australia for 40 years then left the country for 5 and are still too young for the Age pension. The maths aren't all that difficult.
The government "rules" would still see them as a returning resident for OAP purposes.
It's like the old DSP residency rules, they said you have to be a resident, but did not specify what residency qualification was.
Subsequently Centrelink made it up as they went along and got trashed in the appeals system.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Jan 27, 2015 14:19:26 GMT 7
I know people who have worked in Australia for 40 years then left the country for 5 and are still too young for the Age pension. The maths aren't all that difficult. The government "rules" would still see them as a returning resident for OAP purposes. It's like the old DSP residency rules, they said you have to be a resident, but did not specify what residency qualification was. Subsequently Centrelink made it up as they went along and got trashed in the appeals system. Hey Banjo. I'm not trying to get feisty or funny with you the head honcho here. We are in discussion, here and on the other thread.
The guy that works 40 years and goes away 5, and returns, still below pension age, and this might happen even more in the future. This individual has had a chance to comply with residency, but maybe through ignorance he ignored the rules.
Better to comply, than to fight a case they might lose. I'm talking current, not what happened before.
|
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Jan 27, 2015 14:31:09 GMT 7
No fiestiness or funniness has been noted Chris.
My point here is, and you obviously disagree, is that if your stuck in Australia for 2 years on what I consider to be a very unfair rule then why not appeal... what's to lose?
I doubt very much it would go to the Federal court and even if it did there's a window where costs can be ignored if the appellant is unable to meet them.
I certainly would have done so when in my original application the person I spoke to said I could not be considered a resident because of my DSP history.
She was overruled by a senior officer so it's history now but I could still be sitting in Australia if I'd accepted it.
I hate advising people to roll over and except unfair and dodgy government decisions.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Jan 27, 2015 14:40:03 GMT 7
Copy Banjo. Good clarification.
|
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Jan 27, 2015 14:49:43 GMT 7
I'd hate it for people here to think that I'm someone who cannot be disagreed with on matters of Social Security Law. There are a number of people here who would be equally, if not more, conversant with it, blacktulipvampire for one. As forum administrator I see my main role being that it's discussed in a polite manner that is offensive to no one. I (and the moderators) remove posts that are obviously misleading or unnecessarily discouraging which I like to think has contributed to the popularity of this forum over the years. |
|
