New changes plan to restrict pension access to migrants

A new parliamentary bill could restrict pension access to elderly migrants.

older migrant pensioner

The Federal Government hopes to save $119 million over four years by restricting pension access to elderly migrants – a new bill that ethnic and welfare groups say is unfair.

The new bill, which was brought before the House of Representatives, would require migrants to have 15 years continued residence in Australia or 10 years if migrants have spent five years of their life working in Australia, or have not claimed other forms of welfare for five years.

Currently, any migrant who becomes an Australian resident can access a pension after a total of 10 years, five of which must be continuous.

The changes to the current set up would essentially punish migrants who have previously received activity tested forms of welfare such as Newstart.

Matt Butt from the National Social Security Rights network has warned that action of this kind was “unprecedented” in the history of Australia’s social security system.

“We think the proposal that’s in the budget is harsh and unfair,” Butt said. “The particular reason it’s unfair is because some of the people affected by it will be in severe hardship through no fault of their own, and/or have their access to the pension delayed through no fault of their own.”

The changes are expected to affect two per cent of all pension recipients. Migrants made ineligible under the new laws could still receive a payment called the “special benefit” that is a poverty level payment aimed at short-term relief.

“The community expects that migrants to Australia should be self-sufficient or rely on family members for support and should not expect to be supported by Australian taxpayers, particularly if they arrive close to retirement age or have been a long-term recipient of an activity tested payment, such as Newstart allowance,” said a spokeswoman for Social Services Minister, Christian Porter.

What do you think? Should we be making it tougher for migrants that now call Australia home to claim an Age Pension? Should the stipulation that targets those on a Newstart allowance be scrapped?

Read more at theguardian.com
Read more at aph.gov.au

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    MICK
    4th Jul 2017
    10:11am
    Harsh and unfair? Is it harsh and unfair that so many Australians who have lived here all of their lives are so poorly treated?
    Many might agree that immigrants should not be permitted to land on our social security system as these people do. These people might like to bring entitlements from their homeland with them. No handouts in the country of origin? Thought so. That is why Australia is the only country they want to come to....and the do gooders plus their own campaign so that the numbers coming have no limit.
    I applaud what the government is going and might think even tighter laws need to be put in place so that we are not providing a life of comfort for those who we do not invite but who come anyway.
    arbee
    4th Jul 2017
    10:49am
    Mick, I thought I must have still been asleep and dreaming when I saw you applauding the government, but I fully agree with you. These people have no right to the amounts of money they are currently getting through our welfare system either. Maybe if they tightened up even further then pensioners might be able to get back a little of what was taken from them on 31st December. If they were still living in the countries they came from then their families would be supporting them by working. In Australia their families don't have to work because the welfare payments they get are so good.
    MICK
    4th Jul 2017
    10:57am
    My thoughts about this government may be clear but I'll applaud what is right. As I keep saying....I vote for neither side of politics although I do share many of the values Labor has.

    I am not sure you understand WHY pensioners are under attack. This is a game. Nothing more.
    This government is waging blatant and unashamed class warfare. Pretty clear when you look at policies and where the money is going. Sadly some of our rusted on readers find it impossible to be objective and that is why they cannot see the game for what it is. Easier to live in a fool's paradise.
    Not sure where you stand arbee.
    Crafty
    4th Jul 2017
    11:17am
    My husband and I just retired. Last week I was at Centrelink and a woman was at next desk with male escort. I overheard she couldn't get welfare until she had been here for 104 weeks but she was on 'special benefits'. I'd never heard of that before.

    My concern is, will we be able to sustain such a generous system and will Australian pensioners suffer because we cannot afford to pay for essentials.
    Rosret
    4th Jul 2017
    11:59am
    Agreed.
    GeorgeM
    4th Jul 2017
    1:14pm
    The idea sounds good, in fact why pay pensions to non-Citizens anyway? The savings mentioned in the article don't sound great, and after they set up new bureaucratic processes & computer systems to enforce these, maybe not much savings at all.

    However, there are cases where the idea falls flat, e.g. if the Govt invited people over here under Skilled Migration, and then destroyed their jobs through Outsourcing, industry shutdown, etc, such people could get trapped by such rules.

    I would also like the Govt to consider paying pensions in full to all Citizens with say 20 years taxpaying history here without any Assets or Income tests - that might save a lot of Centrelink costs for processing such deserving citizens. But, will this Govt consider doing anything good for anybody, other than themselves? Not holding my breath.
    Rae
    4th Jul 2017
    1:53pm
    Yes I agree. If we are so broke we are penalising Australians who have worked and paid taxes for a lifetime then new chums should have to fend for themselves as well.
    Rae
    4th Jul 2017
    1:57pm
    George some self funded retirees have been trapped by the rule changes and no one gives a damn.
    Seadove
    4th Jul 2017
    3:25pm
    I totally agree with you Mick. I am left dumbfounded at the decisions the politicians of both parties make in this day and age but I do agree with this one. Immigrants these days have more rights and entitlements than we who have lived here all our lives and paid taxes along the way. I bet if you put this question about stopping payments to people who have never paid any taxes to a plebiscite instead of the gay marriage issue then you would get an overwhelming response in the positive.
    Retired Knowall
    4th Jul 2017
    4:08pm
    Why stop at Migrants, why do the Drones that have never had a job get the full pension. If the Govt. reduced their payment they could afford to pay the Hard Working Pensioner that contributed to the economy a little more.
    Might also be an incentive for the Drones to get off their Bum and get a Job.
    jeffr
    4th Jul 2017
    5:26pm
    One of the reasons for Brexit...the EU telling the Brits what to do regarding migrants and asylum seekers.
    Eddy
    5th Jul 2017
    1:07am
    Dear Retired Knowall, I take umbrage at your definition of 'drones'. You may like to restate your position. You appear to express a populist view without actually thinking it through.
    For instance, my late mother never had a job since she was a teenager in the late 1920s. She spent her adult life as a wife and mother (of 7 children), including some years on her own while my father went to War. Is she undeserving? What about the mentally ill, the polio victims and others who could never hold a job because they were physically incapable. Are they to be classified as 'drones'?
    Retired Knowall
    5th Jul 2017
    9:36am
    I'm referring to the thousands who choose not to work and live off the public purse. There are up to 3 generations living on welfare in Western Sydney. We all have sympathy for the sick and handicapped, but I have little tolerance for the Drones in our society that have never contributed. Mothers are a special case as they contributed by providing valuable work bringing up the next generation to contribute, unlike the Drones that bring up their lot to add to the Welfare Bill.
    GeorgeM
    5th Jul 2017
    7:44pm
    Rae, agree with your comments about rule changes affecting part SFRs, and it will always remain a dark & sad mystery why the retirees allowed this Govt back in to implement their changes.
    thommo
    4th Jul 2017
    10:37am
    this govt is full of mongrels
    niemakawa
    4th Jul 2017
    3:16pm
    Yes and many hide their faces.
    Kali-G
    5th Jul 2017
    10:08am
    SADLY I TOTALLY AGREE
    Anonymous
    7th Jul 2017
    4:29pm
    Talking of those who hide their faces.
    Can anyone tell me of an instance where they have seen a woman wearing a full covering of their face in the workforce??
    Ted Wards
    4th Jul 2017
    10:44am
    Our current population numbers are unprecedented and tax payers are being asked to support more and more people who have contributed nothing to this country other than their culture. We need to stop this mentality that "come to Australia the government pay you and your family to live here. This is exactly what they have done. Why should I support someone bringing their parents here who will just need medical care etc? I dont care bleeding heart you are but I agree with this because our population is just going to increase and age!
    MICK
    4th Jul 2017
    11:00am
    Unusual to be agreeing with you Ted but you are spot on. We all need to contribute something in our life time and many of those who arrive on our shores uninvited want to be kept. That is wrong but both sides of politics continue to prop it up. The only kudos I could give our current corrupt government is it stopped the boats. Well done on that one. A pity the nation has been sold off and sold out on everything else.
    Retired Knowall
    4th Jul 2017
    4:11pm
    Why should you support the Drones that have never worked and Bred more Drones that suck on the Public Teat.
    Anonymous
    5th Jul 2017
    2:21am
    Who are the Drones, Retired Knowall? Women who raised families and helped husbands who worked hard and paid taxes and supported their wives? Disabled people? People who suffered severe illness or mental illness? People who were so badly abused and deprived in childhood that they could not work and support themselves properly in adulthood? What about those who spent their lives in and out of prison after being literally ''jailed'' and suffering physical, sexual and emotional abuse throughout childhood, having been orphaned when very young or removed from a poverty-stricken family?

    Before you judge, you should educate yourself about the reasons why some have never worked. I agree with you when it comes to outright bludgers. The problem is that nobody is qualified to assess who is a bludger and who had a genuine reason for being unable to work. The real ''drones'' are clever frauds and cheats who know exactly how to manipulate the system.
    Retired Knowall
    5th Jul 2017
    9:37am
    I'm referring to the thousands who choose not to work and live off the public purse. There are up to 3 generations living on welfare in Western Sydney. We all have sympathy for the sick and handicapped, but I have little tolerance for the Drones in our society that have never contributed. Mothers are a special case as they contributed by providing valuable work bringing up the next generation to contribute, unlike the Drones that bring up their lot to add to the Welfare Bill.
    fedup
    4th Jul 2017
    10:59am
    Totally agree having worked all my life & only retiring because after the age of 75 you can't contribute to superannuation? I think this is age discrimination but that's the rules I will have to access some pension until my super runs out. Why should my hard earned taxes over the years go to pay anyone who hasn't contributed anything to this country in their lives it's about time Governments stopped listening to all the bleeding hearts & stopped immigration all together.
    MICK
    4th Jul 2017
    11:01am
    Many of us agree fedup.
    Needy not Greedy
    4th Jul 2017
    1:03pm
    Some interesting figures coming out of the 2016 Census, one of them is a bit of a spin out, in 2006 16% of the population spoke a language other than English in their homes, in 2016 that figure has increased to 21%, I would have thought that day to day exposure to English and children going to school etc would have had the opposite effect, glad it wasn't a quiz question !
    niemakawa
    4th Jul 2017
    3:26pm
    Libs/Lab/Greens have no intention of stopping immigration. Despite no boat arrivals many economic migrants are arriving daily, thotugh other channels. Many will more than likely claim "refugee"status. That status is like the equivalent of a Politicians Gold Card. There is a wave of mass immigration being implemented through the UN to re-settle people in lands where the whites are in a majority. Western Europe is a classic example of this. Thousand upon thousands of Africans being escorted by ship to ports in Italy. Most are muslims and young men, fleeing what? certainly not war zones. The EU has done nothing to prevent it and is encouraging more to come. The powers that be call it diversity I call it perversity.

    The elderly not only in Australia but all over the West have become the great unwanted as replacements are on there way.
    MICK
    4th Jul 2017
    4:01pm
    Not all that far fetched niemakawa.
    Go into Sydney. Not sure caucasians are all that welcome any more.
    What the do gooders in the UN are doing is to force people who often do not fit to be taken. Then you have friction. Then you have conflict, or worse.
    The other issue is cramming countless millions from the third world into first world nations for a better life. The trouble is that first world nations will end up becoming the next their world. So what do you achieve by doing this.
    The last iss terrorism and this is happening all over the world. Wherever you have incumbent muslim populations you run that risk. I heard an expert speak in London a few weeks ago who said that the British government can watch 3,000 of its citizens but need to watch another 50,000, for which the funding is not there. This lot would all be from one religious cohort. Makes a statement!
    niemakawa
    4th Jul 2017
    4:08pm
    An interesting article.

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/07/01/african-cardinal-in-vatican-urges-europe-to-turn-off-the-faucet-of-immigration/
    niemakawa
    4th Jul 2017
    4:09pm
    Another.

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/06/29/historian-europe-next-migrant-crisis-matter-time/
    niemakawa
    4th Jul 2017
    4:12pm
    Another. The EU fanning the flames, just sitting back and taking no action to stop or even stem the flow. Why not? The reason is quite obvious, to me.

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/06/27/italy-overwhelmed-as-13500-african-migrants-arrive-in-past-two-days/
    niemakawa
    4th Jul 2017
    4:36pm
    "Refugees"should not be allowed to bring any family( children,mother, fathers etc) members to Australia until they have become Australian citizens and have sufficient income to support their relatives.
    gadsby
    4th Jul 2017
    9:02pm
    That"s why Labour love them ,thousands more will arrive under a Labour government ,simple reason,there all going to vote Labour,not to hard to work out Mick,is it??
    So don"t come on here winging about immigration,there the ones who are going to vote "your brothers " back into power,if any thing ,you should be encouraging it.
    MICK
    5th Jul 2017
    9:52am
    I'd be surprised if Labor went there again. They know the consequences.
    What you miss gadsby is that Labor was held to ransom by the Greens. They had some MPs who wanted to go in the same direction as the mindless Greens but were essentially forced down this road to retain government. They would never do this again because they know what the next election holds.
    You need to move on gadsby rather than live in the past.
    Rubicon
    4th Jul 2017
    11:30am
    I fully applaud this move particularly for migrants from countries that do not have reciprocal agreements with Australian social security
    Travelling Man
    4th Jul 2017
    11:53am
    Totally agree and applaud this proposed bill to restrict pension access to elderly migrants. I would add that any so called "special benefits" payments be also restricted to a 15 year continued residence to prevent such further largesse poured out to these opportunistic parasites. Any savings could hopefully be directed to those Australian born pensioners who are in dire straits as well as the thousands of homeless currently living on our streets.
    MICK
    4th Jul 2017
    12:00pm
    As you well understand our own are last cab off the rank. Pollies are happy to give away money to foreigners and look good in front of the cameras rather than help our own. Australians have been betrayed but it will only end with being voted out. That sort of puts it into perspective for those who we pay so much to who betray us so eagerly.

    4th Jul 2017
    12:15pm
    Already the question stands why we pay social security to people who are not even Australian citizens??
    MICK
    4th Jul 2017
    12:31pm
    I too have asked this question many times. no answer given other than the routine do gooder BS.
    Linda
    4th Jul 2017
    12:47pm
    There may be some migrants who arrived years ago, that never considered the retirement arrangements. I think it is silly to suggest that migrants who were actually invited to move here, to be in the position this idea suggests. At any moment, life can change, via illness, or financial loss, (being cheated via a bank or some such), and one can end up in some kind of financial disaster. This mean mean look at things, shows the worst side of our people. Please recall, migrants contribute to this county and should be treated well. After all the distance from their previous county has cost them friends and family and they have embraced Australia as their home. Let us remember to be kind and compassionate. A citizen is a citizen.
    Not Amused
    4th Jul 2017
    1:03pm
    Embraced Australia as their home? A diminished qualification since the 1970's when the source countries and cultures changed from western/european immigrants to large numbers of incompatibles who wanted to come here but maintain dual citizenship. There should be no benefits to holders of dual passports - full-stop. We can find examples of people who call themselves say, "Egyptian-Australian", naming their former country as No. 1. even if born here. In recent decades the so-called immigrants are aptly titled Centrelink Seekers".As for the "Being cheated via a bank..." they are private enterprises who answer to their shareholders. I've never been "cheated" by a bank despite a credit card, bank loan, savings account, term deposits and various services. We live in an entitled society and I'm pleased the government is cracking down on freebies for people who don't work and pay taxes.
    MICK
    4th Jul 2017
    2:05pm
    Agree Not Amused. The newcomers are for the most part illiterate people who cannot speak the language and do not want anything to do with Australians, preferring in many cases to languish on the public purse whilst crying victimisation, racism and poverty.

    Compassion Linda? Whilst I see the good side of this you forget to mention that there is a 2 way street for this and that there are more than 60 million people who call themselves 'refugees'. Show me a person who wants to integrate and to work and I'll agree with you. Until then what we have is what we have.

    Last thing is have you noticed the criminal activity reported nightly (murders, knife attacks, assaults, muggings and fraud) come from predominantly one religious cohort? A protected species who can cause so much misery and not be named. About time we all came to our senses and the do gooders were silenced before they manage to destroy our country. Got it off my chest!
    Anonymous
    5th Jul 2017
    2:54am
    Linda, when it comes to those who integrate, learn English, work and pay taxes, I agree with you - but they are NOT the ones the government is targeting with this new policy. In my view, the policy is way too little, way too late. When every elderly, sick, disabled or disadvantaged Australian is properly supported THEN we can worry about what's left for immigrants. We can be compassionate and caring without accepting any obligation to give them the food from our own table and let our own go hungry while they dine.
    sunnyOz
    4th Jul 2017
    12:56pm
    No wonder Australia is seen as a soft touch!
    Triss
    4th Jul 2017
    1:12pm
    I often think that governments give people a controversial topic in order to divert them from government rorts.
    33,000 pensioners lost all or part of their pensions to save taxpayers money however it didn't go into the taxpayers' pockets because the Federal fat cats were awarded thousand of dollars in salary rises. So stir up public opinion against migrants' benefits and no-one will comment on MPs extra benefits.
    Crafty
    4th Jul 2017
    2:00pm
    The gap between rich and poor widens.

    MPs also get 69% super I think. How outrageous.
    MICK
    4th Jul 2017
    2:49pm
    Diversion is a normal tactic to take focus off the real issue: the transfer of jobs to the third world and Class Warfare which is well under way. The money trail is not too hard for even simple minded folk to comprehend if they choose to.
    Captain
    4th Jul 2017
    2:54pm
    Trish, approx 330,000 (including 92,000) lost part or all of their pension entitlement. At the ballot box is the way to let politicians know how you feel about their policies and entitlements.

    Crafty, I think that politicans super is closer to 16% not 69%. Still outrageous considering they have kept the average workers super at 9% instead of allowing the legislated 12%.
    Triss
    4th Jul 2017
    4:29pm
    Oops, I should do a bit more proof reading. Yes, Captain, thanks, I did miss a nought out, it should have read 330,000 pensioners.
    Triss
    4th Jul 2017
    4:48pm
    You're right, Crafty, and because the gap widens almost daily perhaps Ken Henry had a good idea when he suggested bringing back inheritance tax for estates over a certain amount. I think it was above $2,000,000. Apparently applying it to wealth over $2 million would bring in about $2 billion a year. That should divert a bit of heat away from pensioners and their pensions.
    Of course Turnbull and cronies with their multi million dollar assets would never allow that.
    Crafty
    4th Jul 2017
    5:21pm
    Captain, you got me intrigued so I tried to source some information. I found ; 15.9% is their contribution to super. After 8 years of service they receive 50% of the current retiring allowance ($185k). The percentage goes up from there.

    + their notional contribution.
    I saw a table with notional contribution rate %. It had super guarantee at bottom at 9% and parliamentary at 47.9%. Judges get 55.3%.

    I had heard 69% on TV. There was a big yahoo about it.
    Sorry, it's just ugh.... info found at aph.gov.au.
    Captain
    4th Jul 2017
    6:43pm
    Crafty, I bow to your research. If you are right (which I do not dispute) then the politicians are getting even more than I realized. Thanks for the info.
    Lookfar
    4th Jul 2017
    1:14pm
    Those who think that any money the Govt. saves on immigrant pensions they will give to other pensioners in Australia are in La La land, they want to further reduce pensions, to give to their rich mates, the super rich, they are imbued with the ancient Puritan ethic that Monbiot wrote an article on, a part of which I quote "The first Puritans preached that men should be charitable, encourage justice and punish exploitation. This character persisted through the 17th century among the settlers of New England. But in the old country it didn't stand a chance.
    Puritanism was primarily the religion of the new commercial classes. It attracted traders, money lenders, bankers and industrialists. Calvin had given them what the old order could not: a theological justification of commerce. Capitalism, in his teachings, was not unchristian, but could be used for the glorification of God. From his doctrine of individual purification, the late Puritans forged a new theology.
    At its heart was an "idealisation of personal responsibility" before God. This rapidly turned into "a theory of individual rights" in which "the traditional scheme of Christian virtues was almost exactly reversed". By the mid-17th century, most English Puritans saw in poverty "not a misfortune to be pitied and relieved, but a moral failing to be condemned, and in riches, not an object of suspicion ... but the blessing which rewards the triumph of energy and will".

    This leap wasn't hard to make. If the Christian life, as idealised by both Calvin and Luther, was to concentrate on the direct contact of the individual soul with God, then society, of the kind perceived and protected by the medieval church, becomes redundant. "Individualism in religion led ... to an individualist morality, and an individualist morality to a disparagement of the significance of the social fabric."
    To this the late Puritans added another concept. They conflated their religious calling with their commercial one. "Next to the saving of his soul," the preacher Richard Steele wrote in 1684, the tradesman's "care and business is to serve God in his calling, and to drive it as far as it will go." Success in business became a sign of spiritual grace: providing proof to the entrepreneur, in Steele's words, that "God has blessed his trade". The next step follows automatically. The Puritan minister Joseph Lee anticipated Adam Smith's invisible hand by more than a century, when he claimed that "the advancement of private persons will be the advantage of the public". By private persons, of course, he meant the men of property, who were busily destroying the advancement of everyone else.
    Tawney describes the Puritans as early converts to "administrative nihilism": the doctrine we now call the minimal state. "Business affairs," they believed, "should be left to be settled by business men, unhampered by the intrusions of an antiquated morality." They owed nothing to anyone. Indeed, they formulated a radical new theory of social obligation, which maintained that helping the poor created idleness and spiritual dissolution, divorcing them from God.
    Of course, the Puritans differed from Bush's people in that they worshipped production but not consumption. But this is just a different symptom of the same disease. Tawney characterises the late Puritans as people who believed that "the world exists not to be enjoyed, but to be conquered. Only its conqueror deserves the name of Christian."
    Patriot
    4th Jul 2017
    5:28pm
    Lookfar,
    Whilst the churches have - in my book - always been considered to be a major part of the "Global Power-Play", I have never considered this from the perspective you're painting.
    Very interesting indeed, and I consider that it has considerable merit.
    In the good old US of A, indeed the Businessman is also a minister of Religion on some occasions.
    Of course, when the congregation is happy with their minister, they will forward much business to him.
    The logic works and has a "Close Fit" with the mechanisms you explore!

    The way I see it, Money is just a TOOL in the hands of the "Slave Barons"
    Money, a tool to deprive us of ANY Property and reduce "mere Mortals" like us to serfdom.

    There is no happier slave than the one who thinks he/she is free!

    Let's hope we Wake Up" soon!!!!!
    Captain
    4th Jul 2017
    6:54pm
    Very interesting analysis Lookfar. I, like Patriot had not considered your way of looking at the Puritan/WASP ethic. Lots to consider. Thanks for your contribution.
    Ginaus
    4th Jul 2017
    1:34pm
    sure, whilst the bloody muslims receive benefits for life..... pathetic...
    Lookfar
    4th Jul 2017
    5:05pm
    Ginaus, you didn't read the article as your reply makes no sense, in fact Muslims have to wait ten years already the same as every other immigrant.
    Arguments against Muslims are a special case, you need to develop the ability to discriminate, oterwise you might just as well be a dog barking at all stramgers as it has been trained.
    whatsupdok
    4th Jul 2017
    1:48pm
    Does anyone think it's fair to move the goal posts for established immigrants after they have moved here?
    It OK for new applicants. It's OK for criminals if it is fairly announced before they commit a crime. I moved to Australia in 1990 and it was with expectation the deal would not change after I gave up my retirement opportunities in my home country. I invested 26 years into the country and economy and gave up choices I would have had at home. To say if I don't like it is entirely unfair and I should leave. I would face extreme losses if I did that. Any changes should be with a Grandfather clause.
    Crafty
    4th Jul 2017
    2:21pm
    The bill states '15 years continuous living in australia'.
    You'll be right mate.

    I think It's more the fact people can immigrate here and receive Centrelink payments straight away. It irks some of us who have worked our entire lives to buy a home etc and pay taxes for all who receive Centrelink payments.
    'Special payments' to new immigrants (equal to Newstart). After 104 weeks they can go on any number of payments.
    Old age pension after being here less than 5-10 years.
    By 2035, 25% of the population will be over 65. We can't afford this.
    Even in 10 years we may all be suffering worse from the cost of living.
    Captain
    4th Jul 2017
    2:23pm
    Grandfather clauses! Just like those of us who worked here for 45+ years, helped to build the country and in some cases fought for the country. We are penalized for all the work and privations by not being eligible for a pension. No grandfather clauses for us, only the politicans.

    Hmm, how to resolve these issues to every bodies satisfaction? A start might be to tax the multinationals who currently don't pay tax and change tax laws so that those, including our beloved PM, who have their monies hidden in off shore tax havens pay as well. Simply the tax laws so that what you earn is taxable with no deductions for anything.

    Perhaps with these measures as a starting point the tax for companies and individuals may be as low as 15 to 20 cents in the dollar. Don't hold your breath as it is too hard for our erstwhile masters of incompetence to even look at let alone act upon.
    Rae
    4th Jul 2017
    2:36pm
    The budget of 2016 changed the rules with no grandfathering and it was deemed fair.
    MICK
    4th Jul 2017
    2:54pm
    whatsupdoc: some immigrants help the country but many over the past 2 decades seek to bleed it dry and turn it into a copy of the place they fled complete with their religious intolerance and hate of the nation which has given them a new life. Detestable people we should not be bringing in any more despite the cries from the Sarah Hanson Youngs of this world who cry 'the poor people' in front of the cameras....whilst taking their children on what watching trips on the taxpayer and calling it 'government business'.
    KSS
    5th Jul 2017
    6:38am
    Sounds like your sole intention in coming to Australia was to take advantage of the Government pension and you planned for that outcome over the last 26 years, whatsupdoc. Precisely the issue being discussed here!

    However, if the reports are correct then you would not be affected since you have been here more than 15 years.
    Patriot
    4th Jul 2017
    2:17pm
    Is the OAP Welfare or have we paid for this ENTITLEMENT "All Along" as part of our taxes !?!?!? The answer to this question is now fully recognised by the Govt itself!

    Isn't it fascinating that, whilst the Govt suddenly recognise that you MUST have worked in Australia for quite a number of years in order to be ENTITLED to receive the OAP!
    I, personally, do not see any problems with this.
    However, the government & it's CRONIES cannot have the argument BOTH WAYS !!!

    So - in conclusion - IF this measure is introduced such is a clear confirmation that the OAP IS NOT WELFARE but AN ENTITLEMENT to which ALL Australians have a RIGHT to receive as they have paid for it in their taxes.
    This attitude is very visible in Govt Hansard when the history of the OAP in Aussie is studied through the years.
    Let's introduce it as such action will CONCLUSIVELY prove the ISSUE "ONCE & FOREVER"!
    Rae
    4th Jul 2017
    2:39pm
    It can't be an entitlement as many do not get it even after a lifetime of working and paying taxes. The rule book was thrown out the budget of 2016 and only a few of us noticed.
    MICK
    4th Jul 2017
    3:00pm
    The old chestnut which has done the traps many times before.

    The real question is if pay rises for CEOs, judges and politicians are welfare or otherwise?
    Maybe they are manipulation of absolute power. The commercial word for that is 'fraud'. But then if the electorate keeps on voting in those promoted imbeciles put there by vested interests so why do we ever expect the rorts to end? They won't. After all they are condoned so in the eyes of the benefactors there is nothing wrong with behaving like crooks.

    Ok. off topic. Not even Friday.
    niemakawa
    4th Jul 2017
    3:04pm
    Of course a certain group will be excluded and receive ongoing tax payer benefits as usual. No wonder they want to be classified as refugees, once that status is achieved then they have it made. As for "normal"migrants who come here to live with families and pay their own expenses to get here, these people will generally have pension benefits from their country of origin. Other migrants who have not been tagged as a refugee and have no pension from their homelands well they can go to hell. So this is a good proposal, in part.
    Rae
    4th Jul 2017
    3:38pm
    Refugees should be bonded to work wherever they are needed. Like the old bond system the public service had in my opinion. Refuge should not be a free ride for life.
    niemakawa
    4th Jul 2017
    3:46pm
    Rae, I agree.
    Jude
    4th Jul 2017
    3:27pm
    How come you dont have to be australian citizen to get an aged pension i know people who get new zealand pension then topped up by australian pension
    saintagnes
    4th Jul 2017
    4:05pm
    No one should get a pension unless they have been tax-payer for a minimum of 10 consecutive years in this country AND be an Australian Citizen
    KSS
    4th Jul 2017
    5:44pm
    Any 'elderly migrant'would only be coming here as an elderly person as part of family reunion arrangements. Therefore any elderly migrant should only be allowed here IF they are either self supporting (i.e. they bring enough money with them to meet ALL their needs for the rest of their life) OR the family they are reuniting with can fully support them for the rest of their life. An 'elderly migrant' has made no contribution, paid no tax or added to Australian society.

    I also agree with George that ANY Government paid welfare should be reserved for citizens only. There MUST be some advantages to being Australian and not just an absence of a two year wait for welfare for other residents. Therefore, if a perfectly legal migrant has been living and working in Australia (invited or not,) for even decades without taking citizenship then they should not be entitled to welfare. Those people must be made to fund their own retirement should they wish to stay and as a permanent resident or return to country of origin. Australia does not owe them any debt of gratitude given the person has not actually fully committed to Australia.

    Harsh? Maybe but we will always have a responsibility to take care of Australian citizens who may need the safety net of welfare, even if that is for the whole of their life (consider the severely disabled for example, or genuine refuges needing a safe place). Australia simply cannot afford this continued largess to those who remain uncommitted to Australia or come here for end of life reunions.
    Patriot
    4th Jul 2017
    5:57pm
    KSS
    Agree 100%
    What must be added though (and this is the same for you & me) that the Politicians CANNOT make Mid-Stream changes as the Blighters (being nice here) currently are doing ALL the TIME!

    It MUST be an UNCHANGEABLE contract entered into knowingly & must be Honoured by BOTH parties

    Of course migrant MUST be told about this situation before they are accepted as migrants. A signed copy of this agreement should be kept for future reference!

    The only acceptance I can see for migrants is industrial accidents!
    However, there is nothing a compulsory insurance would not cover in this case.
    floss
    4th Jul 2017
    7:27pm
    Sorry free loaders time to look after the workers that have paid for their pension and no I am not on a pension but it would be handy.Yes workers are being screwed and if you are not in a strong union you are in trouble, your choice.
    Dot
    4th Jul 2017
    7:56pm
    No migrant should be allowed any sort of welfare. Those of us who arrived here in 1950 had to work and contribute and receive no freebies. This country is $500 billion in debt. I for one am anti foreign aid, the western world is not responsible for the worlds human termites, the time has come to close borders to them, every country is to take care of it's own.
    niemakawa
    4th Jul 2017
    8:14pm
    The mass immigration of third world illiterates will go on unabated unless the majority of Australians vote for a Nationalistic party where Australia and its people come first.

    The same old Lib/Lab/Greens are Globalist parties meaning that Australians have no more rights than someone living in Africa/ME/Asia etc. The UN is at the forefront of the mass immigration through out the Western World, some call it a replacement programme or white genocide whereby the white populations will be diluted and eradicated if necessary. Most Western politicians back this policy, look the leaders of Germany, France, Sweden, Holland, Belgium all under siege from muslims. They have done nothing and continue to do nothing to stop it.

    Australia will soon be" requested ""by the UN to accept more and more "migrants", believe me.

    Do not ever vote for the 3 parties mentioned earlier, to do so is akin to committing suicide.
    Triss
    4th Jul 2017
    9:09pm
    Yes, Dot, I reckon that $500 billion debt means Australia does not have the financial resources to support any more non-Australian arrivals.
    Unfortunately, the public fat cats who are living in great comfort inside the public purse keep welcoming anyone and everyone in knowing that they won't be inconvenienced, it will be the strugglers like us who will be forced to live on less and less.
    Anonymous
    5th Jul 2017
    2:48am
    Couldn't agree more, with all of you.
    Blondie
    4th Jul 2017
    8:08pm
    Thank you, Lookfar....v interesting re Puritans/ attitude towards commerce, or should it be, justification for the love of commerce? Because we were animals who knew we would die, then all these religions came into being, to make us feel better about our short lives. Oh, and with all the many, many different 'gods', religions, etc, the world has been fighting over whose religion is the ' real' one, ever since!
    Anonymous
    4th Jul 2017
    9:52pm
    yes its all god's fault.
    why didnt he factor in a pension in his grand scheme

    what a useless git
    niemakawa
    4th Jul 2017
    9:56pm
    Raphael, it's Mo's fault.
    Jtee
    4th Jul 2017
    8:28pm
    I agree with most of the comments listed here. Average Aussies are really feeling the pinch and it hurts to hear of the extravagant welfare handouts to immigrants (especially those paid as soon as they arrive in Australia) when pensioners who have spent a lifetime earning, paying taxes, and saving for their retirement get hit by way of reduced pension because "they are lucky to have assets".

    How does the government check on assets held by arrivals to Australia who are claiming benefits from our Dept of Human Services? I'd like to think that they have to go through all the ropes same as Aussie citizens do (ha ha).
    Anonymous
    5th Jul 2017
    2:35am
    Like a certain millionaire I know who migrated here when very young but claimed unemployment or disability for 40 years, they probably have their assets well hidden in their home country. Even tipped off how to look, Centrelink couldn't evidence this particular millionaire's wealth, anymore than they could disprove the fake disability claim - despite an Affidavit claiming a need for a wheelchair alongside photos of the person dancing and running in a marathon and sworn statements from three witnesses that she won a limbo contest!

    The only ''crime'' punished by deprivation of pension in Australia is actually working and saving responsibly.
    Rae
    5th Jul 2017
    9:09am
    Rainey only those forced to save into compulsory superannuation are penalised. That is the PAYG workers. The rest are making it a field day of tax avoidance and government sponsorship using tax dollars.
    Anonymous
    6th Jul 2017
    10:26am
    I disagree Rae. Those who responsibly planned and saved for retirement outside the superannuation system are also suffering now for having done so. Many of them didn't avoid tax at all - either because they had no opportunity to or because lack of knowledge or conscience prohibited doing so. I agree the PAYG worker is being hideously abused, but it's not only those who saved in super suffering for being hard-working and frugal.

    4th Jul 2017
    9:56pm
    No one should get a pension unless they have saved a minimum of $300k in their super and/or in other assets throughout their working life
    niemakawa
    4th Jul 2017
    9:57pm
    Show me your statements!!!
    Anonymous
    5th Jul 2017
    2:30am
    Oh really, Raphael? So someone who suffers trauma, accident or illness late in life and loses all their savings should be denied a pension? The couple who fostered their 4 grandchildren at age 70 because their son-in-law was a drug addict and their daughter died in an accident should be deprived in their old age because they spent every cent raising and educating grandchildren who otherwise would have become wards of the state? The fellow who flew his 60-year-old sick wife to the US for treatments that aren't available in Australia and spent his savings ensuring she didn't become an intolerable burden on the public health and aged care system should suffer loss of pension for life as punishment? The fellow who was born retarded and worked for a minimum wage in a sheltered workshop all his life should be punished in old age for not earning enough to accumulate $300K in savings? The labourer who raised and educated 10 kids despite earning minimum wage all his life should be denied an age pension despite the fact that he has contributed 10 educated, hard-working professionals who pay high taxes to support the more educationally and occupationally advantaged who had smaller families?

    God help us if some of the judgmental ass-u-me-ing asses on this forum are ever allowed a say in government policy.
    Rae
    5th Jul 2017
    9:13am
    It simply isn't possible to save $300 000 saving a lifetime on the median or lower wage. You work it out. The figures just don't add up.

    The real problem is the very high costs, prices and inflation in Australia. That needs to be fixed first.Especially rents and insurances, education and health costs.

    If prices were not so highly inflated people could save more.
    Crafty
    5th Jul 2017
    9:36pm
    Rainey so true, so true.

    the super guarantee became mandatory in 1992 for those who could work. That's 9% of say a $70,000 wage. It's less than $100k for those retiring now. I haven't included the accumulation factor which may add another $20k. Plus whatever they could have contributed. WOULD NOT REACH $300k for those retiring now, those on lower wages or any number of reasons.
    Anonymous
    6th Jul 2017
    10:35am
    Wish my partner could have enjoyed a contribution of 9% of $70K from 1992 onwards. The employer paid in so little that the super fund sent a bill every year for management fees that exceeded the employer contribution. That went on for a decade. The fund declared the debt did not have to be repaid until contributions increased to at least 150% of the management fee, but they added interest every year on the outstanding debt. After extensive lobbying of the government, the debt was finally wiped, but the end result was zero dollars in super, despite 50 years in the workforce and paying taxes.

    Raphael, would you condemn such a person to starve in old age as punishment for working for such a low wage? If so, you are no better than a murderer, and the death penalty is too good for you. I suspect, though, that you are merely extremely ignorant due to enjoying excessive privilege. Time to educate yourself about life in the real world.
    Crimmo
    4th Jul 2017
    10:34pm
    Migrants should have worked and paid taxes for at least ten years in Australia, before being eligible for an aged pension. And that is generous.
    niemakawa
    4th Jul 2017
    11:06pm
    Very generous.
    Anonymous
    5th Jul 2017
    2:22am
    I agree - that's generous.
    Lookfar
    5th Jul 2017
    7:01am
    I think that that is generally the case now, with the exception of older folk who marry an Australian but may not work as such, although being married can involve a great deal of work..
    In fact if an older Australian male on a single pension marries a bit younger, overseas woman, it may be in a few years she will become an unpaid full time carer, so when he dies I think she should be at least eligible for his pension, if she is of pension age, maybe after 5 years instead of 10.
    Rae
    5th Jul 2017
    9:17am
    Just men Lookfar. What about a woman marrying a younger overseas man desperate enough to be a carer for her and live in Australia.

    Personally I find this use of desperate people from third world countries repulsive.

    It is slavery.
    Lookfar
    5th Jul 2017
    9:29am
    Rae, every situation is different, broad judgements often make a fool of the judger.
    My girlfriend is Thai, only a few years younger than me, we really look after each other, she has several Thai friends, the older ones are with older men, younger with younger, Young Ozzie men are often loathe to commit themselves, whilst the women are the opposite, but Ozzie women when they get older often want to be independant, whereas older Ozzie men wish a loving romantic relationship, having sown their wild oats I suppose you could say.
    Whatever, mixed race relationships are the best antidote to that hateful ignorance called Racism.
    niemakawa
    5th Jul 2017
    3:04pm
    I like my purity, thank you.

    5th Jul 2017
    2:53pm
    Mick,Well said - but is only a start and I'd be happy to see it go to 20 or 25 years
    Lookfar
    5th Jul 2017
    5:19pm
    Pure what? Niemakara, we are all immigrants here in this country, from all over the world, the only pure ones are possibly the Melanesians from Bougainville or the Mong from mountain tops in North Thailand/Southern China, maybe the occasional Aboriginal from the desert in northern South Australia, we are one nation, forget the trivial differences, they only cause trouble.
    niemakawa
    5th Jul 2017
    6:04pm
    I am pure white and very proud to be so. That is my heritage and culture and has as much importance and is worthy as any other is. Even Aborigines are immigrants. White people have to always respect other cultures here and overseas, yet other cultures do not have the same obligation towards white people. I vote for One Nation as well.
    Crafty
    5th Jul 2017
    9:52pm
    OMG are you serious niemakawa. pure white. Falling on floor LMAO.
    Off subject here, but have to respond.

    Every single person should respect each other. In general, white people have never been discriminated against. We have never been slaves or mass murdered.

    BTW. I'm called white nana. And I'm definitely not pure lol.
    niemakawa
    5th Jul 2017
    9:55pm
    Crafty, you talk nonsense, check your facts first.

    It is nigh impossible to respect every person. Yes I am as white as anyone can be, pure. I am very happy with that.
    Aussie
    6th Jul 2017
    12:43pm
    This is just another worry about the younger generation in power having little or no regard for the welbeing of people who are not as fortunate as themselves. The older generation have spoilt them over the years by giving them everything that they wanted. The older generation lived through one sometimes 2 world wars and severe rationing of food and resources resulting in the attitude that they were trying to make sure that their chen got everything that they did not.
    Aussie
    6th Jul 2017
    1:33pm
    sorry my last post got sent before I could complete it so here is part 2. I really think that we should not undermine the important role and contributions that migrants to this wonderful country of ours have made with such disastrous budget legislation not very well thought threw.It is my understanding that Australia was an underpopulated country years ago that decided they needed the help of skilled migrants to not only increase the population but to also train and transfer the migrants skills to a nation that at that time relied on the land for a living. A secondary spin off of the migrant scheme was the huge sums of money that migrants had to bring with them which ended up in the banks as Australian currency helping the economy. This can also be seen today by looking at the huge sums of money the Australian Government asks for to issue a visa to not only migrants but every class of worker and tourists. A lot of migrants were in the prime of their lives and were selected from well educated backgrounds with good health, who had several daughters to assist the population increase here. Certain countries also looked after the pensions of the migrants making sure that migrants pension rights would be protected over the years. On interviews with Australian Government Officials in the migrants country of origin one question that was continually asked by them was did Australia have a pension scheme and would they be eligible for a pension in Australia. What do you think they were told? That's right. The Pensions when paid to the migrants by their own country of origin are taxed here in Australia as foreign income and yes even those who served in the defense forces of their country of origin along side australian defense force personnel were also taxed by Australia. Low and behold when it came time that they could no longer work and needed this wonderful country of ours to give them what they had been promised, all other pension rights earned overseas were deducted from the Australian due pension payment. So lets be respectful to those who have done the right thing by us and have SACRIFISED MORE THAN ANY AUSTRALIAN BORN CITIZEN WILL EVER KNOW.
    Patriot
    6th Jul 2017
    1:46pm
    Aussie,
    You're right.
    I would not have been allowed to enter Australia as a migrant in 1970 unless the SKILLS I had contributed to the overall prosperity of the country.
    I also was Tested & found able to speak the language with adequate proficiency in order to communicate in a meaningful manner.

    Australia then had the "smallest Public Service" of any other country whilst, at the same time is was the "Most Efficient" compared to other countries.
    Taxes were also "Near the bottom of the Scale" in comparison.

    How things have changed and how Personal GREED, FRAUD & DECEPTION have replaced Genuine SERVICE!
    Bezza
    6th Jul 2017
    4:03pm
    My life has been made tougher as my pension age has increased by years. I have worked and paid taxes all my life and it is obvious many immigrants think that is ok and line up to receive the welfare that I should be receiving! All migrants should NOT receive ANY welfare until they have worked and paid taxes for at least 10 x years in this country and if they arrive not able to speak the language or are near retirement age, THEN THEIR FAMILY SHOULD LOOK AFTER THEM AND NOT THE TAX PAYER!
    pfbnug
    6th Jul 2017
    10:53pm
    I thoroughly agree with the legislation and would make it even harder for non-contributing migrants to receive any benefits whatsoever.
    Anonymous
    9th Jul 2017
    9:00pm
    I agree.

    In the UK

    "To get the full basic State Pension you need a total of 30 qualifying years of National Insurance contributions or credits. This means you were either:

    working and paying National Insurance
    getting National Insurance Credits, for example for unemployment, sickness or as a parent or carer
    paying voluntary National Insurance contributions
    If you have fewer than 30 qualifying years, your basic State Pension will be less than £122.30 per week but you might be able to top up by paying voluntary National Insurance contributions."
    Blossom
    10th Jul 2017
    3:50pm
    Maybe migrants who were disabled by an accident before entering Australia and have never worked - never tried to find a job they were capable of - they are the ones who should be checked on. Elderly whose family guarantee to pay all medical and living expenses - no govt. payment or assistance at all - are denied access. One family has closed their business as they couldn't sell it quickly enough - leaving people unemployed (and being paid the dole until they get new jobs )- to care for their elderly Mother overseas.
    Dianne
    16th Jan 2019
    4:41pm
    Other countries have pension entitlements based on the number of years a person was employed. New arrivals who are retirement age or close to it should be paid by the country from whence they came. Many Australians who have worked hard all their life here have difficulty obtaining pensions.