Disgraceful superannuation rules for hardship cases

[TheBloods]

The Government needs to clear up the process whereby people can take money from their superannuation savings, especially in cases of hardship.

I know of someone in dire straits who is not able to access their superannuation and will be on the street unless someone intervenes to support him.

He has been paying money into his own private superannuation account for ~15 years. Strangely it was out of after-tax earnings, so he never gained any tax relief for doing so (a case of very poor financial advice for someone who is not familiar with finance). Therefore all of his contributions are non-concessional, so they really should be non-preserved. However, his superannuation fund (AMP) will not let him take any out, saying it is all preserved. All he wants to do is take out his own contributions that are his own money, but they won't let him.

He has also lost his job and has no other savings. He can claim hardship to try to recover some of his superannuation that way, but you cannot do so until you have been claiming unemployment benefits for 28 weeks. That's pretty useless consider that at ~$900pm it won't even cover his rent (and even if it did, it would leave no remaining money to live on), so that by the time the 28 weeks is up he will be homeless.

On top of that, even if somehow he is able to pay his rent (by borrowing from someone), when he receives his superannuation payout, the unemployment benefits will cease, which means he will have to use up all of his savings to live on. He is not even allowed to pay back borrowings (such as for the rent he has to pay) from friends or family.

Typically disgraceful governmental bureaucracy that cares for no one.

 

[Jumpin' Jimmy]

The Government needs to clear up the process whereby people can take money from their superannuation savings, especially in cases of hardship.

I know of someone in dire straits who is not able to access their superannuation and will be on the street unless someone intervenes to support him.

He has been paying money into his own private superannuation account for ~15 years. Strangely it was out of after-tax earnings, so he never gained any tax relief for doing so (a case of very poor financial advice for someone who is not familiar with finance). Therefore all of his contributions are non-concessional, so they really should be non-preserved. However, his superannuation fund (AMP) will not let him take any out, saying it is all preserved. All he wants to do is take out his own contributions that are his own money, but they won't let him.

He has also lost his job and has no other savings. He can claim hardship to try to recover some of his superannuation that way, but you cannot do so until you have been claiming unemployment benefits for 28 weeks. That's pretty useless consider that at ~$900pm it won't even cover his rent (and even if it did, it would leave no remaining money to live on), so that by the time the 28 weeks is up he will be homeless.

On top of that, even if somehow he is able to pay his rent (by borrowing from someone), when he receives his superannuation payout, the unemployment benefits will cease, which means he will have to use up all of his savings to live on. He is not even allowed to pay back borrowings (such as for the rent he has to pay) from friends or family.

Typically disgraceful governmental bureaucracy that cares for no one

Don't laugh but he should go to his local Federal member's office if he has not already done so. That's what they are there for and they can often cut directly through all the red tape and crap that individuals have no chance of doing.

What age is he?

 

[TheBloods]

He's in his 40s and he is just organising a time to go to his local MP, so hopefully as you say they can get things done.

 

[Jumpin' Jimmy]

He's in his 40s and he is just organising a time to go to his local MP, so hopefully as you say they can get things done

Sad really........ especially the atrocious financial advice or lack of any advice. Super is complex at the best of times.

I had a major problem a few years back with Govt depts(not re super) and had virtually given up it was such a nightmare. An old lady who was a JP said she'd have a chat to the local State MP. I thought it would get nowhere but next day she rang me back and said he'd contacted the Fed MP's office and for me to ring a particular staff specialist. This person was fantastic.... both in her communication skills and the way she managed my case through to resolution. A couple of years back I had a similar situation. This time a new staff member was involved but the service was again first class.

I hope your friend gets the same sort of assistance.

 

[TheBloods]

Thanks JJ - hopefully we can organise something via the MP.

 

[Eagle87]

The Government needs to clear up the process whereby people can take money from their superannuation savings, especially in cases of hardship.

I know of someone in dire straits who is not able to access their superannuation and will be on the street unless someone intervenes to support him.

He has been paying money into his own private superannuation account for ~15 years. Strangely it was out of after-tax earnings, so he never gained any tax relief for doing so (a case of very poor financial advice for someone who is not familiar with finance). Therefore all of his contributions are non-concessional, so they really should be non-preserved. However, his superannuation fund (AMP) will not let him take any out, saying it is all preserved. All he wants to do is take out his own contributions that are his own money, but they won't let him.

He has also lost his job and has no other savings. He can claim hardship to try to recover some of his superannuation that way, but you cannot do so until you have been claiming unemployment benefits for 28 weeks. That's pretty useless consider that at ~$900pm it won't even cover his rent (and even if it did, it would leave no remaining money to live on), so that by the time the 28 weeks is up he will be homeless.

On top of that, even if somehow he is able to pay his rent (by borrowing from someone), when he receives his superannuation payout, the unemployment benefits will cease, which means he will have to use up all of his savings to live on. He is not even allowed to pay back borrowings (such as for the rent he has to pay) from friends or family.

Typically disgraceful governmental bureaucracy that cares for no one.

Of course if he set up his own SMSF and transferred the proceeds from AMP then he would be his own trustee and would have to satisfy himself of the hardship requirements.

If he incorrectly ummm helped himself to funds he was ultimately not entitled to - as assessed by the ATO in an audit - then he would potentially run the risk of losing his complying status etc etc .....

Of course he shouldnt do that should he .... because as we know "its your money but not yet"

Would cost him about $500 to set up an SMSF and would take a couple fo weeks to roll the money across from AMP. But of course he shouldn't ....

 

[TheBloods]

Hmmm... I must tell him not to do something like this...

Thanks for the warning...

 

[TheBloods]

Well the update is that the MP was too busy for a meeting, but one of the assistants is following up with the Super Commission. Doesn't look good though as I spoke to ASIC and APRA who said that he can't access his super savings unless he has a terminal illness or needs to pay mortgage arrears*.

As for SMSF I was advised that there are strict regulations around that and if he withdrew any funds he will be heavily fined, even though the only member is him and it's his money and no one will lose out.

Absurd Government restrictions. And there is nothing anyone can do about it.

So unless I pay his rent he will be on the street within a month#. What a joke the so-called social safety net is.




# AMP's helpful answer to this was lovely - "Well that's none of my concern" - thanks, you ****ing pricks!


* I love how rent is specifically excluded - ridiculous overemphasis on home ownership - are renters second-class citizens? So if you are going to be thrown onto the streets out of your mortgaged home you can access superfunds but if you are going to be thrown onto the streets out of your rented home bad luck. A home is always excluded as an asset, so for example, you can live in a multi-million dollar home and claim unemployment benefits, but if you put aside a few thousand to pay for a few months' rent then you can't claim unemployment benefits.

 

[Jumpin' Jimmy]

Well the update is that the MP was too busy for a meeting, but one of the assistants is following up with the Super Commission. Doesn't look good though as I spoke to ASIC and APRA who said that he can't access his super savings unless he has a terminal illness or needs to pay mortgage arrears*.

As for SMSF I was advised that there are strict regulations around that and if he withdrew any funds he will be heavily fined, even though the only member is him and it's his money and no one will lose out.

Absurd Government restrictions. And there is nothing anyone can do about it.

So unless I pay his rent he will be on the street within a month#. What a joke the so-called social safety net is.


# AMP's helpful answer to this was lovely - "Well that's none of my concern" - thanks, you ****ing pricks!


* I love how rent is specifically excluded - ridiculous overemphasis on home ownership - are renters second-class citizens? So if you are going to be thrown onto the streets out of your mortgaged home you can access superfunds but if you are going to be thrown onto the streets out of your rented home bad luck. A home is always excluded as an asset, so for example, you can live in a multi-million dollar home and claim unemployment benefits, but if you put aside a few thousand to pay for a few months' rent then you can't claim unemployment benefits.

Welcome to the "real" world where red tape chokes the system, all banks are bastards and insurance companies are even worse!

Just a couple of comments TB. It's the MP's assistants who know what to do and have the best contacts. Surprisingly they usually get the job done even if their MP is not from the Govt party in office. So keep trying via that avenue to get at least temporary assistance.

The other aspect relates to who his landlord is. If he/she has a heart then it may be possible to negotiate an arrangement to help him get through the 28 week period(or until he finds another alternative if that is unavailable). The earlier the landlord is appraised of the situation the better. If your mate has a good tenancy record then they may be prepared to help him through this crisis in order to retain him.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

He has been paying money into his own private superannuation account for ~15 years. Strangely it was out of after-tax earnings, so he never gained any tax relief for doing so (a case of very poor financial advice for someone who is not familiar with finance). Therefore all of his contributions are non-concessional, so they really should be non-preserved. However, his superannuation fund (AMP) will not let him take any out, saying it is all preserved. All he wants to do is take out his own contributions that are his own money, but they won't let him.

You aren't allowed to do that because it is open to abuse.

He has also lost his job and has no other savings. He can claim hardship to try to recover some of his superannuation that way, but you cannot do so until you have been claiming unemployment benefits for 28 weeks. That's pretty useless consider that at ~$900pm it won't even cover his rent (and even if it did, it would leave no remaining money to live on), so that by the time the 28 weeks is up he will be homeless.

On top of that, even if somehow he is able to pay his rent (by borrowing from someone), when he receives his superannuation payout, the unemployment benefits will cease, which means he will have to use up all of his savings to live on. He is not even allowed to pay back borrowings (such as for the rent he has to pay) from friends or family.

Typically disgraceful governmental bureaucracy that cares for no one.

I don't think you understand how it works. The payment out of super for hardship is not just a lump sum to your bank account, it can only be used to pay for debts and bills. It doesn't effect your centrelink benefits.

How long has he been on centrelink benefits? And what debts or outstanding bills does he have?

Superannuation hardship money is not designed to be used for day to day living expenses - its to be used for actual debts and outstanding bills. I've seen cases where they will allow rent to be paid, but only if its in arrears. Helps if he has a family or kids to support too.

What AMP fund is he with? AMP tend to allow financial hardship claims (like any large corporate/retail fund) as long as he can demonstrate he's been on benefits for 26 weeks and needs the money to pay off debts.

I don't know why you'd be upset that he has to use savings to pay off his rent first - superannuation was never designed to be an emergency bank account in the first place. Plus he'll probably get taxed on the way out of super too, meaning its less tax effective to use your super for it than it is to use your savings.

If he was making these contributions 15 years ago, some of it would be non-presefved, surely?

Anyway, if he has savings and doesn't qualify for Centrelink, he's not really in financial hardship.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Sad really........ especially the atrocious financial advice or lack of any advice. Super is complex at the best of times.

Yep - situations like this are precisely why people need to actually go and seek financial advice from a good, independant, planner rather than thinking they can handle it themselves or just sticking with someone they've never met before who was assigned to them from a corporate fund.

Very few people are capable of handling their super without advice.

 

[Eagle87]

As for SMSF I was advised that there are strict regulations around that and if he withdrew any funds he will be heavily fined, even though the only member is him and it's his money and no one will lose out.

Yes. Of course this is true and IF/WHEN he is caught he may well be fined and it may well be a heavy fine... possibly....

Of course, depending on how much it was, he could invest the money in an unrelated entity (because he wouldnt want to breach the in-house asset rules) and if that unrelated entity then somehow got the money to him..... well, no, that would be wrong.....

My point is that the rules are overly restrictive for reasons best known by the regulators. But the more prescriptive and voluminous rules are the more potential cracks there in for those who want to push things .... not that I would recommend this ...

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Yeah, and the auditing on SMSF's has become a lot more strict this past year and will continue to do so.

SMSF's are great though imo, as long as you either have a good planner or really know what you're doing. Not really justifiable for joe average imo.

 

[TheBloods]

You aren't allowed to do that because it is open to abuse.

So because some people may abuse it, others who need it are screwed.

Anyway how can it be abused? You put money in from after-tax earnings - this contribution should remain unpreserved and should be available for withdrawal when you choose. That's how it was when he started the superfund - the law changed on him.

I don't think you understand how it works. The payment out of super for hardship is not just a lump sum to your bank account, it can only be used to pay for debts and bills. It doesn't effect your centrelink benefits.

Actually it is a lump sum to your bank account and Centrelink have stated already that it does affect your benefits because you now have cash in the bank.

How long has he been on centrelink benefits? And what debts or outstanding bills does he have?

Superannuation hardship money is not designed to be used for day to day living expenses - its to be used for actual debts and outstanding bills. I've seen cases where they will allow rent to be paid, but only if its in arrears. Helps if he has a family or kids to support too.

If he doesn't get it then he will be in arrears - that's really not that difficult to work out.

What AMP fund is he with? AMP tend to allow financial hardship claims (like any large corporate/retail fund) as long as he can demonstrate he's been on benefits for 26 weeks and needs the money to pay off debts.

How is he meant to pay his rent for 26 weeks on unemployment benefits?

I don't know why you'd be upset that he has to use savings to pay off his rent first - superannuation was never designed to be an emergency bank account in the first place. Plus he'll probably get taxed on the way out of super too, meaning its less tax effective to use your super for it than it is to use your savings.

I'm upset that if he gets the super payout then he loses his unemployment benefits - that has been said already. Why should he get taxed again? That's like taxing you for taking money out of the ATM.

If he was making these contributions 15 years ago, some of it would be non-presefved, surely?

Nope - it all became preserved when the Govt changed legislation in 1999.

Anyway, if he has savings and doesn't qualify for Centrelink, he's not really in financial hardship.

He doesn't having savings - all he has is his super. So he qualifies for Centrelink but that won't cover his rent. If he gets some super out then he no longer qualifies for Centrelink until he spends the super.

 

[TheBloods]

Yes. Of course this is true and IF/WHEN he is caught he may well be fined and it may well be a heavy fine... possibly....

Of course, depending on how much it was, he could invest the money in an unrelated entity (because he wouldnt want to breach the in-house asset rules) and if that unrelated entity then somehow got the money to him..... well, no, that would be wrong.....

My point is that the rules are overly restrictive for reasons best known by the regulators. But the more prescriptive and voluminous rules are the more potential cracks there in for those who want to push things .... not that I would recommend this ...

Still investigating these options...

 

[Karl Pilkington]

So because some people may abuse it, others who need it are screwed.

Anyway how can it be abused? You put money in from after-tax earnings - this contribution should remain unpreserved and should be available for withdrawal when you choose. That's how it was when he started the superfund - the law changed on him.

Any money he put in whilst the law applied in that manner, should and will still be unpreserved. Your mate might be lying to you here, or more likely, his super fund is feeding him bullshit. Get an ETP statement.

Actually it is a lump sum to your bank account and Centrelink have stated already that it does affect your benefits because you now have cash in the bank.

It shouldn't. At least teh last time I did one for someone (about a year and a half ago) in a similar situation, he had the rent arrears paid and a car loan paid - didn't effect his centrelink payments one bit.

If he doesn't get it then he will be in arrears - that's really not that difficult to work out.

Yes I know. My point was that it HAS to get to arrears before it can be paid with his super. They won't pay it for regular expenses, it has to get to a desperate stage unfortunately (and rightly imo, because they can't be paying out super money for regular expenses).

You also to keep in mind the process will take weeks, if not months, even if he meets the criteria. It is not a bank account. I'm not trying to upset you here, but that's the reality of the process. you'll also find most planner's won't particularly care about how its going, after all, your friend is largely worthless from a planner's point of view at the moment.

How is he meant to pay his rent for 26 weeks on unemployment benefits?

Hell if I know, but if he wants to access his super the best thing he can do is just not pay his rent for a while until it goes into arrears and he gets a debt agreement. Then he can at least show it.

Why hasn't he applied for centrelink yet? Where is his money coming from?

I'm upset that if he gets the super payout then he loses his unemployment benefits - that has been said already. Why should he get taxed again? That's like taxing you for taking money out of the ATM.

Yeah it sucks I know.

Nope - it all became preserved when the Govt changed legislation in 1999.

That isn't right. The unrestricted unpreserved money was never changed into preserved (it only applied to new money). I have seen clients that have unpreserved, unrestricted funds from working in the 80's.

He doesn't having savings - all he has is his super. So he qualifies for Centrelink but that won't cover his rent. If he gets some super out then he no longer qualifies for Centrelink until he spends the super.

How long has he been unemployed?

 

[TheBloods]

Any money he put in whilst the law applied in that manner, should and will still be unpreserved. Your mate might be lying to you here, or more likely, his super fund is feeding him bullshit. Get an ETP statement.

He won't be lying. The fund might be - we are still trying to get a statement from them. APRA and another superfund told me though that all previous contributions do convert to become preserved.

It shouldn't. At least teh last time I did one for someone (about a year and a half ago) in a similar situation, he had the rent arrears paid and a car loan paid - didn't effect his centrelink payments one bit.

That's not what he was advised by Centrelink.

Yes I know. My point was that it HAS to get to arrears before it can be paid with his super. They won't pay it for regular expenses, it has to get to a desperate stage unfortunately (and rightly imo, because they can't be paying out super money for regular expenses).

Which is ridiculous.

You also to keep in mind the process will take weeks, if not months, even if he meets the criteria. It is not a bank account. I'm not trying to upset you here, but that's the reality of the process. you'll also find most planner's won't particularly care about how its going, after all, your friend is largely worthless from a planner's point of view at the moment.

Again, which is ridiculous.
No, it's not a bank account, but he should still be able to withdraw his contributions with an appropriate lead time, which is not what is happening.

Hell if I know, but if he wants to access his super the best thing he can do is just not pay his rent for a while until it goes into arrears and he gets a debt agreement. Then he can at least show it.

Which would be bad if his landlord then kicks him out.

Why hasn't he applied for centrelink yet? Where is his money coming from?

He is with Centrelink. But $900pm doesn't cover much.

That isn't right. The unrestricted unpreserved money was never changed into preserved (it only applied to new money). I have seen clients that have unpreserved, unrestricted funds from working in the 80's.

I have some too, but all non-concessionary contributions apparently became preserved - I'm still trying to get someone to answer whether this is correct but there is no one to do so. The whole thing is a joke.

How long has he been unemployed?

A few weeks I think.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

He won't be lying. The fund might be - we are still trying to get a statement from them. APRA and another superfund told me though that all previous contributions do convert to become preserved.

Get the statement.

That's not what he was advised by Centrelink.

With all due respect, Centrelink are idiots. There's no reason he can't ask for the payment on the financial hardship to be made to any debtors instead of direct to himself. Or better yet, take out a credit card and run up a debt on it paying off his bills, then apply for financial hardship to pay out the card?

Which is ridiculous.

Again, which is ridiculous.
No, it's not a bank account, but he should still be able to withdraw his contributions with an appropriate lead time, which is not what is happening.
Which would be bad if his landlord then kicks him out.

Yeah I see how it hurts individuals, but you have to remember, if they let you do it in advance - everyone would do it for everything. Wouldn't work.

I have some too, but all non-concessionary contributions apparently became preserved - I'm still trying to get someone to answer whether this is correct but there is no one to do so. The whole thing is a joke.

Get the statement. Been a long time since I dealt with componenets regularly, but I'm sure they couldn't have just outright removed it.

A few weeks I think.

See if they can back date it to the day he became unemployed - might help.

 

[TheBloods]

Get the statement.

I will. I think we will organise to transfer to a different fund - someone else might be more helpful.

With all due respect, Centrelink are idiots. There's no reason he can't ask for the payment on the financial hardship to be made to any debtors instead of direct to himself. Or better yet, take out a credit card and run up a debt on it paying off his bills, then apply for financial hardship to pay out the card?

I've thought of all these ideas and that's what I will try, but the APRA statements do say that you must receive the money yourself into your bank account and once you have it Centrelink will jump on you.

Yeah I see how it hurts individuals, but you have to remember, if they let you do it in advance - everyone would do it for everything. Wouldn't work.

No, but rent should be considered the same as a mortgage.

Get the statement. Been a long time since I dealt with componenets regularly, but I'm sure they couldn't have just outright removed it.

I think AMP have actually stuffed the whole thing up, but are not giving us much information.

See if they can back date it to the day he became unemployed - might help.

Thanks - I'll check and see if he has done that.

 

[Bulldog Joe]

A few points
The fund may be fully preserved if it was a personal (non-employer fund)
AMP are not being difficult as they are bound by the rules. Understand if they were found to be releasing monies without complying with the rules they would lose their complying status and it would cost them multi-millions in tax penalties.
An application can be made directly to (I think) APRA who can direct AMP to pay the monies without breaching the rules.
Transferring to another fund will not change the situation.
A SMSF could do it but would be immediately in breach and tax penalties imposed. Although if there are no assets ????
Everything else from Karl is correct.

There is NO IMPACT on Centrelink benefits for Superannuation withdrawal, regardless of what some minion at Centrelink may have said.

If your friend borrowed the money to cover his 26 weeks until his hardship claim, that will be sufficient debt (although needs to be proven).

Question I would ask is what does he intend to do after the hardship payment ?
He is limited to $10K less tax and then has to wait another 12 months before he can apply again.
He actually needs to be doing something sustainable, like reducing his rent so that he can manage on the income he receives, or changing his income so that he can meet the expenditure that he has. Unfortunately there is no middle ground where he can continue to have expenditure beyond his income.

If the problem is short term he may be back on track inside the 26 weeks. This also explains why the hardship cannot be paid in advance.

 

[TheBloods]

A few points
The fund may be fully preserved if it was a personal (non-employer fund)

Which is a completely absurd piece of legislation.

AMP are not being difficult as they are bound by the rules. Understand if they were found to be releasing monies without complying with the rules they would lose their complying status and it would cost them multi-millions in tax penalties.
An application can be made directly to (I think) APRA who can direct AMP to pay the monies without breaching the rules.
Transferring to another fund will not change the situation.

Each fund has different rules on releasing funds depending on their trustees. APRA cannot make a fund release funds early.

There is NO IMPACT on Centrelink benefits for Superannuation withdrawal, regardless of what some minion at Centrelink may have said.

If correct that is good to know.

If your friend borrowed the money to cover his 26 weeks until his hardship claim, that will be sufficient debt (although needs to be proven).

What if he borrows from me? Does it need to be from an institution?

Question I would ask is what does he intend to do after the hardship payment ?
He is limited to $10K less tax and then has to wait another 12 months before he can apply again.
He actually needs to be doing something sustainable, like reducing his rent so that he can manage on the income he receives, or changing his income so that he can meet the expenditure that he has. Unfortunately there is no middle ground where he can continue to have expenditure beyond his income.

It buys him some time to find a job.

Reducing rent is a very difficult prospect. Even a 1BR apartment costs about $200pw now. This is one of the big problems with the huge growth in both housing prices and population. Unemployment benefits have not kept up to date so now they don't even cover basic rental costs, unlike say 10 or so years ago.

If the problem is short term he may be back on track inside the 26 weeks. This also explains why the hardship cannot be paid in advance.

Problem with 26 weeks is that it is 6 months of rent - he has to find money to pay that.

 

[Bulldog Joe]

Originally Posted by Bulldog Joe
A few points
The fund may be fully preserved if it was a personal (non-employer fund
Which is a completely absurd piece of legislation.)

Unfortunately this has always been there. Even pre-dates Keating's legislation.

Each fund has different rules on releasing funds depending on their trustees. APRA cannot make a fund release funds early.)

Sorry they don't, they are bound by the SIS regulations and AMP are at least as good as anyone with releasing funds. It is much more difficult from Industry Funds.

If correct that is good to know.)

You can take as gospel no effect on Centrelink

What if he borrows from me? Does it need to be from an institution?)

He can borrow from anyone, but it needs to be proven at time of release. If you lend the money you will be required to sign a Stat Dec that he owes it to you.

It buys him some time to find a job.)

But unfortunately this is the rock and hard place scenario. He can't get the hardship without the time on Centrelink and if he finds work after 20 weeks he will not qualify for hardship.

Reducing rent is a very difficult prospect. Even a 1BR apartment costs about $200pw now. This is one of the big problems with the huge growth in both housing prices and population. Unemployment benefits have not kept up to date so now they don't even cover basic rental costs, unlike say 10 or so years ago.

Problem with 26 weeks is that it is 6 months of rent - he has to find money to pay that.

I understand what your saying. He will get rent assistance on top of his payment of $111.20 per fortnight if his rent is $247 per fortnight or more.

Rent assistance rates certainly have fallen well behind the market. Was actually designed to pay 75c in the $ above a base threshold.

 

[TheBloods]

Unfortunately this has always been there. Even pre-dates Keating's legislation.

Non-concessionary contributions used to be non-preserved (as they should still be).

Sorry they don't, they are bound by the SIS regulations and AMP are at least as good as anyone with releasing funds. It is much more difficult from Industry Funds.

According to APRA whether a fund will release money on hardship grounds will depend on the individual trustee.

You can take as gospel no effect on Centrelink

He can borrow from anyone, but it needs to be proven at time of release. If you lend the money you will be required to sign a Stat Dec that he owes it to you.

Good, thanks.

But unfortunately this is the rock and hard place scenario. He can't get the hardship without the time on Centrelink and if he finds work after 20 weeks he will not qualify for hardship.

But at least then he will have a job, which would be a better outcome.

I understand what your saying. He will get rent assistance on top of his payment of $111.20 per fortnight if his rent is $247 per fortnight or more.

Rent assistance rates certainly have fallen well behind the market. Was actually designed to pay 75c in the $ above a base threshold.

Yes, it's miles behind.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

According to APRA whether a fund will release money on hardship grounds will depend on the individual trustee.

Yeah but the trustees all have to follow the legislation. As BDJ said, its roughly the same regarding the fund, as long as its a retail or corporate fund.

Industry Funds will take forever.

 

[1jasonoz]

Yeah but the trustees all have to follow the legislation. As BDJ said, its roughly the same regarding the fund, as long as its a retail or corporate fund.

Industry Funds will take forever.

Rubbish!