I AM a member since day one when the National Provident Fund (now Nasfund Ltd) was first incorporated as a compulsory superannuation fund for employees in the private sector to contribute to their retirement.
Last month, I submitted my housing advance application to renovate my four-bedroom house back at home in East New Britain which I built in 1993.
I have had two withdrawals previously in the past and this was going to be my third withdrawal.
I was very much looking forward to do a complete renovation.
After taking so many hours off work without pay, it took me three visits to finally submit my application for processing on my forth visit with the assistance of a very helpful officer in Lae.
The following week I enquired if my application had been processed.
I only received an email from the senior housing officer in Port Moresby advising that my application had been rejected based on the law (The Principal Place of Residence) governing housing advances.
I am working in Lae and my employer provides me accommodation.
I have no intention of building or buying a house here.
I have my own land on which I have built myself a house for my family back in the village.
That is where we usually stay when we go home.
I do not consider my house to be a transit/holiday/retirement house as stated by the officer in the email.
If I was working back in Rabaul, this would not have happened. Just because I work in Lae, I have been denied access to my very own money for which Nasfund is only a custodian.
I pleaded twice for him to reconsider seeing this was my third withdrawal.
I am now calling on our good CEO Ian Tarutia and his members to revisit the laws governing housing advances to be member-friendly, giving us the contributors the choice/option instead of dictating to us where to build our houses.