|
Post by Banjo on Jun 22, 2012 8:41:28 GMT 7
To: Senator The Honorable Kim Carr Minister for human Services
Dear Senator Carr,
I’m writing to you because I have serious concerns regarding the following new legislation.
Budget 2011-12: Indefinite portability for permanently disabled Disability Support Pension recipients who have no work capacity
Description of the measure
From 1 July 2012, people with a permanent disability who receive Disability Support Pension (DSP) and have no future work capacity and who wish to leave Australia to be with friends and family will remain payable outside Australia indefinitely.
DSP customers who leave Australia and wish to remain payable under this new measure for more than 13 weeks will be required to have a new work capacity assessment before their departure. This measure acknowledges that DSP customers should be able to continue receiving income support outside Australia where there is no expectation of workforce participation.
Currently, DSP is generally only payable for the first 13 weeks of a temporary absence from Australia. After 13 weeks, DSP is suspended and subsequently cancelled if the customer has not returned to Australia.
This measure will provide health cost savings and ease the demand on nursing home places and aged care facilities in Australia.
I am involved with a group of several hundred Disability Support Pension recipients who had hoped this legislation would allow them to travel overseas as, and for as long as, they pleased.
Many have already contacted Centrelink to apply for, or inquire about, the new portability only to be told:
a) They will be required to undergo a new JCA and medical assessment and their JCA must show a work capacity of 2 hours a week or less. b) This assessment will be considered to be a new assessment of their eligibility for the Disability Support Pension and they could very well lose their pension.
Minister Carr, these requirements are nothing less than draconian and the threats intended to stop people applying. It is completely out of the spirit in which the amendment is intended. To have no future work capacity should take into account whether that person is likely to receive a job he is qualified to do; age and length of time out of the workforce should be key factors.
I point out that “This measure will provide health cost savings and ease the demand on nursing home places and aged care facilities in Australia.” is meaningless if no one can qualify for the new portability as Centrelink obviously intends.
I would be grateful if you could give this matter your immediate attention as over half the people I know who intended to apply for the new portability now either are reconsidering or have decided not to because they are afraid.
I’m sure you know of the Thomas Jefferson quote.
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. "
Yours sincerely,
Banjo
|
|
|
Post by scuzzy on Jun 22, 2012 9:10:52 GMT 7
Nice letter Banjo. I think it was perfect to include the bit about 'fear' at the end. We all know how much this is making people fearful, paranoid and resentful of our Government. So it's important they know that's what they are doing to us. I hope he's a thinking man with a conscience , a grasp of history, and a sense of fairness.
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Jun 22, 2012 9:25:10 GMT 7
I spoke to Ms Leggetts from DSP Australia Inc yesterday and she said he came across as a very fair man. I also emailed his office about a face to face meet with a small delegation... God knows how I'd ever get more than 2 of us together at one time in one place.... but no reply as yet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2012 9:43:22 GMT 7
Will be interesting when you get a reply, plus what he says.
|
|
|
Post by zorro1 on Jun 22, 2012 9:50:53 GMT 7
very well constructed Banjo a qood mix of logic and sentiment
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Jun 22, 2012 9:51:19 GMT 7
I'll try to ring him up when I get back.... I may be allowed to speak to the lackey who refills his stapler.
|
|
|
Post by spaceyone on Jun 22, 2012 9:56:00 GMT 7
I'll try to ring him up when I get back.... I may be allowed to speak to the lackey who refills his stapler. He does look nice, and honest, and was on our side at first. It didn't take long for the Centrelink liars to convert him to their side. I have rung his office. You get put through to the Centrelink liaison team, who then sends your complaint back to your local branch, to be laughed at and then burried. I had considered phoning his office, and pretending to be a journalist, and asking for his opinion on some things. Was going to say I was from the Nimbin Times, as they wouldn't want all the hippies to hear their evil plans for us.
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Jun 22, 2012 10:10:35 GMT 7
I hear-by appoint you the official DSPoverseas investigative reporter. Give Banker an email and ask him to get you a press card made up in Pattaya.
|
|
|
Post by rayco68au on Sept 9, 2012 18:53:14 GMT 7
G'day Banjo, I was first diagnosed as having a mental illness in 1997. I am wondering can you please explain from then on what reason was portability cut down to now being 6 weeks? I have applied for unlimited portabilty but dont know if i will get it.
Cheers
Raymond
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Sept 10, 2012 4:46:50 GMT 7
The best of luck with that Ray, I think I was one of the first to apply and be refused and am currently waiting on the Administrative review of the decision.
Explain why the portability period has been reduced from 26 weeks to 6 since 1997? I think I've asked that question a hundred times and never received a direct answer. My only suggestion could be is that the reduction in portability is something that's been tacked on to budget estimates to claim extra savings. DSPoverseas has clearly shown to anyone who will listen, including a Senate sub-committee, that it actually costs the taxpayer money.
|
|
|
Post by Banker on Sept 10, 2012 6:12:51 GMT 7
The best of luck with that Ray, I think I was one of the first to apply and be refused and am currently waiting on the Administrative review of the decision. Explain why the portability period has been reduced from 26 weeks to 6 since 1997? I think I've asked that question a hundred times and never received a direct answer. My only suggestion could be is that the reduction in portability is something that's been tacked on to budget estimates to claim extra savings. DSPoverseas has clearly shown to anyone who will listen, including a Senate sub-committee, that it actually costs the taxpayer money. Just a small correction Banjo. In 1997 the portability was 52 weeks, one only had to return once a year then in 2002 they started changing it to 26 weeks that when I was listed as being severely disabled and grandfathered. Yes Good Luck Ray.
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Sept 10, 2012 6:49:59 GMT 7
52 weeks..... Thanks for that Banker, makes it even sillier doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Dec 23, 2012 9:09:02 GMT 7
Just got an email from rayco68au, he's got the UP.
|
|
|
Post by Banker on Dec 23, 2012 9:37:22 GMT 7
Is that you dancing again Banjo.
|
|
|
Post by baranghope on Dec 23, 2012 9:48:51 GMT 7
Banjo we have to start profiling UP successes now in order to determine how the "2 hour" work ability thing is being interpreted . . . or determine if the system criteria are already being loosened via some UP positive decisions being made without the draconian conditions.
|
|