Post by Banjo on Jan 27, 2011 22:19:33 GMT 7
Nothing really new, just something I came across googling a few names.
www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/fahscia_2/report/c01.htm#c01f22
"Grandfather" exemptions
1.18 Several past amendments to the Act, in 2000 and 2004,[16] included "grandfather" provisions to exempt existing recipients of the DSP from the effects the amendments would otherwise have had on their portability. Pensioners who had made lifestyle or travel decisions based on previous legislation were thereby not affected by those amendments. Section 8 of schedule 2 of the bill proposes that these exemptions be maintained.
Issues raised regarding the bill
1.19 A number of submitters expressed various concerns about the impact the proposed ongoing residency requirements would have on DSP recipients. These concerns particularly focussed on:
* disability support pensioners who have already established a life overseas, including those with family ties and children also living overseas;[17] and
* disability support pensioners with no independent living capacity whose carers are required to work overseas for extended periods of time, including the impact of the proposed changes on the carer(s).[18]
DSP recipients already residing overseas
1.20 Under the proposed amendments, there will be a requirement for ongoing residency in Australia to receive the DSP, unless a DSP recipient is exempted from this requirement.
1.21 FaHCSIA advised the committee:
Centrelink data indicate that there are approximately 1,000 DSP recipients who take 3 or more return trips overseas each year. DSP recipients in this cohort will be affected by this measure if they are found not to be residing in Australia.[19]
1.22 It was suggested by some submitters that some DSP recipients may have chosen to live overseas as it was easier, and less expensive, than attempting to contend with the cost of living in Australia on a pension.[20] In other cases, the committee heard that returning to Australia may have major mental health impacts for some DSP recipients.[21]
1.23 Some submitters called for a greater level of discretion in the bill to cater for individual circumstances.[22] A number of possible exemptions were suggested such as a "grandfather" exemption for those living overseas before the proposed commencement of the bill on 1 January 2011.[23] Pensioners who may have made lifestyle or travel decisions based on previous legislation would thereby not be affected by the amendments.
1.24 The National Welfare Rights Network (NWRN) called for a greater level of discretion for DSP recipients requiring an extended portability period:
In the past when such significant changes have been introduced in relation to portability there have been grandfathering provisions provided to protect those who have made decisions prior to a legislative change. There continue to be protections for those on disability support pension who are deemed severely disabled and were overseas on a permanent basis prior to the changes on 1 July 2004. It is unfair that the group impacted by these impending changes will have fewer protections.[24]
1.25 FaHCSIA informed the committee that the DSP is intended to support people with the cost of living in Australia, in line with other workforce age pensions.[25] FaHCSIA provided information to the committee which shows other workforce age pensions include portability of up to 13 weeks.[26] Payments made to DSP recipients living overseas do not therefore fulfil the intended purpose of the pension,[27] consistent with the government's agenda to encourage participation rehabilitation for people with a disability:
As to government priorities for disabilities, the government has a strong agenda in the disabilities area to support people with a disability to address barriers and to encourage participation rehabilitation which would have physical and economic benefits for the individual and the taxpayer as well as social benefits and positive life outcomes. Increasing participation rates across areas has been identified in both the intergenerational report and the tax review as crucial for economic development and sustainability.[28]
Human rights
1.33 The National Ethnic Disability Alliance (NEDA) expressed concern that the proposed amendments are contrary to the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ratified by the Australian Government in 2008, and the freedom of movement guaranteed to all Australians:
On the Department of Immigration and Citizenship website, one comes across the five freedoms guaranteed to all Australians. This includes the freedom of movement, including the quote: ‘We can leave and return to Australia at any time.’ While it may not be intentional, the amendments as proposed restrict this freedom in a negative way. Human rights are firm on the basis of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities—and I would like to raise the question at this point as to whether the amendments conform with the rights as embedded in the convention.[40]
...
I do not think that people with disabilities who are recipients of the DSP are necessarily in a position to make the same choices that other people have in their lives. So in that respect I do not think people on disability support pension should have an additional restriction on their rights and freedoms. In that sense I do believe that there is a difference when it comes to the residency requirements, especially if living overseas would mean a substantive improvement in quality of life for that person. Given that difference in terms of the limitations on options, I do think that is a justifiable distinction.[41]
1.34 FaHCSIA stated that matters relating to breaches of human rights law on the rights of people with a disability had not been raised with them in the course of discussions relating to the bill.[42]
1.35 The committee notes that the Australian social security system is a non-contributory system, unlike most other countries, where payments are tied to the contributions a person makes during their working life.[43] Further:
A person does not have to have paid taxes to be eligible but at the same time paying taxes does not create an entitlement. Our system is also a residence based system; that is, the person needs to be a permanent resident and residing in Australia for most benefits.[44]
This is probably the best synopsis I've seen of the events in the Senate so far.
Stuff on carers as well.
www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/fahscia_2/report/c01.htm#c01f22
"Grandfather" exemptions
1.18 Several past amendments to the Act, in 2000 and 2004,[16] included "grandfather" provisions to exempt existing recipients of the DSP from the effects the amendments would otherwise have had on their portability. Pensioners who had made lifestyle or travel decisions based on previous legislation were thereby not affected by those amendments. Section 8 of schedule 2 of the bill proposes that these exemptions be maintained.
Issues raised regarding the bill
1.19 A number of submitters expressed various concerns about the impact the proposed ongoing residency requirements would have on DSP recipients. These concerns particularly focussed on:
* disability support pensioners who have already established a life overseas, including those with family ties and children also living overseas;[17] and
* disability support pensioners with no independent living capacity whose carers are required to work overseas for extended periods of time, including the impact of the proposed changes on the carer(s).[18]
DSP recipients already residing overseas
1.20 Under the proposed amendments, there will be a requirement for ongoing residency in Australia to receive the DSP, unless a DSP recipient is exempted from this requirement.
1.21 FaHCSIA advised the committee:
Centrelink data indicate that there are approximately 1,000 DSP recipients who take 3 or more return trips overseas each year. DSP recipients in this cohort will be affected by this measure if they are found not to be residing in Australia.[19]
1.22 It was suggested by some submitters that some DSP recipients may have chosen to live overseas as it was easier, and less expensive, than attempting to contend with the cost of living in Australia on a pension.[20] In other cases, the committee heard that returning to Australia may have major mental health impacts for some DSP recipients.[21]
1.23 Some submitters called for a greater level of discretion in the bill to cater for individual circumstances.[22] A number of possible exemptions were suggested such as a "grandfather" exemption for those living overseas before the proposed commencement of the bill on 1 January 2011.[23] Pensioners who may have made lifestyle or travel decisions based on previous legislation would thereby not be affected by the amendments.
1.24 The National Welfare Rights Network (NWRN) called for a greater level of discretion for DSP recipients requiring an extended portability period:
In the past when such significant changes have been introduced in relation to portability there have been grandfathering provisions provided to protect those who have made decisions prior to a legislative change. There continue to be protections for those on disability support pension who are deemed severely disabled and were overseas on a permanent basis prior to the changes on 1 July 2004. It is unfair that the group impacted by these impending changes will have fewer protections.[24]
1.25 FaHCSIA informed the committee that the DSP is intended to support people with the cost of living in Australia, in line with other workforce age pensions.[25] FaHCSIA provided information to the committee which shows other workforce age pensions include portability of up to 13 weeks.[26] Payments made to DSP recipients living overseas do not therefore fulfil the intended purpose of the pension,[27] consistent with the government's agenda to encourage participation rehabilitation for people with a disability:
As to government priorities for disabilities, the government has a strong agenda in the disabilities area to support people with a disability to address barriers and to encourage participation rehabilitation which would have physical and economic benefits for the individual and the taxpayer as well as social benefits and positive life outcomes. Increasing participation rates across areas has been identified in both the intergenerational report and the tax review as crucial for economic development and sustainability.[28]
Human rights
1.33 The National Ethnic Disability Alliance (NEDA) expressed concern that the proposed amendments are contrary to the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ratified by the Australian Government in 2008, and the freedom of movement guaranteed to all Australians:
On the Department of Immigration and Citizenship website, one comes across the five freedoms guaranteed to all Australians. This includes the freedom of movement, including the quote: ‘We can leave and return to Australia at any time.’ While it may not be intentional, the amendments as proposed restrict this freedom in a negative way. Human rights are firm on the basis of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities—and I would like to raise the question at this point as to whether the amendments conform with the rights as embedded in the convention.[40]
...
I do not think that people with disabilities who are recipients of the DSP are necessarily in a position to make the same choices that other people have in their lives. So in that respect I do not think people on disability support pension should have an additional restriction on their rights and freedoms. In that sense I do believe that there is a difference when it comes to the residency requirements, especially if living overseas would mean a substantive improvement in quality of life for that person. Given that difference in terms of the limitations on options, I do think that is a justifiable distinction.[41]
1.34 FaHCSIA stated that matters relating to breaches of human rights law on the rights of people with a disability had not been raised with them in the course of discussions relating to the bill.[42]
1.35 The committee notes that the Australian social security system is a non-contributory system, unlike most other countries, where payments are tied to the contributions a person makes during their working life.[43] Further:
A person does not have to have paid taxes to be eligible but at the same time paying taxes does not create an entitlement. Our system is also a residence based system; that is, the person needs to be a permanent resident and residing in Australia for most benefits.[44]
This is probably the best synopsis I've seen of the events in the Senate so far.
Stuff on carers as well.