Post by Banjo on Jan 29, 2014 21:45:54 GMT 7
Who deserves the DSP?
Is the proposed 'crackdown' on the Disability Support Pension more about outdated ideas of what disability is and who people with disability are, than any budget savings? El Gibbs argues that receiving the disability pension should be about what people's needs are, not a moral judgement about who deserves it.
The recent announcement from Minister for Social Services Kevin Andrews that eligibility for the Disability Support Pension (DSP) will be reviewed has been well covered on Ramp Up. Minister Andrews has also hinted at the creation of a new payment for those with temporary disabilities, with the DSP to be reserved for people with permanent, significant disabilities, creating two different categories of people with disabilities.
This new review follows on from changes that the previous Labor Government made in 2011, which tightened eligibility and introduced new impairment tables, and prior to that, the 2005 welfare-to-work changes from the Howard Government that meant new applicants for the DSP had to be unable to work more than 15 hours a week, instead of the previous 30. Since then, some people with disabilities have been moved to the Newstart payment, which has been described by both business and welfare groups as far too low.
At the time, Dr Cassandra Goldie, from the Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) raised concerns that this would have a major impact on people with disabilities. In a media release from July 2011 she said, "Unless there is a dramatic improvement in the job prospects of people with disabilities, all the tightening of access to DSP will achieve is to leave people with disabilities $128 per week poorer... People with disabilities usually face extra costs, whether it be medications or higher transport costs. It is impossible for anyone to live with dignity on Newstart let alone people with disability. "
The National Welfare Rights Network's factsheets highlight the challenges people face with not only applying for, but then appealing a rejected application. Even without this latest review, getting on and staying on the DSP is not easy.
A quick search online will bring up stories about applications and appeals taking months, medical assessments done over and over, as well as how hard it is to live on Newstart with a disability. The Department of Social Services's own data shows a large increase in appeals from people who are now not able to get on the DSP. The National Welfare Rights Network, which has expressed concern about the continual focus on restricting the eligibility for the DSP, recently joined with ACOSS and People With Disability Australia to call for more action from employers in making sure people with disabilities were considered for jobs.
This latest review of the DSP is part of a much wider narrative about 'deserving' versus 'undeserving' disability that is part of a very old-fashioned notion of what a disability actually is. The medical model, which focuses on impairment and treatment, ensures that disability is only looked at on an individual basis. The emergence of the social model of disability changed this view, focusing instead on the broader structural challenges of systems built for non-disabled people.
Framing any discussion about further restrictions to a basic support payment for people with disabilities as about who 'deserves' the payment fits neatly into the old medical model. Nowhere in this story are the actual barriers for people with a disability in getting a job: discrimination, physical access and for some, unpredictable capacity to work. Dr George Taleporos covered these issues comprehensively in a recent feature for Ramp Up, concluding that: "Complex government policy work and investments are needed to create a job market that is accessible to people with disabilities and attractive to employers."
Despite all this evidence about how hard it is to receive the DSP, it appears there is still widespread belief that there are people on the disability pension who are not really disabled; comment sections of any newspaper article calling for a crackdown often attract anecdotes about bludgers rorting the system. You know the ones - "I saw my neighbour who gets the DSP walking around. He's not disabled!"
So where did this belief come from? The original 1908 legislation that created 'invalid' pensions (as they were then known) makes it clear exactly who was eligible for a pension. The process of proving a pension claim was assessed by a local magistrate, with supporting documentation required from a medical practitioner. If the magistrate thought someone couldn't manage their pension responsibly, they could be sent off to a "benevolent asylum". People identified as "Aliens, Asiatics (except those born in Australia), or aboriginal natives of Australia, Africa, the Islands of the Pacific, or New Zealand" were not even allowed to apply.
The legislation specifically excluded anyone who had a self-inflicted accident or injury, and that pensions could be suspended or reduced if the applicant had any "drunken, intemperate or disreputable habits." More tellingly, to receive the invalid pension, people had to be "of good character" and not have family members who could provide for them.
These restrictions were amended over time, but the idea that there were 'deserving' and 'undeserving' people with disabilities persists. Filmmaker Sarah Barton researches the history of disability policy and politics and says that this idea has been prevalent for many years. She says, "The thinking that goes with this is often (but not always) medicalised and focused on a cure. I think what is interesting and what we might look back at as a symptom of our time is the complete absence of, say, people with drug and alcohol addiction related disability (brain injuries etc). Until we fully acknowledge addictions as illness, there will always be a tendency to 'blame the victim' for these conditions and I think it's fair to say that so far they have been carefully omitted from all disability narratives."
Comments that reinforce this idea of 'acceptable' or unacceptable disability are often raised in the context of any discussion of the DSP. After the 2011 changes, Herald Sun columnist Susie O'Brien wrote that "For too long now the disability pension has been a dumping ground for a lot of people unwilling, rather than unable, to work."
Of course, people with 'genuine' disabilities, as she says, have nothing to worry about. However, this just reinforces the idea that a person must be deserving in order to receive support, instead of acknowledging the complex nature of disability, or the expenses specifically related to having a disability.
Continuing to focus on who is the 'right' kind of disabled person completely misses the point. It's not people with disability who need to change. Instead, what must change are workplaces that can be overtly hostile to people with a disability, employers that won't commit to the flexibility needed to manage an injury or illness, and big companies who can't even do basic adjustments required by law. Any discussions about more restrictions on the DSP should be reframed to change the focus from who deserves a pension, which is irrelevant, to the myriad of ways that people with disabilities are excluded from work.
El Gibbs is a freelance writer with an unhealthy interest in Senate Estimate Committees. She's on Twitter as @bluntshovels and blogs unpredictably at AusOpinion and bluntshovels.
www.abc.net.au/rampup/articles/2014/01/29/3933505.htm
Is the proposed 'crackdown' on the Disability Support Pension more about outdated ideas of what disability is and who people with disability are, than any budget savings? El Gibbs argues that receiving the disability pension should be about what people's needs are, not a moral judgement about who deserves it.
The recent announcement from Minister for Social Services Kevin Andrews that eligibility for the Disability Support Pension (DSP) will be reviewed has been well covered on Ramp Up. Minister Andrews has also hinted at the creation of a new payment for those with temporary disabilities, with the DSP to be reserved for people with permanent, significant disabilities, creating two different categories of people with disabilities.
This new review follows on from changes that the previous Labor Government made in 2011, which tightened eligibility and introduced new impairment tables, and prior to that, the 2005 welfare-to-work changes from the Howard Government that meant new applicants for the DSP had to be unable to work more than 15 hours a week, instead of the previous 30. Since then, some people with disabilities have been moved to the Newstart payment, which has been described by both business and welfare groups as far too low.
At the time, Dr Cassandra Goldie, from the Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) raised concerns that this would have a major impact on people with disabilities. In a media release from July 2011 she said, "Unless there is a dramatic improvement in the job prospects of people with disabilities, all the tightening of access to DSP will achieve is to leave people with disabilities $128 per week poorer... People with disabilities usually face extra costs, whether it be medications or higher transport costs. It is impossible for anyone to live with dignity on Newstart let alone people with disability. "
The National Welfare Rights Network's factsheets highlight the challenges people face with not only applying for, but then appealing a rejected application. Even without this latest review, getting on and staying on the DSP is not easy.
A quick search online will bring up stories about applications and appeals taking months, medical assessments done over and over, as well as how hard it is to live on Newstart with a disability. The Department of Social Services's own data shows a large increase in appeals from people who are now not able to get on the DSP. The National Welfare Rights Network, which has expressed concern about the continual focus on restricting the eligibility for the DSP, recently joined with ACOSS and People With Disability Australia to call for more action from employers in making sure people with disabilities were considered for jobs.
This latest review of the DSP is part of a much wider narrative about 'deserving' versus 'undeserving' disability that is part of a very old-fashioned notion of what a disability actually is. The medical model, which focuses on impairment and treatment, ensures that disability is only looked at on an individual basis. The emergence of the social model of disability changed this view, focusing instead on the broader structural challenges of systems built for non-disabled people.
Framing any discussion about further restrictions to a basic support payment for people with disabilities as about who 'deserves' the payment fits neatly into the old medical model. Nowhere in this story are the actual barriers for people with a disability in getting a job: discrimination, physical access and for some, unpredictable capacity to work. Dr George Taleporos covered these issues comprehensively in a recent feature for Ramp Up, concluding that: "Complex government policy work and investments are needed to create a job market that is accessible to people with disabilities and attractive to employers."
Despite all this evidence about how hard it is to receive the DSP, it appears there is still widespread belief that there are people on the disability pension who are not really disabled; comment sections of any newspaper article calling for a crackdown often attract anecdotes about bludgers rorting the system. You know the ones - "I saw my neighbour who gets the DSP walking around. He's not disabled!"
So where did this belief come from? The original 1908 legislation that created 'invalid' pensions (as they were then known) makes it clear exactly who was eligible for a pension. The process of proving a pension claim was assessed by a local magistrate, with supporting documentation required from a medical practitioner. If the magistrate thought someone couldn't manage their pension responsibly, they could be sent off to a "benevolent asylum". People identified as "Aliens, Asiatics (except those born in Australia), or aboriginal natives of Australia, Africa, the Islands of the Pacific, or New Zealand" were not even allowed to apply.
The legislation specifically excluded anyone who had a self-inflicted accident or injury, and that pensions could be suspended or reduced if the applicant had any "drunken, intemperate or disreputable habits." More tellingly, to receive the invalid pension, people had to be "of good character" and not have family members who could provide for them.
These restrictions were amended over time, but the idea that there were 'deserving' and 'undeserving' people with disabilities persists. Filmmaker Sarah Barton researches the history of disability policy and politics and says that this idea has been prevalent for many years. She says, "The thinking that goes with this is often (but not always) medicalised and focused on a cure. I think what is interesting and what we might look back at as a symptom of our time is the complete absence of, say, people with drug and alcohol addiction related disability (brain injuries etc). Until we fully acknowledge addictions as illness, there will always be a tendency to 'blame the victim' for these conditions and I think it's fair to say that so far they have been carefully omitted from all disability narratives."
Comments that reinforce this idea of 'acceptable' or unacceptable disability are often raised in the context of any discussion of the DSP. After the 2011 changes, Herald Sun columnist Susie O'Brien wrote that "For too long now the disability pension has been a dumping ground for a lot of people unwilling, rather than unable, to work."
Of course, people with 'genuine' disabilities, as she says, have nothing to worry about. However, this just reinforces the idea that a person must be deserving in order to receive support, instead of acknowledging the complex nature of disability, or the expenses specifically related to having a disability.
Continuing to focus on who is the 'right' kind of disabled person completely misses the point. It's not people with disability who need to change. Instead, what must change are workplaces that can be overtly hostile to people with a disability, employers that won't commit to the flexibility needed to manage an injury or illness, and big companies who can't even do basic adjustments required by law. Any discussions about more restrictions on the DSP should be reframed to change the focus from who deserves a pension, which is irrelevant, to the myriad of ways that people with disabilities are excluded from work.
El Gibbs is a freelance writer with an unhealthy interest in Senate Estimate Committees. She's on Twitter as @bluntshovels and blogs unpredictably at AusOpinion and bluntshovels.
www.abc.net.au/rampup/articles/2014/01/29/3933505.htm
