|
|
Post by prodius on Mar 7, 2014 13:35:41 GMT 7
Disability and welfare advocates have met at Parliament House in Canberra amid fears that May budget will see cuts to people receiving disability support. Concerned that the Abbott government is preparing to move people from the disability support pension onto Newstart, groups including the Australian Council of Social Service, People with Disability Australia, and the Welfare Rights Centre have met to compare notes from recent meetings they have each had with the federal government. ACOSS chief executive Cassandra Goldie told reporters in Canberra on Friday that Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Treasurer Joe Hockey must come out immediately to ''assure people with disability across the Australian community that budget savings will not be found at their expense''. Last year, the Coalition confirmed it was looking to cut costs around the disability support pension, which supports about 822,000 people a year at a cost of $15 billion. Advertisement Dr Goldie said it would be an ''extraordinarily perverse notion'' to move people off the DSP (which for a single person is about $250 a week more) and onto Newstart. People with Disability Australia president Craig Wallace that people with disabilities wanted to work but needed extra support in terms of job opportunities, clothing and transport in order to do so. ''We have had the same system for a very long time,'' he told reporters in Canberra. ''Now is the time to start trying some new things.'' Mr Wallace suggested that people on DSP who secured a job be able to keep their payments for six months, to provide extra support and confidence required during the transition. Following their meeting on Friday, the group also expressed concerns that a current federal government's welfare review is being conducted behind closed doors. In January, Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews flagged an overhaul of the welfare system, appointing former Mission Australia chief executive Patrick McClure to lead a review. Dr Goldie said she had found Mr McClure to be supportive in discussions so far but said there was also a ''bigger discussion going on [within government] about the budget''. Mr Wallace expressed concern that the welfare review has not asked for written submissions and does not have a clear terms of reference. ''We would actually like this to be a more open and transparent process. We would like to know what the timetable for this review is, what its relationship with [the] is budget,'' he said. Mr Andrews' office has been contacted for comment. www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/budget-savings-should-not-be-found-at-the-expense-of-australians-will-disabilities-20140307-34bth.html |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2014 13:52:32 GMT 7
l bet they announce it just before the budget at the last moment so theres no time for people to protest, looks like its going to be bad. Can they tell us where the few hundred thousand new jobs are coming from for everyone they shift onto Newstart
|
|
|
|
Post by zorro1 on Mar 7, 2014 13:52:52 GMT 7
"expressed concerns that a current federal government's welfare review is being conducted behind closed doors."
I think the cloak and dagger approach is unnerving everyone. They need to make the process transparent so any major idiotic moves can be confronted before its to late.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2014 13:55:19 GMT 7
"expressed concerns that a current federal government's welfare review is being conducted behind closed doors." I think the cloak and dagger approach is unnerving everyone. They need to make the process transparent so any major idiotic moves can be confronted before its to late. That's exactly it , if its a massive attack on the DSP they don't want anyone to know about it until the last minute so theres no time for people to oppose it and protest, even got GIna REinahrt in todays paper attacking the DSP and welfare. |
|
|
|
Post by dani on Mar 7, 2014 14:02:58 GMT 7
"expressed concerns that a current federal government's welfare review is being conducted behind closed doors." I think the cloak and dagger approach is unnerving everyone. They need to make the process transparent so any major idiotic moves can be confronted before its to late. That's exactly it , if its a massive attack on the DSP they don't want anyone to know about it until the last minute so theres no time for people to oppose it and protest, even got GIna REinahrt in todays paper attacking the DSP and welfare. The reason the DSP is higher than the Newstart allowance is because people on the DSP need the extra money for specialist/doctors appointments and medication. However the Liberals announced that they want the DSP and Newstart payments to be paid at the same rate. Kevin Andrews said this would stop people trying to get on the DSP. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2014 14:44:31 GMT 7
"expressed concerns that a current federal government's welfare review is being conducted behind closed doors." What bugs me the most is the review is being carried out by the (former?) head of Mission Australia so there's financial incentive to boot people onto newstart so the job network sharks can cash in. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2014 14:52:06 GMT 7
"expressed concerns that a current federal government's welfare review is being conducted behind closed doors." What bugs me the most is the review is being carried out by the (former?) head of Mission Australia so there's financial incentive to boot people onto newstart so the job network sharks can cash in. Too right, mission Australia owns jobnetworks so they will make millions of bucks if the government can kick large numbers off the DSP onto newstart because those people will then have to sign up with jobnetorks. And the guy from mission Australia or supposedly former is heading the welfare review. What a sham. |
|
|
|
Post by dani on Mar 7, 2014 14:59:34 GMT 7
"expressed concerns that a current federal government's welfare review is being conducted behind closed doors." What bugs me the most is the review is being carried out by the (former?) head of Mission Australia so there's financial incentive to boot people onto newstart so the job network sharks can cash in. What I can't understand is how the Abbott govt can take Mr. Mclures advise seriously. He recently commented that the majority of all DSP recipients with a mental illness can and should be working. There are mental illnesses which are permanent ie. bipolar disorder, schizophrenia. However even with other other mental illnesses such as depression/anxiety/panic disorder/PTSD I can guarantee you that if you asked a psychiatric how long it would take you to recover they would not be able to give you a timeframe. It could take 6 months, 2 years, sometimes never. It all depends on the help you are able to get from doctors, environmental factors, family support, support from friends, life circumstances. The govt is considering putting people with a mental illness on a temporary DSP, from the research I've done mental illness is still considered to be a permanent illness and a genuine reason to receive the DSP in countries such as NZ and the UK. Australia is going backwards, it's a scary time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2014 15:22:23 GMT 7
What bugs me the most is the review is being carried out by the (former?) head of Mission Australia so there's financial incentive to boot people onto newstart so the job network sharks can cash in. Welcome to the board Dani. The DSP is supposed to be designed as an income on which people can live. The current spiel on NewStart, also promoted by Labor, is that it's not meant to be lived on, just a few dollars to help you along until you get another job. Unfortunately there are not many job vacancies out there. Yes from the way they talk such as ' the best wefare is a job' they seem to assume that everyone they shift off the DSP onto newstart just cruises into a job , all that was holding them back from a job was welfare, not their disability or employer discrimination or high unemployemt, but for many it will mean long term unemployment on $250 newstart |
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Mar 7, 2014 15:39:20 GMT 7
What bugs me the most is the review is being carried out by the (former?) head of Mission Australia so there's financial incentive to boot people onto newstart so the job network sharks can cash in. What I can't understand is how the Abbott govt can take Mr. Mclures advise seriously. He recently commented that the majority of all DSP recipients with a mental illness can and should be working. There are mental illnesses which are permanent ie. bipolar disorder, schizophrenia. However even with other other mental illnesses such as depression/anxiety/panic disorder/PTSD I can guarantee you that if you asked a psychiatric how long it would take you to recover they would not be able to give you a timeframe. It could take 6 months, 2 years, sometimes never. It all depends on the help you are able to get from doctors, environmental factors, family support, support from friends, life circumstances. The govt is considering putting people with a mental illness on a temporary DSP, from the research I've done mental illness is still considered to be a permanent illness and a genuine reason to receive the DSP in countries such as NZ and the UK. Australia is going backwards, it's a scary time. Welcome to the board Dani. The DSP is supposed to be designed as an income on which people can live. The current spiel on NewStart, also promoted by Labor, is that it's not meant to be lived on, just a few dollars to help you along until you get another job. Unfortunately there are not many job vacancies out there. |
|
|
|
Post by latindancer on Mar 7, 2014 17:07:50 GMT 7
What bugs me the most is the review is being carried out by the (former?) head of Mission Australia so there's financial incentive to boot people onto newstart so the job network sharks can cash in. Too right, mission Australia owns jobnetworks so they will make millions of bucks if the government can kick large numbers off the DSP onto newstart because those people will then have to sign up with jobnetorks. And the guy from mission Australia or supposedly former is heading the welfare review. What a sham. I thought that there would be too much of a conflict of interest here. In fact, I always thought that a person in this position would not be allowed to do this ? Even though he is a FORMER head of Mission.... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2014 17:16:57 GMT 7
Too right, mission Australia owns jobnetworks so they will make millions of bucks if the government can kick large numbers off the DSP onto newstart because those people will then have to sign up with jobnetorks. And the guy from mission Australia or supposedly former is heading the welfare review. What a sham. I thought that there would be too much of a conflict of interest here. In fact, I always thought that a person in this position would not be allowed to do this ? Even though he is a FORMER head of Mission.... The way the liberals probably see it is if his serving their interest then there is no conflict, they both have the same aim of reducing DSP numbers , the liberals to save money and mission Australia to make money |
|
|
|
Post by Denis-NFA on Mar 7, 2014 18:06:27 GMT 7
The fact is that 'they' cannot decouple the invalid pension from the old-age pension without holding a referendum and the fact it is tied to the old-age pension means that a reduction in the invalid pension automatically means a reduction in the old-age pension.
Obviously 'they' can change the eligibility criteria for both the invalid and old-age pension.
But they cannot change the invalid pension to a Disability Support Pension without holding a referendum.
And if the old-age pension is to be extended to age 67 then the superannuation rules need to be changed to reflect that for every single member of an Australian superannuation fund.
And the invalid pension eligibility criteria needs to be aligned with both common law injury and Workers Compensation law and get invalids away from an internal Centrelink Assessment system.
It is a fundamental breach of commonlaw that we as invalid applicants are assessed by the same organization.
To put the current system in a nutshell, you can be charged by the police for a crime and allocated a penalty. If you disagree with either the crime or the penalty then in the first instance you have to appeal to the police!
Depending upon the result of your appeal to the police who found against you in the first place, you then have the option to appeal to a higher police court.
At the first instance that an applicant or recipient to or from Centrelink is refused their application or pension the whole case should move straight into a common law court.
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Mar 7, 2014 18:52:15 GMT 7
Wouldn't that be covered by the same legislative loophole that allows them to discriminate against people?
|
|
|
|
Post by Denis-NFA on Mar 7, 2014 19:29:55 GMT 7
Wouldn't that be covered by the same legislative loophole that allows them to discriminate against people? I'm not sure of the meaning of your statement Banjo but what I am absolutely trying to say is that the invalid and old-age pension came along before all the 'cute' laws and interpretations and 'guides' that invalid and old-age pensioners are hit with. Plus.. they 'quote' 'law' at us! If I have the police charge me then I can go and see a lawyer. If I have a problem with the Australian Taxation Office I can go and see a tax agent. In each of the above 2 instances there is a setup that has some arms length from the originator. But with the constitutionally mandated invalid and old-age pension there is no independent mechanism in the first instance, nor the second. |
|
