|
Post by aussieinusa on Mar 9, 2014 18:10:05 GMT 7
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. DSP is also higher because, at least in theory, every unemployed person is able to find themselves employment again, through a process of resume-writing, job-application-submitting, networking, possibly retraining, etc. So at least in theory, NS is a short-term payment to tide people over 'til they get a new job. Whereas people who are disabled enough to get DSP really aren't able to change their situation through hard work. So it's a longer-term payment; chances are, you'll spend years or decades on it. So it has to be higher, since it has to cover everything forever, not just the bare minimum 'til you work again. Or that's the theory, at least... but now that we're all 'working age', we can all totally chance our circumstances through work since we're the right age... right??!?
|
|
|
Post by aussieinusa on Mar 9, 2014 18:14:55 GMT 7
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 Well said, @frugle. Yes, the best outcome for all of us would be to have fabulous well-paid jobs that brought in way more than the pittance DSP pays. But if you're too sick and/or disabled to work, you don't. That would seem like a simply concept, but obviously neither private school nor University of Sydney or even Oxford taught Abbott that. Or he didn't listen...
|
|