On the 25th and 26th of May 2010, 'Sceadugenga' wrote on the 'Living in Cebu Forums':Posted 25 May 2010 - 10:32 PM
I'd like to make my first post here by pointing out that by making Disability Support Pensioners live where the government dictates they are in breach of the United Nations Human Rights Charter to which Australia is a signatory.
These changes will effect thousands of people who choose to have a better life outside of Australia.
I have a single issue message board where anyone living overseas while a DSP recipient can exchange information and receive support.
In deference to this boards administrators, I won't post it without permission but will give it to anyone who sends me a message here.
Anyone else who wants to write to their MP complaining about it, please do... remember it's an election year... they all love us at the moment!
Thanks for letting me join this great site!
Posted 26 May 2010 - 08:33 AM
The issue here is not that the system is being rorted.
Sure, everything like this is open to abuse, there are doubtlessly people with false birth certificates on the Age pension but the millions of legitimate pensioners aren't penalised because of this.
If some one is working or running some twobob bar it's not an issue, that is between them and Centrelink. This only concerns legitimate DSP recipients who have passed the strict medical conditions and examinations set by government doctors.
We are not unemployment allowance beneficiaries, we don't have to make ourselves available for jobs or interviews.
The issue here is the right to live where you like and spend your money as you please.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, ratified by the Australian Government in 2008.
Article 18 - Liberty of movement and nationality
1. States Parties shall recognize the rights of persons with disabilities to liberty of movement, to freedom to choose their residence and to a nationality, on an equal basis with others, including by ensuring that persons with disabilities:
1. Have the right to acquire and change a nationality and are not deprived of their nationality arbitrarily or on the basis of disability;
2. Are not deprived, on the basis of disability, of their ability to obtain, possess and utilize documentation of their nationality or other documentation of identification, or to utilize relevant processes such as immigration proceedings, that may be needed to facilitate exercise of the right to liberty of movement;
3. Are free to leave any country, including their own;
4. Are not deprived, arbitrarily or on the basis of disability, of the right to enter their own country.
# Reaffirming the universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelatedness of all human rights and fundamental freedoms and the need for persons with disabilities to be guaranteed their full enjoyment without discrimination,
# Recognizing that disability is an evolving concept and that disability results from the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinders their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others,
Recognizing the importance for persons with disabilities of their individual autonomy and independence, including the freedom to make their own choices,
On the 26th and 27th of May 2010, "Unnamed Poster" replied on the 'Living in Cebu Forums':Post 1:
Sorry, but I don't see anything in the UN Convention that bars Australia from denying a pension to its disabled citizens who choose to live outside Australia. The convention is talking about denying Australians the right to enter or leave Australia and discriminating against disabled people when granting citizenship.
The government may be denying a pension to its citizens that choose to live overseas, but they're not discriminating based on disability. My understanding is that the Aussie retirement pension is not paid to people living overseas either. So, if the basis to refuse the pension is your country of residency, not your disability, then I don't see any violation of the UN Convention.
What part of the convention do you think the government is violating?
Post 2:
I do agree with you that the pension should be paid to Australian citizens no matter where they choose to reside, but I just don't see the Aussie policies as violating the UN convention. The govt. is not denying you liberty of movement or nationality based on disability. You are free to leave Australia at any time you choose, regardless of your disability. If you can't support yourself adequately overseas without your pension, that is a limitation imposed by your personal financial situation, not the government. Having limited options due to your personal financial situation is just a fact of life, not a violation of your human rights.
RESPONSE:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2010, the Community Affairs Committee of the Australian Senate published a report on the Inquiry into Schedule 2 of the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2010 (Changes to Disability Support Pension).
This report was based on 10 Submissions received by the Inquiry, and a public hearing at Parliament House on the 15th of November 2010, and subsequent discussions and consultations of the Committee members:
Members
Senator Claire Moore, Chair ALP, Queensland
Senator Rachel Siewert, Deputy Chair AG, Western Australia
Senator Judith Adams LP, Western Australia
Senator Sue Boyce LP, Queensland
Senator Carol Brown ALP, Tasmania
Senator Mark Furner ALP, Queensland
Participating Senators
Senator Mitch Fifield LP, Victoria
Here is an excerpt of the Report of the Committee:
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]
These are Australian Senators, the people who make the laws of Australia, and it clear that they are taking the issue of Human Rights very seriously with regard to this legislation. They most probably consulted with Government lawyers, Constitutional Lawyers who work in Parliament House, and this is reflected in the arguments presented in the report. It can be speculated that the good Senators know very well that these Human Rights Issues are going to end up in the courts, with individual DSPers taking the Government to court over this possible breach of human rights contained in the legislation, and their words in the report can be seen as the Government and Parliament bracing themselves for the legal challenges.
Quote: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
This looks like it could have been written by a Government Constitutional lawyer, and it is likely to be the most important argument the Government will present to the courts, when xxx and others take their cases through the court system up to the Federal and High Court.
On the 26th and 27th of May 2010, "Unnamed Poster" replied on the 'Living in Cebu Forums':
Sorry, but I don't see anything in the UN Convention that bars Australia from denying a pension to its disabled citizens who choose to live outside Australia. The convention is talking about denying Australians the right to enter or leave Australia and discriminating against disabled people when granting citizenship.
The government may be denying a pension to its citizens that choose to live overseas, but they're not discriminating based on disability. My understanding is that the Aussie retirement pension is not paid to people living overseas either. So, if the basis to refuse the pension is your country of residency, not your disability, then I don't see any violation of the UN Convention.
What part of the convention do you think the government is violating?
Post 2:
I do agree with you that the pension should be paid to Australian citizens no matter where they choose to reside, but I just don't see the Aussie policies as violating the UN convention. The govt. is not denying you liberty of movement or nationality based on disability. You are free to leave Australia at any time you choose, regardless of your disability. If you can't support yourself adequately overseas without your pension, that is a limitation imposed by your personal financial situation, not the government. Having limited options due to your personal financial situation is just a fact of life, not a violation of your human rights. This reminds me of the concept of "terra nullius".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_nulliusThat's where the white Europeans came to Australia in 1788 and said, "OK, we can see that you are humans, you have been here for 40,000 years, you have developed a sustainable hunting-gathering economy, a complex society and culture, artistic painting traditions, dreamtime religion, and you are all humans with guaranteed human rights.
But we are just going to declare terra nullius and you will spend the next 200 years being hunted and genocided to death, we will poison your waterholes, farmers will shoot you and scare you off your hunting grounds, we will bulldoze and destroy your society and culture, and you will end up as a miserable, dispossessed people living on the margins of white society, plagued by social problems such as alcohol abuse and horrific 'petrol sniffing'.
"Unnamed Poster" said:
My understanding is that the Aussie retirement pension is not paid to people living overseas either.Well this is wrong. The Old Age Pension has unlimited portability for most pensioners, with some restrictions after 26 weeks for people who emigrated less than 25 years before retirement age
'Sceadugenga' quoted:
1. States Parties shall recognize the rights of persons with disabilities to liberty of movement, to freedom to choose their residence and to a nationality, on an equal basis with othersExactly, the DSP should be considered, to some greater or lesser extent, to be on an equal basis with the Old Age Pension.
How would "Unnamed Poster" like it if his government (I don't know what nationality he is) suddenly decided that people in his category were not allowed to take any money from their home country to The Philippines. No access to bank accounts at home, no credit or debit cards, no travellers checks or cash either-- there will be a thorough search at the airport.
Oh no, his government is not stopping him from travelling overseas to The Philippines or anywhere else. He is completely free to travel anywhere he likes in the world. Absolute liberty of movement.
It's just that he is not allowed any access to money he may have in his home country.
How would you like that, Unnamed Poster?
