|
|
Post by numpty on Oct 5, 2012 14:35:15 GMT 7
Could someone please help me understand where I sit in the scheme of things.
I've been on the DSP since March 2006 and have been reassessed twice over the years. Because of the date I started will I stay on the 8 hour rule automatically
|
|
|
|
Post by anotherdsp on Oct 5, 2012 16:09:03 GMT 7
to numpty,the 8 hr rule?? i am a little confused what do you mean mate??
|
|
|
|
Post by numpty on Oct 6, 2012 11:47:45 GMT 7
Being assessed to work up to 8 hrs a week, as this seems to have a different impact on things, than if it were up to 15 hours. I'm trying to work out if I am in any better position because I started on DSP before July 2006
|
|
|
|
Post by ghostbuster on Oct 6, 2012 14:31:18 GMT 7
8 hour rule, 2 hour rule, next...  |
|
|
|
Post by numpty on Oct 6, 2012 20:22:50 GMT 7
Thanks, I think this is what I was looking for
|
|
|
|
Post by anotherdsp on Oct 7, 2012 8:04:55 GMT 7
to numpty, i think it all changes when we get reassed under the new tables,do you think you were grandfathered?
|
|
|
|
Post by numpty on Oct 7, 2012 11:02:37 GMT 7
No I wouldn't be grandfathered I think this clears it up a bit However, from 1 July 2012, DSP recipients under age 35, with a work capacity of at least eight hours per week, are required to attend regular interviews with Centrelink to develop participation plans to help build their capacity to work: Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) ss 94(1)(da), 94A. www.alrc.gov.au/publications/5-social-security/disability-support-pension?print |
|
|
|
Post by numpty on Oct 7, 2012 11:20:36 GMT 7
It's this that confuses me but I think it means I'm under the 15 hour rule "The 15 hour work test applies to people whose start date on DSP is after 30 June 2006 and those whose start date on DSP is between 11 May 2005 and 30 June 2006 and have been reviewed after 30 June 2006 under the 15 hour rule. For people whose start date on DSP is prior to 11 May 2005 and transitional DSP recipients work should be for at least 30 hours per week where wages are at or above the relevant minimum wage and should exist in Australia, even if not within the person's locally accessible labour market." And I guess this part is what a lot of us will be arguing at our appeals and such. "In considering a person’s capacity for “work” as defined, it would be reasonable to expect that they must be capable of reliably performing such work on a sustainable basis, that is, for a reasonable period of time without requiring excessive leave or work absences. A reasonable period of time is taken to be 26 weeks. Further, it would be expected that such work is in open, unsupported employment and that the person does not require excessive support (ie more than what is usually considered reasonable adjustments and/or normal supervision) to perform the work. It is considered that the Tables refer to work in this context with regard to the assessment of work-related impairment." Read more: dspoverseas.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=advice&action=display&thread=49#ixzz28eN4Zihc |
|
|
|
Post by anotherdsp on Oct 7, 2012 20:00:35 GMT 7
to numppty,sorry mate i have nt been the best and i have been on me painkillers ,so i have been a fauge in my thinking,
yes the under 35 s have a new set of rules. the part where it sez 26 weeks a year is interesting part!!
me being a grandfathered(but this is a confusion point again) and over 50 i was not thinking in the uder 35 terms.for myself i rekon i would be very lucky to peice together 26 weeks in a year??
so if we say ok i can do say 10 hrs this week and then are sick for say 2 weeks where you can not work,then ten hrs again an cannot work for another 6 weeks for example how are they going to figure that into the mix??how long would an employer keep you employed in those terms. my guess is C/L dont give a hoot because they say well we rekon you can do it!!(maybe i have gotton a bit of track here but it would not be a nice position to be in)
|
|
