|
Post by rowdy on Feb 25, 2012 10:19:40 GMT 7
Unlimited Portability for severely disabled DSP
Okay so the proposed amendments regarding unlimited portability for severely disabled DSP's are before Parliament now, with the start date being the 01/07/2012. The qualifying criteria will be as follows:
Section 1218AAA
(1) the person is receiving disability support pension; (2) the Secretary is satisfied that the person’s impairment is a severe impairment (within the meaning of subsection 94(3B));
(3) the Secretary is satisfied that the person will have that severe impairment for at least the next 5 years;
(4) the Secretary is satisfied that, if the person were in Australia, the severe impairment would prevent the person from performing any work independently of a program of support (within the meaning of subsection 94(4)) within the next 5 years.
Note: Work for the purposes of this section means:- work that is on wages that are at or above the relevant minimum wage; and that exists in Australia, even if not within the person’s locally accessible labour market.
I would be interested to know whether anyone has made any inquiries with regards to the process that will be involved for applying for unlimited portability once the amendments are passed.
|
|
|
Post by richardb on Feb 25, 2012 10:34:44 GMT 7
Yes, thanks Rowdy. I already posted the text of the legislation for discussion in another thread.
I also posed the question about why there is nothing in the legislation about residency -- does this mean there is still an ongoing residency requirement?
And if there is an ongoing residency requirement, this may mean that a severely disabled DSPer can leave indefinitely, but if they stay away for more than a year, then their residency may be reviewed. And according to the Fahcsia guidelines, which are mirrored to some extent in the decisions of the AAT with regard to residency (which Rowdy has pointed out in previous posts a few months ago about AAT cases), there is a maximum limit of 3 years away for those with strong residency ties such as owning a house, or a (suggested? flexible?) maximum of 6 months in a year on a continuous basis without strong residency ties. If you look at the AAT cases you can see there is some room for flexibility in their decisions.
Someone needs to write to Minister Macklin for clarification and explanation of this apparent conflict between the two pieces of legislation.
|
|
|
Post by rowdy on Feb 25, 2012 10:52:30 GMT 7
Yes, thanks Rowdy. I already posted the text of the legislation for discussion in another thread. I also posed the question about why there is nothing in the legislation about residency -- does this mean there is still an ongoing residency requirement? And if there is an ongoing residency requirement, this may mean that a severely disabled DSPer can leave indefinitely, but if they stay away for more than a year, then their residency may be reviewed. And according to the Fahcsia guidelines, which are mirrored to some extent in the decisions of the AAT with regard to residency (which Rowdy has pointed out in previous posts a few months ago about AAT cases), there is a maximum limit of 3 years away for those with strong residency ties such as owning a house, or a (suggested? flexible?) maximum of 6 months in a year on a continuous basis without strong residency ties. If you look at the AAT cases you can see there is some room for flexibility in their decisions. Someone needs to write to Minister Macklin for clarification and explanation of this apparent conflict between the two pieces of legislation. richardb, You have raised a very interesting point indeed, and something I had completely overlooked. The ongoing residency requirements for DSP's and not just when the DSP is granted (last years SSAct Section 94 amendment) seems to directly conflict with the proposed Section 1218AAA amendments which will grant unlimited portability to severely impaired DSP's. In short, Section 94 provides for ongoing residence for continued DSP qualification (see Section 7(1) SSAct for definition of residence) but Section 1218AAA provides for unlimited portability. The question that needs to be answered therefore, is whether someone granted unlimited portability pursuant to Section 1218AAA will continue to satisfy Section 94. This certainly need clarrification
|
|
|
Post by rowdy on Feb 25, 2012 11:42:37 GMT 7
Yes, thanks Rowdy. I already posted the text of the legislation for discussion in another thread. I also posed the question about why there is nothing in the legislation about residency -- does this mean there is still an ongoing residency requirement? And if there is an ongoing residency requirement, this may mean that a severely disabled DSPer can leave indefinitely, but if they stay away for more than a year, then their residency may be reviewed. And according to the Fahcsia guidelines, which are mirrored to some extent in the decisions of the AAT with regard to residency (which Rowdy has pointed out in previous posts a few months ago about AAT cases), there is a maximum limit of 3 years away for those with strong residency ties such as owning a house, or a (suggested? flexible?) maximum of 6 months in a year on a continuous basis without strong residency ties. If you look at the AAT cases you can see there is some room for flexibility in their decisions. Someone needs to write to Minister Macklin for clarification and explanation of this apparent conflict between the two pieces of legislation. richardb, You have raised a very interesting point indeed, and something I had completely overlooked. The ongoing residency requirements for DSP's and not just when the DSP is granted (last years SSAct Section 94 amendment) seems to directly conflict with the proposed Section 1218AAA amendments which will grant unlimited portability to severely impaired DSP's. In short, Section 94 provides for ongoing residence for continued DSP qualification (see Section 7(1) SSAct for definition of residence) but Section 1218AAA provides for unlimited portability. The question that needs to be answered therefore, is whether someone granted unlimited portability pursuant to Section 1218AAA will continue to satisfy Section 94. This certainly need clarrification I have found the answer. Anyone who will obtain unlimited portability pursuant to Section 1218AAA will not have to satisfy the ongoing residence requirements (Section 94 SSAct) by virtue of the following amendment that will be made to Section 94:- Section 94(1)(ea)(i)to be inserted "(ia) the person is absent from Australia and the Secretary has made a determination in relation to the person under subsection 1218AAA(1)".In summary DSP's granted unlimited portability do not have to satisfy the ongoing residence requirements due to an amendment also being made to Section 94 of the SSAct. This is GOOD NEWS.Rowdy
|
|
|
Post by richardb on Feb 25, 2012 11:47:44 GMT 7
Also, I have just discovered something very interesting that needs clarification from Minister Jenny Macklin. Here is the original Media Release about Unlimited Portability, published in May 2011: www.jennymacklin.fahcsia.gov.au/mediareleases/2011/Pages/b05_10052011.aspxNote what it says about 'add-on' payments: New rules for overseas travel for people with severe disability
The Government also recognises that the DSP is an essential safety net for those who cannot work.
New, more generous rules from 1 July 2012, will allow people receiving DSP who have a permanent disability and no future work capacity, to travel overseas for more than 13 weeks while retaining access to their pension.
In addition, DSP recipients who are severely disabled and are required to accompany a family member who has been posted overseas by their Australian employer will be entitled to continue to receive their pension for the period of the family member’s posting. These pensioners will not be eligible for add-on payments such as the Pension Supplement or Rent Assistance while they are overseas. These changes deliver a net saving of $19.0 million over four years.
Existing portability rules will continue to apply to DSP recipients who may have some ability to work. Other working age payments will not be affected by these changes to portability arrangements.Now look at the recent Media Release, published on the 15th of February 2012: www.jennymacklin.fahcsia.gov.au/mediareleases/2012/Pages/jm_jmc_supporting_pwds_15february2012.aspxAnd look at the legislation, introduced on the same day: parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr4752_first-reps%2F0003;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr4752_first-reps%2F0000%22;rec=0NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECENT MEDIA RELEASE OR IN THE LEGISLATION ABOUT 'ADD ON' PAYMENTSThis is quite important, as a DSPers 'add-on' payments may include: Pension Supplement: about $30 per week, paid to almost all DSPers Rent Assistance: maximum about $60 per week Pensioner Education Supplement: about $32 per week And many other payments as well. These payments may be quite important. Some DSPers may try to secure their residence status by renting a house, or enrolling in a TAFE course in Australia. If these payments were stopped after 13 weeks, one can calculate that it may in fact be more cost effective to return to Australia to renew these payments every 13 weeks, and also to 'renew' residency and tend to residential accommodation. If these payments become 'unlimited', this is a whole new ball game with new rules. Also note the title of the media release in May 2011: Supporting Australians with disability into work
And the title of the media release in February 2012: Supporting people with disability into work
This may or may not be significant.
|
|
|
Post by richardb on Feb 25, 2012 11:52:50 GMT 7
I have found the answer. Anyone who will obtain unlimited portability pursuant to Section 1218AAA will not have to satisfy the ongoing residence requirements (Section 94 SSAct) by virtue of the following amendment that will be made to Section 94:- Section 94(1)(ea)(i)to be inserted "(ia) the person is absent from Australia and the Secretary has made a determination in relation to the person under subsection 1218AAA(1)".In summary DSP's granted unlimited portability do not have to satisfy the ongoing residence requirements due to an amendment also being made to Section 94 of the SSAct. This is GOOD NEWS.Rowdy Excellent Work Rowdy!
That is good news!
|
|
|
Post by richardb on Feb 25, 2012 12:10:09 GMT 7
Also, I have just discovered something very interesting that needs clarification from Minister Jenny Macklin. Here is the original Media Release about Unlimited Portability, published in May 2011: www.jennymacklin.fahcsia.gov.au/mediareleases/2011/Pages/b05_10052011.aspxNote what it says about 'add-on' payments: New rules for overseas travel for people with severe disability
The Government also recognises that the DSP is an essential safety net for those who cannot work.
New, more generous rules from 1 July 2012, will allow people receiving DSP who have a permanent disability and no future work capacity, to travel overseas for more than 13 weeks while retaining access to their pension.
In addition, DSP recipients who are severely disabled and are required to accompany a family member who has been posted overseas by their Australian employer will be entitled to continue to receive their pension for the period of the family member’s posting. These pensioners will not be eligible for add-on payments such as the Pension Supplement or Rent Assistance while they are overseas. These changes deliver a net saving of $19.0 million over four years.
Existing portability rules will continue to apply to DSP recipients who may have some ability to work. Other working age payments will not be affected by these changes to portability arrangements.Now look at the recent Media Release, published on the 15th of February 2012: www.jennymacklin.fahcsia.gov.au/mediareleases/2012/Pages/jm_jmc_supporting_pwds_15february2012.aspxAnd look at the legislation, introduced on the same day: parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr4752_first-reps%2F0003;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr4752_first-reps%2F0000%22;rec=0NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECENT MEDIA RELEASE OR IN THE LEGISLATION ABOUT 'ADD ON' PAYMENTSThis is quite important, as a DSPers 'add-on' payments may include: Pension Supplement: about $30 per week, paid to almost all DSPers Rent Assistance: maximum about $60 per week Pensioner Education Supplement: about $32 per week And many other payments as well. These payments may be quite important. Some DSPers may try to secure their residence status by renting a house, or enrolling in a TAFE course in Australia. If these payments were stopped after 13 weeks, one can calculate that it may in fact be more cost effective to return to Australia to renew these payments every 13 weeks, and also to 'renew' residency and tend to residential accommodation. If these payments become 'unlimited', this is a whole new ball game with new rules. Also note the title of the media release in May 2011: Supporting Australians with disability into work
And the title of the media release in February 2012: Supporting people with disability into work
This may or may not be significant. Note what the original Media Release stated: These changes deliver a net saving of $19.0 million over four years.One would have thougt these savings, from reductions in 'Add-On Payments', are a very important justification for the legislation in terms of government policy, as the residency legislation announced in March 2010 (which directly resulted in the establishment of this discussion board, the Senate Inquiry, and the Great DSPer Revolt), was justified by the savings of just $3 million dollars, from DSPers giving up their DSP and staying overseas. Of course, there are many good reasons why DSPers should be allowed to have free and unfettered travel and residence, and Human Rights figures prominently among these reasons. But there are also many reasons why the government may want to restrict the travel and residence of DSPers: such as pandering to 'downward envy', copying and thereby undermining Tony Abbott's policy themes of taking a stick to 'lazy' DSPers. This is puzzling, and perhaps needs more clarification from Minister Macklin. Of course, DSPers should be very grateful for this liberation from travel restrictions, if it eventually happens, but at this time, given the political firestorm that is happening in Australia, DSPers could perhaps only hope that the present government lasts until July, until the legislation is passed, and only hope that the government does not collapse beforehand. And DSPers should be afraid, very afraid. TONY ABBOTT: "THERE WILL BE TOUGH LOVE TOO" (referring to DSPers)NOBODY WILL HEAR YOUR SCREAMS WHEN YOU ARE DEAF-MUTE (or have other disabilities which prevent screaming or communication)
|
|
|
Post by zorro1 on Feb 25, 2012 12:53:04 GMT 7
Good thread Rowdy.
"the Secretary is satisfied that the person will have that severe impairment for at least the next 5 years;
It was my impression that 2 a year period was the max even for severely disabled (0-7)
|
|
|
Post by wbmania72 on Feb 25, 2012 16:37:14 GMT 7
i am bit confused about this working hours thing. is there any C/L chart so can find out my working hours.because i've been on dsp since 2001 and was told number of times that my condition is classified as SEVERE and i think (thats what i was told at the time)thats how i was granted unlimited portability back in 2004 just before legislation changed after return back to Oz.the thing is i made a call to C/L a while ago about this unlimited portability and was told that according to their system my working hours is 8-15. my condition is severe but working hours 8-15. i thought when you severe your working hours is 0-7.
|
|
|
Post by spaceyone on Feb 25, 2012 17:21:40 GMT 7
i am bit confused about this working hours thing. is there any C/L chart so can find out my working hours.because i've been on dsp since 2001 and was told number of times that my condition is classified as SEVERE and i think (thats what i was told at the time)thats how i was granted unlimited portability back in 2004 just before legislation changed after return back to Oz.the thing is i made a call to C/L a while ago about this unlimited portability and was told that according to their system my working hours is 8-15. my condition is severe but working hours 8-15. i thought when you severe your working hours is 0-7. It seems that when they have transferred your case over to newer systems, they have re-classified you, without discussing same with you. So yes, you are not in the class 0-7, who are excused from work completely. The 8-15 hours would apply to a fortnight, so one day a week. If that is not possible, you should ask them to reassess you and correct it. The new assessments will be pretty harsh though, so risky to submit yourself to it, if you can avoid it.
|
|
|
Post by wbmania72 on Feb 25, 2012 20:30:21 GMT 7
thanx spaceyone. how can ones case transferred over to newer systems? it was 2004 when i left for overseas after granted unlimited portability and was told not to worry because my condition classified as severe. it was more than 3 years ago when i went for the last interview with a more solid medical record than the previous ones. when i call C/L a while ago about new portability she said that my working hours is 8 to 15. but i didnt ask whether its fortnightly or weekly or monthly. does that mean my condition isnt severe anymore? regards
|
|
|
Post by Banker on Feb 26, 2012 3:05:20 GMT 7
thanx spaceyone. how can ones case transferred over to newer systems? it was 2004 when i left for overseas after granted unlimited portability and was told not to worry because my condition classified as severe. it was more than 3 years ago when i went for the last interview with a more solid medical record than the previous ones. when i call C/L a while ago about new portability she said that my working hours is 8 to 15. but i didnt ask whether its fortnightly or weekly or monthly. does that mean my condition isnt severe anymore? regards The best way to find out what happened is for you to apply for your file with FOI then take it from there, other wise your only getting what C/L want you to hear.
|
|
|
Post by spaceyone on Feb 26, 2012 7:35:46 GMT 7
thanx spaceyone. how can ones case transferred over to newer systems? it was 2004 when i left for overseas after granted unlimited portability and was told not to worry because my condition classified as severe. it was more than 3 years ago when i went for the last interview with a more solid medical record than the previous ones. when i call C/L a while ago about new portability she said that my working hours is 8 to 15. but i didnt ask whether its fortnightly or weekly or monthly. does that mean my condition isnt severe anymore? regards I don't know how they have done it, especially without involving you in the decision. However, in the old impairment tables, certain illness attracted a high rating. Now they have removed a lot of illnesses, and instead assess you on the limitations the illness puts of your ability to move freely. Maybe they have done that to you, reassessed you under the new tables. I would argue the matter with them, next time you have the chance.
|
|
|
Post by wbmania72 on Feb 27, 2012 8:40:02 GMT 7
i rang C/L today and lady on the other site wasnt quite sure about anything i ask for. except; my impairment rating(%35) my disability rating(severe) BUT working hours(8-14) DETERMINED by jca officer. does it make sense to anybody or am i the one the misinterpreted the whole thing? regards
|
|
|
Post by wbmania72 on Feb 27, 2012 9:03:10 GMT 7
when i asked her how to be eligible for unlimited portability she said its very complex and gave me a brief info about the article below.its totally different from the basic portability rules and eligibilities we been talking about as average normal pensioners.
DISABILITY SUPPORT PENSION - PORTABILITY CHANGES Who will be affected by this Budget measure? Existing DSP customers may be affected by this measure if they are dependent on a family member who is posted outside Australia for work temporarily.
To be eligible, a DSP customer must be recognised by Centrelink as having a severe disability, be substantially dependent on a family member and be living with the family member during their absence from Australia.
The family member of the DSP customer must be working in Australia for the same employer who has posted them outside Australia immediately before their period of absence. They must continue working for the same employer during their absence.
The DSP customer must remain an Australian resident in order to remain qualified for DSP
Who will not be affected by this Budget measure? DSP customers who do not meet the eligibility criteria will remain subject to existing portability rules.
Description of the measure From 1 July 2011, people who are severely disabled and who are substantially dependent on a family member who has been posted outside Australia temporarily for work may be able to receive Disability Support Pension (DSP) outside Australia for the period of the family member’s posting.
The customer must remain an Australian resident in order to remain qualified for DSP. This portability extension only applies for temporary absences from Australia.
This measure will assist families with dependents who receive DSP. It will enable family members to accept employment postings outside Australia knowing that their dependent will be able to accompany them and continue to receive income support.
It is expected that around 500 customers a year will enquire about this measure and around 20 customers a year are expected to be granted the extension.
|
|