|
Post by rowdy on Apr 4, 2012 11:27:08 GMT 7
Rowdy: Just for clarification, in my case, the other person I spoke to, just said "20", he didn't say anything about which tables they were or anything, perhaps I should ring back another time to find out exact? You should have (unfortunately you didn't know) to ask whether it was under the one (single) impairment table or more than one.
|
|
|
Post by zingzingzing on Apr 4, 2012 12:26:31 GMT 7
I know I should have asked for more Detailed Info, but I have requested a FOI today,
I called again (to see If I can clarify on that), the 3rd Person I talked to, I got more info, but not much related to The Impairment tables.
And apparently, because I got the DSP before the January 2012 changes, I'm under the old system, and originally when was accepted for DSP in 2010, my allowable work hours were 0-7.
So I don't know what they have done to my record, since they apparently "Achieved it" and have to get it out again.
|
|
|
Post by howdo on Apr 16, 2012 7:27:47 GMT 7
Someone said on here recently that if your working hours were over 0-7 you would not be considered for unlimited portability in the upcoming changes. Can anyone verify this. Cant for the life of me remember which thread it was in.
|
|
|
Post by rowdy on Apr 16, 2012 9:47:59 GMT 7
Someone said on here recently that if your working hours were over 0-7 you would not be considered for unlimited portability in the upcoming changes. Can anyone verify this. Cant for the life of me remember which thread it was in. Howdo, I cant recall seeing any forum post that mentioned that. In any event, even Centrelink are uncertain at this stage on how to implement the proposed changes once they come into force. My own opinion only is that 0 to 7 would qualify. 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.
|
|
|
Post by howdo on Apr 16, 2012 10:43:18 GMT 7
Okay, thanks Rowdy.
|
|
|
Post by rowdy on Apr 16, 2012 10:57:59 GMT 7
Also Howdo, I would like to know what the relevant minimum wage is for a severely disabled pensioner whose work capacity is 0 to7 hours per week. I think we will find their isn't one.
|
|
|
Post by rowdy on Apr 16, 2012 11:45:50 GMT 7
Someone said on here recently that if your working hours were over 0-7 you would not be considered for unlimited portability in the upcoming changes. Can anyone verify this. Cant for the life of me remember which thread it was in. Howdo, I cant recall seeing any forum post that mentioned that. In any event, even Centrelink are uncertain at this stage on how to implement the proposed changes once they come into force. My own opinion only is that 0 to 7 would qualify. 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.
The amendment states that work is "on wages that are at or above the relevant minimum wage". SSAct Section 23 defines "relevant minimum wage" as the wage payable to the employee under law. I am going to look further into this.
|
|
|
Post by spaceyone on Apr 16, 2012 18:09:36 GMT 7
Someone said on here recently that if your working hours were over 0-7 you would not be considered for unlimited portability in the upcoming changes. Can anyone verify this. Cant for the life of me remember which thread it was in. I might have said that. It was just a personal opinion as to how the rule would be applied, since it mentions that the person has to have no future work capacity. There would be no award payment rate for a pensioner, award wages for the industry concerned would apply. However, they had to add award wages as a requirement to the charter for disability employment services recently, as people were having to resort to any job, just to satisfy their quota of required hours, regardless of how little the job paid. When I was cleaning motel rooms, we were hired at $18 per hour, but then told we would be paid by the room - $9 each room @ half an hour each. Each room actually then took 40 mins to clean, on a good day, and longer for the family rooms during school holidays. If you didn't do the extra unpaid time to clean the room properly, you were fired. If you did your job well, by the end of the day you had done an hour and a half for free. Averaged out, we were paid $11-12 per hour. We were not allowed a lunch or coffee break, and sometimes often for 5 hours solid. We were paid as contractors, therefore no tax or super was deducted from our wages, we had no sick or holiday pay, and could be fired on the spot. If they want people in this country to work, they should have first fixed up the laws which used to protect us from being exploited. Fair Work Australia found all of the above to be quiet legal and reasonable by the way, and that I had no grounds for complaint. The company then added extra duties to each room, to punish the remaining girls, stating quite clearly that it was because I had lodged the complaint with Fair Work Australia. I hadn't wanted to, but my disability employment agency talked me into it. Seems they stood to loose their payments for managing me in my job, once their charter was amended to mention award wages. They then advised my ex-colleague to quit the job, since the weren't allowed to manage her in it anymore. Laughable. She hated the job, mainly because of being ripped off, but it was all she could get despite having been a legal secretary prior to having children, so worked there to be able to afford to live. Its all just a f***ing joke. I am just really over it all lately. The graft and corruption within the welfare and health industries, while we their 'clients' just get shafted.
|
|
|
Post by rowdy on Apr 17, 2012 14:56:48 GMT 7
Someone said on here recently that if your working hours were over 0-7 you would not be considered for unlimited portability in the upcoming changes. Can anyone verify this. Cant for the life of me remember which thread it was in. Howdo, I have done quite a bit of reading on this issue you raised over the last 24 hours. I think the amendment (1218AAA(4)) needs to be read in conjunction with Section 94(1)(e)(i) of the SSAct that provides that in order for a person to qualify for the DSP in the first place they have to have a continuing inability to work. Just by virtue of being on a DSP a person has an inability to work. Therefore the way I am reading section 1218AAA(4) is just that the 'continuing inability' need to be for the next 5 years. 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.
|
|
|
Post by rowdy on Apr 17, 2012 16:27:14 GMT 7
Probably also good to look at the definition of work in section 94(5)SSAct:
"work" means work:
(a) that is for at least 15 hours per week on wages that are at or above the relevant minimum wage; and
(b) that exists in Australia, even if not within the person's locally accessible labour market.
I think it probably the case that if a person has a disability of which it is a severe impairment, then they will satisfy section 1218AAA(4) as long at Centrelink are satisfied that they will have the severe impairment for the next 5 years.
Just my take on it, would like to know what others think.
|
|
|
Post by howdo on Apr 18, 2012 5:24:05 GMT 7
Excellent work rowdy, thanks for all that. Mmmm now let me see, I haven't been able to work for the last 22yrs. Based on how C/L work, I should be fit to start manual labour tomorrow. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Apr 18, 2012 5:34:46 GMT 7
Manual Labour is a Mexican politician who will probably be our next Prime Minister given the total lack of suitable candidates in this country.
|
|
|
Post by howdo on Apr 18, 2012 15:09:43 GMT 7
And his right hand man Gringo, or was it Ringo.
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Apr 18, 2012 15:59:06 GMT 7
Pancho
|
|