Aussie Dsp

[sandgroper2]

To all Aussiesliving here on a DSP, you must now report every 6 weeks, new budget. Write to your local MP and explain to himkhow much that is going to cost the Aussie Tax payer. ( It doesnt apply to me)

[kevjohn]

If you need more information then check this out.

http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/about/publicationsarticles/corp/BudgetPAES/budget11_12/Documents/FaHCSIA_DSP_web.htm#sec_2

[ozzydom]

Care to elaborate on how this proposed change will cost Oz taxpayers, it would appear that the cost will be on the pension recipient to comply.

[kevjohn]

If you need more information then check this out.

http://www.fahcsia.g...P_web.htm#sec_2

And also here

http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/guides_acts/ssg/ssguide-7/ssguide-7.1/ssguide-7.1.2/ssguide-7.1.2.10.html

[kevjohn]

Care to elaborate on how this proposed change will cost Oz taxpayers, it would appear that the cost will be on the pension recipient to comply.

From what I see in the 2 links that I have given it seems as though it will be the DSP reciient that pays.

[giddyup]

Obviously this is to prevent the scam that previously existed where Aussies on DSP were spending 13 weeks (max. allowed) in Thailand, returning to Oz for a few days and then flying back for another 13 weeks. I'm glad they are closing the loophole. Getting granted a DSP by Centrelink is far too easy and too many people are taking advantage of the situation.

Edited May 5, 2012 by giddyup

[kevjohn]

From what I read it only applies to DSP recipients up to the age of 35yrs.

Anyone over 35yrs do not a appear to be affected.

[chiangmaibruce]

From what I read it only applies to DSP recipients up to the age of 35yrs.

Anyone over 35yrs do not a appear to be affected.

Incorrect:

"The new requirements will apply to both people already on DSP and new recipients who are under 35, unless they:

• are assessed through a Job Capacity Assessment as being able to work for less than 8 hours a week;
  
• have been granted DSP on the basis of a 'manifest' condition;
  
• are working in an Australian Disability Enterprise; or
  
• are working under the Supported Wage System."
  

[edwinclapham]

I find it perfectly acceptable.

[kevjohn]

But the site also states:

The requirements will apply until the DSP recipient turns 35 years old. The extra support is targeted at recipients who are under 35 because:

• People under 35 have often been away from work or education for less time than older DSP recipients, and have a better chance of re-engagement.
  
• Nearly 38 per cent of people under 35 have an assessed work capacity of 8 hours or more a week, compared with only 29 per cent of all DSP recipients.
  

[chiangmaibruce]

Obviously this is to prevent the scam that previously existed where Aussies on DSP were spending 13 weeks (max. allowed) in Thailand, returning to Oz for a few days and then flying back for another 13 weeks. I'm glad they are closing the loophole.

Read this and then come back and tell us exactly how the right to spend time overseas (like a normal person) is a "scam":

www.burning-bison.com/submission.doc

Getting granted a DSP by Centrelink is far too easy and too many people are taking advantage of the situation.

Yes, well that may or may not be correct, but it's a separate issue to that of being allowed to live overseas part of the year

This "initiative" has very little to do with saving public money and a lot to do with appealing to ill-informed popularist attitudes. They have taken a leaf out the Thai government playbook, e.g. "foreigners own 1/3 of all Thai land" etc

[chiangmaibruce]

In 2002 Wayne Swan then an opposition MP and now the federal Treasurer, stated the following in opposing legislation proposed by the incumbent Liberal government:

"I now move to the specific provisions of this bill relating to portability. The measure within this legislation that concerns the opposition is the plan to limit the generosity of the portability provisions relating to work force age social security payments. In particular, this bill seeks to reduce the allowable period of temporary overseas absence for portable social security payments from 26 weeks to 13 weeks. This new portability period will also apply to a range of payments, including the disability support pension and family tax benefit. Labor is particularly concerned about the impact of this measure on some of our larger communities that have a heritage overseas. This includes former UK citizens and also the Greek community.

There are good reasons why the portability provisions should be 26 weeks and not 13. Many families who have parents or siblings living overseas are called upon to go to their aid when they get sick or are dying. In some cases this may involve finalising a person's estate. Often there is a need for a person to spend considerable time overseas. There has never been any evidence presented that shows the current rules have been abused. In fact, the net savings the government is claiming for this provision amount to $4.1 million, and I think they confirm the fact that the government also does not believe that the rules have been abused. These are mean changes that will have a direct impact on people who have loved ones in other countries and they are changes which we will be urging Senator Patterson to join with us in rejecting when this bill reaches the Senate."

Clearly much has changed in ten years

[sandgroper2]

Care to elaborate on how this proposed change will cost Oz taxpayers, it would appear that the cost will be on the pension recipient to comply.

This is how, the figures are approx. Person gets $3000 over 3 months, spends $1000 to return to Oz to stay eligible. Cost to Govt. $3000. Now, the person cant afford to return to Oz ever 6 weeks so return to Oz permantly, cost to Govt,$3000, plus rent assistance, cost $100 a week, carer allowance, where applicble, cost $150 a week, free medical and dental, cost $?, subsided elec,water,gas, cost $?, pharmacy allowance cost $?. I'm sure there are more, but, as it doesnt affect me, I dont know what they are.

[necronx99]

Care to elaborate on how this proposed change will cost Oz taxpayers, it would appear that the cost will be on the pension recipient to comply.

This is how, the figures are approx. Person gets $3000 over 3 months, spends $1000 to return to Oz to stay eligible. Cost to Govt. $3000. Now, the person cant afford to return to Oz ever 6 weeks so return to Oz permantly, cost to Govt,$3000, plus rent assistance, cost $100 a week, carer allowance, where applicble, cost $150 a week, free medical and dental, cost $?, subsided elec,water,gas, cost $?, pharmacy allowance cost $?. I'm sure there are more, but, as it doesnt affect me, I dont know what they are.

But 100% of those funds are returned to the local economy instead of all of it being lost offshore.

[giddyup]

Obviously this is to prevent the scam that previously existed where Aussies on DSP were spending 13 weeks (max. allowed) in Thailand, returning to Oz for a few days and then flying back for another 13 weeks. I'm glad they are closing the loophole.

Read this and then come back and tell us exactly how the right to spend time overseas (like a normal person) is a "scam":

www.burning-bison.com/submission.doc

Getting granted a DSP by Centrelink is far too easy and too many people are taking advantage of the situation.

Yes, well that may or may not be correct, but it's a separate issue to that of being allowed to live overseas part of the year

This "initiative" has very little to do with saving public money and a lot to do with appealing to ill-informed popularist attitudes. They have taken a leaf out the Thai government playbook, e.g. "foreigners own 1/3 of all Thai land" etc

I don't begrudge DSP recipients the right to travel outside of Australia (like a normal person) for holidays etc, but as was well publicised a year or so back, there are a lot of DSP recipients who spend 90% of their time living in Thailand or elsewhere, who ONLY travel back to Australia every 13 weeks to comply with Centrelink conditions. If a person on DSP is well enough to be travelling back and forward every 13 weeks to Oz, and probably spending his time in Thailand either playing golf or bar hopping (whatever his interests are) IMO he or she is capable of some kind of paid work. The system shouldn't avail people of an early retirement until they reach 65 and then get the OAP.

In the old days a migrant could come to Australia, work for a brief period, claim "Mediterranean back", get granted a DSP and retire in relative comfort back in the old country for the rest of his days.

Edited May 5, 2012 by giddyup

[chiangmaibruce]

I don't begrudge DSP recipients the right to travel outside of Australia (like a normal person) for holidays etc, but as was well publicised a year or so back, there are a lot of DSP recipients who spend 90% of their time living in Thailand or elsewhere, who ONLY travel back to Australia every 13 weeks to comply with Centrelink conditions. If a person on DSP is well enough to be travelling back and forward every 13 weeks to Oz, and probably spending his time in Thailand either playing golf or bar hopping (whatever his interests are) IMO he or she is capable of some kind of paid work. The system shouldn't avail people of an early retirement until they reach 65 and then get the OAP.

In the old days a migrant could come to Australia, work for a brief period, claim "Mediterranean back", get granted a DSP and retire in relative comfort back in the old country for the rest of his days.

There are a number of issues to consider here:

1. Does it cost the Australian taxpayer more or less to have welfare recipients living in Australia or living overseas? I would suggest that it costs taxpayers less to have them overseas based on the information I have come across to date

2. Of those that are well enough to do some work, are there in fact jobs available? Or is this really just about going through the motions via sitting opposite a fidgetting Centrelink staffer for 20 minutes every six weeks so they can ask "how have you been?" and then tick a box

3. If the system of assessing whether people are in fact permanently disabled (and to what extent) is not effective, then fix that problem and don't lump it in with the issue of whether people have a right to choose to live overseas all or part of the year

3. This is not about the "old days", it's about people living their lives today

Edited May 5, 2012 by chiangmaibruce

[giddyup]

I don't begrudge DSP recipients the right to travel outside of Australia (like a normal person) for holidays etc, but as was well publicised a year or so back, there are a lot of DSP recipients who spend 90% of their time living in Thailand or elsewhere, who ONLY travel back to Australia every 13 weeks to comply with Centrelink conditions. If a person on DSP is well enough to be travelling back and forward every 13 weeks to Oz, and probably spending his time in Thailand either playing golf or bar hopping (whatever his interests are) IMO he or she is capable of some kind of paid work. The system shouldn't avail people of an early retirement until they reach 65 and then get the OAP.

In the old days a migrant could come to Australia, work for a brief period, claim "Mediterranean back", get granted a DSP and retire in relative comfort back in the old country for the rest of his days.

There are a number of issues to consider here:

1. Does it cost the Australian taxpayer more or less to have welfare recipients living in Australia or living overseas? I would suggest the latter

2. Of those that are well enough to do some work, are there in fact jobs available? Or is this realy just about going through the motions via sitting opposite a fidgetting Centrelink staffer for 20 minutes every six weeks so they can ask "how have you been?" and then tick a box

3. If the system of assessing whether people are in fact permanently disabled (and to what extent) is not effective, then fix that problem and don't lump it in with the issue of whether people have a right to choose to live overseas all or part of the year

3. This is not about the "old days", it's about today

I wouldn't like to see the "old days" returning to the present. If Australia has to import labour (meat workers, Tongan fruitpickers etc.) because there are now so many bludgers who don't want to work, I would say, yes, there are jobs. Just because a lot of welfare recipients consider those jobs are either too hard or beneath them isn't an argument. Unfortunately the system allows people to pick and choose, and you can lead a horse to water etc. I know (I won't call them friends) of several perfectly healthy people who have never had a permanent job, they just play the system, turn up for job interviews like they just got out of bed (which was probably the case) and show zero interest in the job. No one wants to hire them.

I don't know how you can say it costs the taxpayer less if the welfare recipient is living abroad, if all monies paid to him/her are spent outside the country. I worked all my life in Australia, paid my taxes, put aside money for retirement etc, why should somebody get a free ride?

Edited May 5, 2012 by giddyup

[chiangmaibruce]

But 100% of those funds are returned to the local economy instead of all of it being lost offshore.

Well that sounds like a good argument for limiting all Australians to overseas trips of 6 weeks max. Even if you just imposed that ruling on people receiving government support, well hey that's pretty much everyone isn't it? Just depends on how you define "welfare", "government support" etc.

Then there's the issue of money spent WITHIN Australia being "lost offshore", due to the operations of foreign businesses, funds transfers (sick buffalo in Isaan, etc). We're going to have to plug those leaks too right?

Hmm, I wonder if overseas govt's might get annoyed due to the fact Australian businesses earn income offshore, overseas governments pay welfare to their nationals living in Australia, their nationals spend tourist dollars within Australia. Oh boy this is getting complicated

[chiangmaibruce]

<snip> Just because a lot of welfare recipients consider those jobs are either too hard or beneath them isn't an argument. Unfortunately the system allows people to pick and choose, and you can lead a horse to water etc.<snip>

Noted thanks, but remember that this thread is specifically about Disability Support Pensioners and I can't see lot of them climbing fruit trees

[necronx99]

But 100% of those funds are returned to the local economy instead of all of it being lost offshore.

Well that sounds like a good argument for limiting all Australians to overseas trips of 6 weeks max. Even if you just imposed that ruling on people receiving government support, well hey that's pretty much everyone isn't it? Just depends on how you define "welfare", "government support" etc.

Then there's the issue of money spent WITHIN Australia being "lost offshore", due to the operations of foreign businesses, funds transfers (sick buffalo in Isaan, etc). We're going to have to plug those leaks too right?

Hmm, I wonder if overseas govt's might get annoyed due to the fact Australian businesses earn income offshore, overseas governments pay welfare to their nationals living in Australia, their nationals spend tourist dollars within Australia. Oh boy this is getting complicated

You suggested it was cheaper. Also, the single biggest cost beyond the pension itself in most cases is medical care. All those on DSP sure as shit don't have private cover offshore. Soon as the're sick there right back in OZ waving their pension card.

[giddyup]

<snip> Just because a lot of welfare recipients consider those jobs are either too hard or beneath them isn't an argument. Unfortunately the system allows people to pick and choose, and you can lead a horse to water etc.<snip>

Noted thanks, but remember that this thread is specifically about Disability Support Pensioners and I can't see lot of them climbing fruit trees

I only used those two instances of imported labour, I wasn't necessarily suggesting that DSP recipients were suited to those jobs, but unless you are totally bed-ridden you would be capable of some form of work. However, I wonder how quickly (in some cases) their ailments disappear once they are in Thailand?

Edited May 5, 2012 by giddyup

[David48]

Could this develop into the 'Great UK Pension Debate' ?

[sandgroper2]

Care to elaborate on how this proposed change will cost Oz taxpayers, it would appear that the cost will be on the pension recipient to comply.

This is how, the figures are approx. Person gets $3000 over 3 months, spends $1000 to return to Oz to stay eligible. Cost to Govt. $3000. Now, the person cant afford to return to Oz ever 6 weeks so return to Oz permantly, cost to Govt,$3000, plus rent assistance, cost $100 a week, carer allowance, where applicble, cost $150 a week, free medical and dental, cost $?, subsided elec,water,gas, cost $?, pharmacy allowance cost $?. I'm sure there are more, but, as it doesnt affect me, I dont know what they are.

But 100% of those funds are returned to the local economy instead of all of it being lost offshore.

So does that mean that when all the expats return to Oz, all taxpayers will then pay less tax???

[chiangmaibruce]

You suggested it was cheaper.

Correct, my subsequent response was what they call "tongue in cheek"

Also, the single biggest cost beyond the pension itself in most cases is medical care. All those on DSP sure as shit don't have private cover offshore. Soon as the're sick there right back in OZ waving their pension card.

On the one hand, if they are Australian citizens, and may have been employed and paid taxes for decades before becoming disabled, why shouldn't they have the right to continued access to the Australian health care system?

You don't know how many have private health care whilst overseas (or might have if the rules were relaxed) - nor do I. Presumably if they could stay longer then more might be inclined to take out such cover. In my experience many don't travel back to Australia for treatment due to the lower cost and greater convenience of having it done here.

As things stand now, the current rules are that people receiving DSP under the old regulations (who are permitted to stay overseas longer) no longer have the right to access medicare unless they move back to Australia permanently and go through a qualifying period like new migrants do.

[David48]

First of all sandgroper2, thanks for bringing this to our attention ...

Secondly ... ALL social welfare is a privilege ... not a right.

Many presume that welfare, e.g., in this case disability payments is a right.

Sorry, not in my books.

If you able to perform and function and able to take at least a 9 hour flight to a Foreign Country, for example Thailand ... then maybe the conditions by which the recipient are paid 'disability payments' are a little to loose.

EDIT:- Not that I wish to state exactly what but I have had extensive experience in dealing and living on a daily basis with permanently disabled family.

Edited May 5, 2012 by David48

[chiangmaibruce]

Look, no-one likes bludgers and parasites. I sure don't. Especially now when so many people are doing it tough.

But I think it's all too easy in this world we are in now to allow an emotional knee-jerk reaction (oh, these bludgers! oh these do-gooders defending these bludgers! etc) to crowd out the common sense and compassion that's necessary to find good answers to difficult questions

Edited May 5, 2012 by chiangmaibruce

[David48]

So previously you could have been classed as disabled if you have significant hearing loss.

What was the test for qualifying for the Disability Pension?

Well, you were able to be tested AFTER you were given hearing aids!

Under the first changes to the disability eligibility rules since 1993, people with a hearing impairment would now be assessed when their hearing aid was in to decide their capacity for work.

Previously it had been a requirement to be tested without a hearing aid.

Source:- http://www.theaustra...x-1226104617671

Edited May 5, 2012 by David48

[giddyup]

You suggested it was cheaper.

Correct, my subsequent response was what they call "tongue in cheek"

Also, the single biggest cost beyond the pension itself in most cases is medical care. All those on DSP sure as shit don't have private cover offshore. Soon as the're sick there right back in OZ waving their pension card.

On the one hand, if they are Australian citizens, and may have been employed and paid taxes for decades before becoming disabled, why shouldn't they have the right to continued access to the Australian health care system?

You don't know how many have private health care whilst overseas (or might have if the rules were relaxed) - nor do I. Presumably if they could stay longer then more might be inclined to take out such cover. In my experience many don't travel back to Australia for treatment due to the lower cost and greater convenience of having it done here.

As things stand now, the current rules are that people receiving DSP under the old regulations (who are permitted to stay overseas longer) no longer have the right to access medicare unless they move back to Australia permanently and go through a qualifying period like new migrants do.

I would think it depends on the severity of your illness as whether to seek medical treatment here. Health care in Thailand for farangs isn't cheap IMO, especially if you want a decent standard of care and not in a government hospital. A friend of mine was diagnosed with bone cancer recently, the treatment in Thailand would have sent him bankrupt, he had no choice but to return to Australia.

Edited May 5, 2012 by giddyup

[chiangmaibruce]

So previously you could have been classed as disabled if you have significant hearing loss.

What was the test for qualifying for the Disability Pension?

Well, you were able to be tested AFTER you were given hearing aids!

Under the first changes to the disability eligibility rules since 1993, people with a hearing impairment would now be assessed when their hearing aid was in to decide their capacity for work.

Previously it had been a requirement to be tested without a hearing aid.

Source:- http://www.theaustra...x-1226104617671

and again ..

"If the system of assessing whether people are in fact permanently disabled (and to what extent) is not effective, then fix that problem and don't lump it in with the issue of whether people have a right to choose to live overseas all or part of the year" (post #16)

[sandgroper2]

In my humble opinion, only those who have never cheated on their tax have a right to critize those scammers on DSP. ''Let he who is without sin etc etc."