Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Love or livelihood: a cruel dilemma for those of us with extreme disabilities

By David Heckendorf - posted Tuesday, 6 May 2014


Even today I would suspect there is a degree of misunderstanding amongst pensioners, their families and those who advise them concerning the nature of the DSP. For instance, financial advisors will suggest investment strategies to maximise their clients' entitlements. Also, ageing parents of people with disabilities often experience anxieties around their wills and whether to leave their sons or daughters assets that may reduce or cancel their entitlements.

The disability-support pensioner, who is lucky enough to secure well-paying employment, faces additional significant disincentives. If s/he is a public housing tenant, his/her rent will increase by 25¢ for every pre-tax dollar s/he earns. If s/he is fortunate enough to earn above $18,200pa, then s/he with be taxed 19¢ for each dollar earned above that income taxation threshold. By having his/her DSP reduced by 50¢ for every dollar earned above the threshold, s/he would effectively only take home approximately 6¢ for each dollar earned above this income taxation threshold.

This is quite complex. What is clear, however, is that the application of the income and assets tests to the less than 6% of the population with profound disabilities is cruel. It serves as a significant disincentive for people with profound disabilities to partner or enter into the workforce to whatever degree they can.

Advertisement

Let's follow the Blind

Kewley notes that in a policy twist, which dates back to 1912, the legally blind were advantaged out of the desire:

'…to provide them with every inducement to earn something towards their support..... The dual purpose of this provision was to discourage those already at work from leaving it with a view to obtaining a pension, and to encourage others to undertake training for some occupation' (Kewley, T. H. (1973). Social security in Australia 1900–72. Sydney: Sydney University Press.)

People who are legally blind are certainly disadvantaged compared to the majority of the population. But they far less disadvantaged today than they were in 1912 or 1954. This is largely due to advances in technology and society's attitudes. People with significant vision impairment are now employed in a range of different positions, including law school professors and as a Disability Discrimination Commissioner.

The advancements in technologies have been less effective at increasing the employability of people with other types of profound disabilities.

People with profound disabilities should be exempt from income & assets tests

I submit that Australia's national policy, which encourages people who are legally blind to engage in the workforce and to provide for themselves, should be extended to the less than six per cent of the Australian population whose disabilities are classified as 'profound' (see RoGS 2014, p.14.10).

Where an individual with profound disabilities has the courage and determination to find and undertake employment to earn a little pocket-money while relying upon others to provide for their disability‑related needs, they should be supported. Let us remove these silly disincentives (i.e. the income and assets tests) and allow people with profound disabilities the chance to have a go.

Advertisement

On Saturday, 1 December 1990, Jenni and I enjoyed our modest wedding celebrations in Armidale. Our concerns were far from the effects that our marriage would have on our livelihoods and how it would strongly discourage my workforce participation.

In spite of all the obstacles, if I had it all to do again, I would still marry Jenni. However, without my strong determination and work ethic, it would have been easier, and certainly more economical, to reject the marriage and employment options as a cruel joke.

I encourage young people with profound disabilities to enter into domestic relationships and to strive to gain entrance into the workplace. But, I know only too well that the current Disability Support Pension policies do not support this as much as they should.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

14 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

David Heckendorf has profound Cerebral Palsy, which affects his physical ability to care for himself. Notwithstanding these limitations he holds a Masters of Laws Degree from the Australian National University and has in excess of a decade employment experience within the Australian and ACT Public Service. The opinions he expresses are his own.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by David Heckendorf

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 14 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy