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


The Disability Support Pension places people with profound disabilities in a crippling dilemma: to choose to partner or to retain a half decent level of income support.

Would you marry, or enter into a de facto relationship, if it would cost you a third of your already subsistence-level income?

Jenni, and I were born with Cerebral Palsy similar to the characters in the excellent films My Left Foot and Dance Me To My Song. Severity of our disabilities is considered to be profound under the World Health Organization's classification (see RoGS 2014, Box 14.2), which means we need assistance with all of our daily core activities, such as: getting up and dressed; eating meals; bathing or showering; and using the bathroom.

Advertisement

As with many of our married friends, we struggled with this cruel dilemma when we were dating.

How does the DSP discourage domestic partnering?

Australia should be proud that its disability income support system dates back more than a century to the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act 1908 (Cth).

Nevertheless, the system is not without its weaknesses. For example, there are significant differences between marital status entitlements. Where the single fortnightly rate of income support is $766 per fortnight the couples' rate is $577.40 each: a difference of $188.60 each and $377.20 combined.

Different income earnings thresholds are also applied to the two groups. A single pensioner can earn $156pf before his/her income support will be reduced by 50¢ for every dollar earned thereafter. For couples, the threshold for their combined earned income is $276pf and both income supports are reduced by 40¢ for each dollar earned over the threshold.

So, why the differences?

Over the decades there have been a number of arguments justifying these differences. I have only space here to briefly discuss four.

Argument One: Couples can share resources

The reason for granting a higher of pension to a single person is that a married couple can share the costs of day-to-day living whereas a single person needs a relatively higher rate in order to enjoy the same living standard. (The Hon Bill Hayden, Minister for Social Security, 1974: 6689)

Advertisement

This reasoning, already dubious when applied to the general population, is particularly unconvincing when both partners have significant disabilities.

While buying larger portions of groceries, and the sharing of white‑goods and utilities bills might add up to some savings, it would hardly account for such a large difference between the single and partner rates and thresholds.

Wheelchair users, for example, need larger dwellings than their peers to accommodate and store disability‑related equipment. We often also need to rent in locations that are reasonably flat and close to public amenities.

All of these considerations result in the wheelchair user being required to pay higher than average rent.

Alternatively, if the wheelchair users are public housing tenants, the state government charges twenty-five per cent of both their incomes: hence, they do not enjoy any economy of scale in relation to rent.

Argument Two: The individual's financial welfare is his/her own concern

Australia has an income support system that is designed to be a safety net for people unable to support themselves without calling on the resources of the community. The income and assets tests are used to target the system so that it remains sustainable and affordable for Australian taxpayers. (Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs)

Further, the Australian Treasury states that the primary purpose of Australia's transfer, or social security, system is to provide individuals with a 'minimum adequate standard of living': (2010: 485).

While the intention behind the Treasury's words may accord with the Disability Convention (Article 28), in a media release on 22 March 2013 the ACOSS reported that approximately 620,000 people with disabilities live in poverty. Price Waterhouse Coopers in their 2011 publication estimates that approximately 45% of people with a disability in Australia live in or near poverty: more than double the OECD average of 22%.

The Australian Government's own reports (see Table 19) show that 91.7% of Disability Support Pensioners earn no income (i.e. less than 9% earns any money) and less than 1% earn over $1,000 per fortnight.

Argument Three: Income support is a privilege which must be balanced with responsibilities

This understanding of social welfare was made popular in the 1980s' and 1990s by right-wing governments in the United Kingdom and the United States. The Howard Government's welfare reforms also saw increased social obligations expected from welfare recipients.

Esteemed writers, such as Aristotle (a government should govern for all its citizens) and John Locke (members join self governing communities to benefit from the membership), have provided our politic system's foundation and have included notions of human rights.

More importantly, however, in 2008 Australia ratified the United Nations Disability Convention. In doing so, it acknowledged that the welfare of people with disabilities is a community concern.

Article 28 of the Convention requires Australia to recognise the right of persons with disabilities to an adequate standard of living not only for us but also for our families.

Argument Four: Income support is not a personal asset

Few Disability Support Pensioners would be able to articulate how the thresholds work or which precise level of earned income is the optimum return of investment of their time, energy and work-related expenses. Most, however, would have a sense that there is a diminishing return.

My own experience is a testament. In the 1980s when I was 'employed' in a large Sydney sheltered workshop and earning five dollars a week, we often heard it said that if we were paid more, it would reduce our invalid pensions. I would suspect similar half-truths would continue today.

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.

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.

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. 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