Disability Support Pension (DSP) Community Service Essay

Welfare Law: The Disabled

Disability Support Pension (DSP) is the compensation for individuals that are of working age with a disability or injury for an extended period that restricts them from working for a full-time job. To receive the Disability Support Pension:

• The participant should be over 15 years of age, 
• The participant should be 20 percent mentally or physically disabled to receive payment, and 
• The participant should only be able to work for a maximum of 30 hours a week to receive payments for the next two years. (Department of Social Security 1992 as cited in Cai & Gregory, 2005). 

Those individuals who are blind automatically qualify for the DSP payment. Moreover, the recent criteria to be eligible for the payments were introduced in 1991 along with Disability Reform Package. (Cai & Gregory, 2005). From this research paper we sense that till 2005 there weren’t any changes in the policy, reforms in the policy were introduced in 2006 which would be explained further in the essay.

According to the Parliament of Australia (2018), From 20th September 2017, the rate of a single participant was 814 dollars whereas that of a couple was 1,227.20 dollars 

Argyrous and Neale (2003) in their research investigated the association between the workforce and the rise in the number of DSP participants. They reported that there was a huge decrease in the number of males working in the workforce from the early 1970s due to a high rise in the DSP participants and any that any incentive offered to them would eventually fail unless the situation of labour market doesn’t improve (as cited in Morris, 2006).

Cai and Gregory (2005) also focus on the relationship between unemployment and disability. They stated that before transferring to the DSP, many participants had been getting unemployment advantages. The main variable is the period of their unemployment which is that the longer an individual is not working, higher the chances that they will now transfer to Disability Support Pension; from 1997 to 2002, ‘more than 40 percent of the individuals moved to DSP benefits from unemployment (Cai & Gregory, 2005).

Sirvastava & Chamberlain (2005) conducted a study in Britain which reported inequality due to many reasons. The disability services institution in Britain explained that restrictions such as lack of knowledge about disability, no acceptance, lack of access and people with disabilities were restricted in finding employment according to their interests. Eradicating restrictions on disabled individuals will help in return for them to find work. This case study was on the bases of only 24 study responses from vocational restoration service workers that were not presenting the citizens of the country, however, the research offers hints as to some of the limitation to work (as cited in Hutton, Bohle, and Mc Namara, 2012)

Barnes (2012) reports that knowledge of disability has been inseparably related to employment and, as the beginning of the industrial revolution, to be well-defined as ‘disabled’ has typically intended for the people to be either working or not working. Certainly, the medical model of disability became central as Western countries moved from feudalism to capitalism. Home and employment progressively became detached, as before this those with a disability made to their farm or their home but revolution made it difficult for them to participate in the economy as a working community. They were incapable to meet the well-ordered discipline and demand production of industrialization and with human value progressively measured by perceived work worth and effectiveness, people with infirmities were viewed as uncreative, incompetent and a possible burden on resources (Barnes et al. 1999 as cited in Humpage, 2007). Due to which, people with disabilities started to be located into organizations that served a twin purpose: first, they reassured family members from caring duties so they could better meet their requirements as employees and, second, they provided services that would permit people with disabilities to become creative affiliates of society (Humpage, 2007)

Trends in DSP:

From 1972 to 2004 there was a 400 percent rise in the number of participants of the DSP (Dalton & Ong, 2007). This practice is not surprising to Australia, with the number of working-age individuals getting financial payments for disability rising within almost every developed nation. There have been multiple reasons for this evolution involving, but not restricted to, organizational changes to the Australian workforce, fluctuations to Australia’s social security expenditures, and the determined judgment in the workforce leading to low employment consequences for individuals with disabilities (as cited in Parliament of Australia, 2018). 

The initiative was taken by the government that is Welfare to Work which entails that there has been an increase in the participation of individuals with a disability that decreased the total amount of hours a person is evaluated as being capable of getting an employee before being omitted from the payment from 30 hours per week to 15 hours per week. People evaluated as being able to work between 15 hours per week and 29 hours per week could instead pursue to receive Newstart, which is focused on a requirement to pursue part-time employment (Australian Report, 2018). According to the Australian government (2005), in the DSP policy, the participants were moved towards Newstart Allowance in which individuals were transferred to the common unemployment advantage in which the criteria for the participants to meet the DSP policy was limited to 15 hours per week from 30 hours per week. This meant that the participants did not qualify for DSP policy if they worked for more than 15 hours rather, they were only capable of qualifying for NSA (as cited in Soldatic & Fitts, 2018).

The reforms in 2012 were introduced to upsurge the workforce participation of the DSP participants. In order to transfer the participants into workforce interviews were conducted for the people to get DSP who were not more than 35 years in age (Macklin, 2011 as cited in Soldatic & Fitts, 2018) Soldatic & Fitts (2018) also stated that the participants can also increase their hours/week from 15 to 30 hours per week without any limitation or restriction. As those participants whose hours exceed had to pay a penalty in the form of cutting of their payment or cancelling their pension.

The paper ‘At what cost?’ Indigenous Australians’ experiences of applying for disability income support (Disability Support Pension)’ by Soldatic & Fitts (2018) reported about the latest 2014-15 reforms which were mainly targeted for the youth those who are younger than 35 years of age. In this reform, the agency made it necessary for the youth to attempt some activities like searching for employment, job experience, education, vocational training and associating with disability work service. These were targeted for the youth to be employed. The reforms also included medical proof of the participants whether they are eligible for the DSP or not.

Critique:

The improvements presented since 2000 have constricted common obligation requirements on those individuals who receive unemployment advantages to rise contribution in employment, with some enhancements in facilities, however, it has been unsuccessful to deal with the challenges of complexity or discouragements. Almost no effort has been made to discover the concepts of intrapersonal corporations and social responsibilities but as part of the rhetoric associated with the ‘lustrous media announcements’ that shows the public aspect of the improvement process that had, until lately, been gently forgotten (Saunders, 2005)