DSP Blog

I am writing this as a blog as it is probably going to be fairly long. I have a bit to say. I apologise if the examples concentrate a lot on epilepsy.  That's what I have so it's what I know most about. Please ask me if you need specific examples for yourself.

It is quite obvious that the government has made getting the DSP deliberately difficult.  It took me three attempts and I have several university qualifications.  It isn't that I don't deserve it, it's that the paperwork and interview process is really complicated. 

This blog is intended to help people who need DSP to get through the process. It contains tips and lessons I have learned from going through the process myself.  We have recently seen people who have seizures in wheelchairs be denied.  It is not for bludgers to screw the system. 

First of all download the Guide and Impairment Tables that Centrelink use for assessment.  These are located http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2011L02716 and  http://guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law/1/1/i/10
These are quite long documents but it's extremely important that you fit the criteria.

Search for the ailment that most applies to you. You need a severe or 20 points in one area. You CANNOT make up the points by having 10 in one and 10 in another. In the severe catagory you MUST tick every box to be eligible. For example if you are looking at the consciousness catagory for seizures and you say you can drive you are immediately ineligible. 

You can, if you like write notes on how you fit each criteria. I did. Some medication I am on makes me suffer from memory lapses so note taking is always good. 

Include EVERYTHING.  If your medication has side effects this is important too.

Perhaps bring the criteria to a Doctor. You dont need to say that it is for DSP, but it can help in defining terms and thinking of things you might not have. For example we tend to think of consciousness as either an on or off thing. Either you are concious or unconscious.  But "altered consciousness" to someone with epilepsy or a similar condition can mean a dazed state or staring into space. (and the Doctor can help you put this into more medical terms.)

Doctors. It is really important that you know what goes into your medical report. Do not just leave the report with a doctor or specialist to fill in. Make a long appointment and sit with them going through it question by question with the criteria for assessment in mind. Don't be afraid of asking them to use the same language as Centrelink use. That just makes it easier for Centrelink.  And make sure that the Doctor writes so that it can be understood.

Overwhelm them with medical evidence.  Do not just use the standard form but bring in every test and every report you can lay your hands on. They might not use it all but you might be surprised what is useful. They took a copy of my epilepsy diary to prove the number of seizures I was having a week. And bring all this to the Job Capacity Interview.

The job capacity interview is where they REALLY assess you. Bring in your notes on the criteria. Do NOT assume that your assessor knows anything about the condition you have. Don't be afraid of repeating anything in your medical reports. They might not have entirety read it.

I cannot stress enough how important the job capacity interview is. And remember normally people who have disabilities tend to downplay the effect that it has on everyday life.  This is NOT the time for that. It is just as important to talk about the effect your condition has normal everyday activities as it is to talk about the effect it would have on your ability to work. 

If you believe any information is inaccurate or something should be added please contact me. 

Letter from Shane Neumann

Dear Ms Randolph

Thank you for contacting me to express your concern about the Abbott Government’s mooted changes to the Disability Support Pension (DSP) and other pension payments. Please accept my apologies for the delayed reply.

I share your concern that the cuts to pension payments the Government is enthusiastically flagging will hurt the most vulnerable. Pensioners and carers in Ipswich and the Somerset region are right to be worried they will be the next to be hurt by the Prime Minister’s attack on pension payments.

Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews stated several times in an interview last week that the Abbott Government believes that the rate and indexation of the pensions needs to be slashed, and that there will be more cuts to come.

“There’s a growing gap between the amount of money that people get on pensions and the amount of money they get on, for example, Newstart. That’s because they’re indexed at different rates and it creates a perverse disincentive for people to want to get onto, for example, the disability support pension.”

- Kevin Andrews, ABC AM, 21 January 2014

“The Commission of Audit has a remit to look at virtually anything.”

- Kevin Andrews, ABC News 24, 21 January 2014

Labor believes that our pension system is a vital safety net for Australians with disability, carers and the elderly.

Already, the Abbott Government has moved to cut the Schoolkids Bonus, the Income Support Bonus and the Low-Income Superannuation Contribution, which will leave millions of Australians worse off. But they still want to cut some more, and it’s people living on low incomes who are still on their chopping block.

The contrast between the Abbott Government spruiking cuts to pensions while designing an inequitable and extravagant Paid Parental Leave Scheme is jarring.

It was Labor that better targeted the family payments system to those that needed it, abolished the baby bonus and means tested the private health insurance rebate – all sensible reforms to keep our welfare system sustainable for the future.

The Abbott Government’s only answer to welfare reform has been to start cutting the pension.

Only Labor can be trusted to deliver a fair and sustainable welfare system that provides the necessary support for those who need it most.

I can offer no assurance that the Abbott Government won’t force people with disability onto Newstart, or slash their allowances, or push them to unreasonably and repeatedly justify their eligibility for their DSP.

I can promise that Labor will fight these cuts tooth and nail.

Yours sincerely

Shayne Neumann

Member for Blair

More Women's Troubles

At the risk of repeating myself Abbott is having Women Troubles. Again. As I had suspected he has only one women in his cabinet and this is Julia Bishop, the Foreign Affairs Minister. So she will be away for a fair amount of the year.

If this is not bad enough, and it is pretty bad, he has appointed himself as Minister of Women's Affairs. As a woman I find this outrageous.

Here are some reasons:

“Abortion is the easy way out. It’s hardly surprising that people should choose the most convenient exit from awkward situations.” March 17th, 2004

“While I think men and women are equal, they are also different and I think it's inevitable and I don't think it's a bad thing at all that we always have, say, more women doing things like physiotherapy and an enormous number of women simply doing housework.” 2010

“The problem with the Australian practice of abortion is that an objectively grave matter has been reduced to a question of the mother’s convenience.” March 17th 2004

“I won't be rushing out to get my daughters vaccinated [for cervical cancer], maybe that's because I'm a cruel, callow, callous, heartless bastard but, look, I won't be.” November 9th, 2006

“I would say to my daughters if they were to ask me this question... [their virginity] is the greatest gift that you can give someone, the ultimate gift of giving and don't give it to someone lightly, that's what I would say.” January 27th 2010

Sources: tonyabbott.com, Herald Sun News, The Sydney Morning Herald, theaustralian.com, abc.net

Also:  http://www.huffpost.com/uk/entry/3885263

The general reaction from women is hardly surprising under the circumstances.

A few tweets included:

@Kon__K: Putting @tonyabbottmhr in charge of Women's Affairs is like asking Pauline Hanson to run #Refugee Week. #auspol

@EvaBuzo: Tony help! As Minister for Women can you help me with my mascara? @TonyAbbottMHR http://twitter.com/EvaBuzo/status/381247895715864577/photo/1

@GoldCoaster13: What better way to keep women down is to put yourself in charge of them @tonyabbottmhr #auspol #qldpol

And those were just a few of many.
I am interested in hearing others views.

Right now I'm just disappointed, but not surprised.

Religion over science? Not that simple

I wrote this piece after learning that Abbott had dumped the Ministry of Science from the Cabinet. Many people have been saying that it's simply a case of religion over science. I believe, in general, religion and science can co-exist, but religion has no place in Parliament. Abbott made his personal views about Climate Change known long before the election and they have little to do with religion, but was anyone really listening?

It might surprise you to learn that I am a Christian. At the moment it seems as if many Christians have gone to the right side of politics. I however believe Christianity is founded on the principles of love and kindness towards fellow human beings - 'lefty' principles. For example I, like many Christians, am for equal marriage. It is interesting to me that despite what most people think Christians believe the Facebook group "Christians for Gay Marriage " has far more people in it than the one against gay marriage. It is unfortunate that most people just listen to the loudest voice, that of Cardinal Pell or Abbott.

I got into trouble once in a Facebook group for saying that I "believe in" science as well as religion. Science the respondent said was not something you believed in, it was fact. And this is true to a large degree. A proven scientific fact is just that - fact. Most Christians, such as myself have no problem with this. We don't actually believe in Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark. There is no conflict between religion and science. For me both exist.

But we must have a separation of Church and State. Our society is multicultural and multi-faith and becoming more and more secular. The prayers said at the beginning of Parliament are meaningless. For example they say a prayer before ripping into each other in Question Time -not the forgiving Christian attitude I was brought up on. But this isn't even the main reason. Our ethics, standards and laws cannot be simply based on one religion, or worse one person's interpretation of that religion. We need to be inclusive - as inclusive as our broad society.

Some have argued that religion is to blame for all the evils in the world. I obviously do not believe this to be the case. Certainly religion has been used as an excuse for a lot of evil and the covering up of a lot of evil. I don't condone any of that. Neither do I wish to go into my disgust over that in detail here. Suffice to say that it is an excuse, not the cause and it certainly doesn't excuse. There is plenty of evil in the world unrelated to religion. I don't think Murdoch is particularly religious.

As recently as July 2009 Tony Abbott said "I think the climate change science is far from settled." Source  Although whether he actually knows it exists is debatable. Now he has rid us of the Ministry's of Science and Climate Change. Is religion at fault here? Possibly he bases his personal views on his own version of religious beliefs. Whatever they are. But whatever they are they should NOT have any bearing on his Parliamentary decision making process. We, all of us have our belief systems, not all are based on religion, but it the duty of our elected officials to represent the majority. The majority of Scientists, indeed the majority of Australians agree that Climate Change is a huge issue - one of the biggest we face. Whatever Abbott's personal beliefs and whatever they are based on, he has a duty to represent us. Plenty of very religious people KNOW Climate Change exists and KNOW we are responsible. If he does not know, it is not religion, it is just him.

As I said before I am a Christian. But I am not Tony Abbott and Abbott does not share my views of even being Christian to a very large extent. Before you get judgmental on all religion, remember we aren't all like Tony Abbott (or Cardinal Pell.)

I know many of you could vehemently disagree with me. Remember I am NOT in any way condoning the acts of religious organizations in covering up systemic  crime. I will leave that to Cardinal Pell.  Crime should be punished, whenever and wherever it exists.

Changing Minds

Appealing to Liberal Voters

I should say that the opinions stated in this post are my own and are not those of any political party.

I read in an article recently a general description of Green voters compared to Liberal voters. A very general description and not supposed to depict every voter.

Green voters, the author said were more likely to be academic, socially conscious and logically minded. This is why they argue points with a lot of facts and data. Liberal voters on the other hand are emotionally minded. This does not mean that they are likely to change their votes, but rather that they respond better to strongly worded arguments, for example "Stop the Boats" or "repeal the x tax".

If this is the case and there is a fundamental difference in thinking, then it is no wonder it is difficult for a Green voter to change the mind of a Liberal voter. A Green voter, such as myself, will try a logical argument which Liberal will dismiss as more lefty nonsense.
I believe it is a mistake to, as some of my 'lefty' friends do, call Liberal voters idiots or worse. We are unlikely to convince people by calling them names. However if logical argument does not work and we do not wish to use the 'three word slogan' ourselves, it is unclear how to convince Liberal voters.

I am open to ideas.

Tony's Women Troubles

Tony Abbott has a lot of women troubles. He caused controversy during the election by saying that the then candidate, now MP Fiona Scott had "sex appeal" and telling the Big Brother housemates he was the one with the "good looking daughters. " But this time it isn't what he has said that's an issue but the women in his new cabinet - or rather the lack of them. 

With Sofie Mirabella unlikely to win her seat and Bronwyn Bishop probably  moving to the position of speaker, Concetta Fierravanti-Wells out of favour (partly due to her backing the failed Liberal candidate Jaymes Diaz) it is looking increasingly likely that the only woman to hold a seat in a new Abbott cabinet will be Julie Bishop.

There are a couple of less likely contenders. They include right-leaning  West Australian Senator Michaelia Cash, Victorian MP Kelly O'Dwyer and NSW senator Marise Payne.

Senator Cash made headlines recently calling out the Labor 'sisterhood ', yelling in the Senate chamber:

"I wonder how loud former prime minister Gillard screamed when her own sisterhood knifed her in the back,"

Ms O'Dwyer was elected into Parliament in a 2009 by-election and has little front bench experience.

Senator Payne is a party moderate and  has served on numerous parliamentary committees. She is particularly strong experience in defence, trade and foreign affairs.

Election Mandate

As Prime Minister, one of Kevin Rudd's first actions was to ratify the Kyoto protocol. The first action of Tony Abbott as Prime Minister seems to be to dismantle the Carbon Tax. I personally find this change disturbing. He has also begun his 'Stop the Boats' policy despite International Law and Mahfudz Siddiq, head of the Indonesian parliament's foreign affairs commission being quite scathing about the 'boat buy back' scheme saying "Obviously he (Abbott) doesn't understand diplomacy or bilateral cooperation... Indonesia is not Australia's colony whose people can be bought for another country's interest."
Abbott's Indonesia Gaffe

Some commentators and those within the Labor party have complained that Abbott has stated he has a mandate for these types of changes. It was certain that he himself similarly complained just after the 2007 election when the Labor government said it had a mandate for change.

So does an incoming government have a mandate? It has been suggested that as the Liberal Party in itself received less than 50% of the vote that Abbott has no mandate. However the Liberal Party is a part of the Liberal National Party - a coalition. The Liberal Party does not field candidates in seats where there is  National candidate and vise versa. This is completely different with Labor and the Greens who will both field a candidate in an electorate. In fact the leader of The Greens, Christine Milne has said that we are not in the business of giving votes to Labor.

Another comment has been that The LNP only got into government on preferences. We have a two party preferred system however and while much of the Australian population doesn't understand exactly how it works, they do take it into consideration when they vote. For example many Green voters would most likely have voted differently if only the first preference counted and this would be the same for other minor parties - Palmer United and Family First.

So as much as I, and many, many others don't like it Australia did vote in the LNP and with a fairly substantial majority.  Does this mean we stop fighting for the things we believe in? Of course not! If we believe Australia will be a better place when asylum seekers are treated fairly and when there is action on climate change, we should fight for it - no matter what the Australian public voted for. And to that end I urge you to sign these petitions. We can still make a difference.

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/the-liberal-party-of-australia-reconsider-your-plan-for-a-fttn-nbn-in-favour-of-a-superior-ftth-nbn

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/tony-abbott-and-the-lnp-save-the-school-kids-bonus

http://www.communityrun.org/petitions/campaign-for-carbon-pricing