Need ? Or Greed ?

One of the hardest words in the dictionary to fully define must be " disability " .  It means different things to different people, and yet it is the basis for handing over public money to those who have been accepted as having an ailment that qualifies them for the " Disability Support Pension " - widely known as the DSP.

Every year more people gain the DSP and the cost has blown out to sixteen billion dollars.  It is now firmly in the sights of the government's razor gang and a review of those under thirty-five receiving this pension has resulted in one of every seven recipients being denied further payments - reducing the cost on the public purse by $ 1.2 billion.  It seems inevitable that a similar review will apply to those over thirty-five and this will probably deliver a similar saving.

There is no doubt that we have a need for disability support for those with medical conditions that make holding down a job and earning a living impossible, but the criteria for marking a person " disabled " rests on a very wide tolerance.   In most cases, it depends on the personal view of the doctor reviewing the applicants medical condition.

That is where we enter dangerous territory.  We seem to be heading towards a clash of opinions between a bureaucrat who applies a rigid formula for assessing ability to work with the appraisal of a doctor who jealously guards his or her trained ability to make that same decision.   The entire medical profession would be in revolt if the final decision on granting a DSP rested in the hands of an untrained bureaucrat with no formal medical knowledge.

The DSP is very much reliant on what could be termed " the human factor " !   Some doctors with a humanitarian outlook on life are more likely to grant a DSP where a doubt exists on the severity of the disability than others who view making such decisions as a responsibility that must be exercised with care because of their professional status.    It is a well known fact that some doctors freely approve conditions for the DSP while others take a much sterner stance !

From a practical point of view, there are very few infirmities that totally preclude a person from all and any form of employment !   With the right training, almost anybody can learn to serve some useful industrial purpose.  It is not uncommon to hear of a blind person successfully managing a job as a telephone switchboard operator, and wheelchair bound lawyers regularly serve in the nation's courts.

The problem is that we have few facilities that specifically train the handicapped to prepare them for the workforce.   There is little incentive to do that when we have a pool of unemployed ready to fill any job gaps and who would be first in line for whatever training was necessary to equip them to gain a pay packet.

Unfortunately, the DSP seems to have morphed into a defacto substitute for the aged pension for those with some limited form of a disability who lack the skill to be attractive to hirers and exist in that gray area - too old for most employers and yet needing a few more years to qualify for the aged pension.  Many a kind hearted doctor simply exaggerates their disability and they become another DSP statistic.

This concentration initially on the under thirty-fives suggests that manipulation of the DSP may be rife amongst school leavers and the long term young unemployed.  The conditions that apply to the dole have been tightened to the extent that applicants must prove by way of diary entries that they are seriously looking for work and that they are presentable and turning up for interviews on time.  Unless the rules are rigorously followed, dole payments cease and perhaps some seek to avoid this form of regimentation by exploiting minor medical conditions that might qualify them, for the DSP.

It may be time to revise the procedure for approval for a DSP.   Perhaps the need for the applicant to appear before a panel that includes the applicants own doctor, a medico appointed by the government - and psychologists trained to evaluate an applicants suitability for whatever training is necessary to prepare them for employment.   That will only work if training facilities are actually in place to prepare the mildly disabled with the skills necessary to become employable.

It also says a lot about the failure of our costly education system to adequately prepare their charges to a level where they can confidently enter the workforce the day that they finish their school years !