I am relying on Jobseeker while I challenge the decision to refuse my Disability Support Pension. It has been two years since I lodged the claim. I rely on welfare organisations for support. I cannot afford necessities. My income affects everything; from the way I eat to the way I dress; what I can do, where I can go, to where I live, and this is the tip of the iceberg. The process has been hell for me.
3.1
The process of applying for the Disability Support Pension (DSP) is complex, time consuming, and costly. For some, it takes years and several failed attempts to access the payment. For others, the barriers are too great, deterring them from continuing with the process or applying in the first place. Those unable to access the DSP often end up on an unemployment payment with mutual obligation requirements.
3.2
This chapter discusses the detrimental impact of applying for the DSP on people’s health, financial security, and employment prospects. It also discusses the impact of being denied the DSP, and the experience of people living with disability, injury, and chronic illness on the JobSeeker and Youth Allowance payments. Finally, it discusses how the barriers to accessing the DSP disproportionately impact some groups.
Experience of claiming the Disability Support Pension
Dealing with complexity
3.3
The process of applying for the DSP is complex and not well understood by people making a claim, those supporting them, or their treating health professionals. The Australian Federation of Disability Organisations (AFDO) told the committee:
[T]he qualification criteria for DSP is contained in three legislative instruments totalling 88 pages long. The layers of rules are complex and nuanced, and unless they are well understood a person cannot ensure that they have all the evidence required to demonstrate their eligibility.
3.4
The Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) also highlighted issues with the process. In its evidence to the committee, it said:
So many are put into impossible situations as part of the claims process. They must see multiple specialists to get proof of their disability, but they cannot afford to do so whilst trying to get the $44-a-day JobSeeker payment. Others are told that they must do a program of support which because of their disability they are unable to do. We also hear from people who are told by someone at Services Australia who they've never met that their condition is not fully treated or stabilised, even though their health professional has done all they could to treat and stabilise the condition.
3.5
Many applicants rely heavily on formal and informal advocates, including family members, to navigate the claims process. According to the Salvation Army Australia:
The difficulty and complexity associated with the DSP application process means that it is almost impossible for people with disability to access the payment without additional support.
3.6
The committee also heard that people can be deterred from commencing or continuing an application because of the view that the DSP is ‘impossible to get’.
3.7
The committee heard clear evidence about how an individual’s circumstances, including their disability and literacy levels, impact on their ability to navigate the DSP’s complex application process. According to Children and Young People with Disability Australia (CYDA), the complexity and the heavy administrative burden of the DSP process creates inequity in access:
Those equipped with more personal resources, such as money, literacy, English skills and access to medical professionals and people to support them, are more likely to succeed.
3.8
Economic Justice Australia (EJA) called for a ‘major overhaul’ of the DSP’s legislation, arguing that the:
… complexity of the DSP eligibility criteria has created an iniquitous culling effect, whereby people with severe disability can be excluded from accessing DSP purely because they cannot meet the rigours of the processes involved in claiming and appealing.
3.9
One witness, Mr Peter Sutton, contended that the application process is ‘very stressful and you feel like you are alone’. He stated that there is nobody to guide you through it, and that the process is very bureaucratic and difficult.
3.10
Similarly, the Disability Discrimination Commissioner at the Australian Human Rights Commission, Dr Ben Gauntlett, stated the following:
The disability support pension application procedures are onerous for people with disability, and the ability to have a decision reviewed and appealed is challenging, especially for individuals experiencing structural disadvantage.
3.11
Ms Kath Sutherland recounted her experience in claiming the DSP to the committee. Her evidence is provided in Box 3.1, below, and vividly highlights the significant challenges she faced during the process.
Box 3.1: The lived experience of Ms Kath Sutherland
On 2 July 2016, life changed forever. I had a fall in my bathroom and broke my neck. The neurosurgeon advised me that they don't usually see my injury in someone who is still breathing or not already a quadriplegic. I had fusion surgery, which was, luckily, successful. I am left with an unprotected airway, so choking is a risk. My jaw was locked closed, so everything [I ate] was through a straw. Forget about brushing your teeth. I have no movement in my neck, so any turn that I do is done at core level. Just imagine crossing a road; it takes awhile. I live with chronic pain.
I had four surgeries between July 2016 and May 2017. I was in a collar and a brace for almost eight months. I attended hospital three times per week to shower and have nurses change the brace. I had weekly appointments with neurosurgeons, a speech pathologist and a dietitian. During this time I was also applying for the disability support payment—a gruelling process where my health was so precarious—and I was coming to terms with my life never being the same again. I was extremely vulnerable.
I was placed on Newstart and received $662 per fortnight. My rent was $800 per fortnight. I was always behind. I survived for two years on this level of income. My landlord would allow me to get into arrears, and I withdrew superannuation under the financial hardship provision. I was lucky I hadn't consolidated all my super accounts, as you can only withdraw once every 12 months. That is how I survived during the lengthy process of applying for the DSP. I have very little super left.
I was assigned to a job network provider. I was supplying a three-monthly medical certificate for the mutual obligation exemption. It would sometimes be rejected, as the doctor would tick the permanent box, which was obviously correct but did not meet Services Australia's guidelines. The job network provider would regularly make appointments that I could not attend. I was yelled at and was threatened that my payment would be cancelled. I was complying. I was extremely depressed and under pressure in every area of my life. Traumatic injury or illness permeates every part of your life. I called the DSP line twice each week for updates on the progress of my application. I was receiving different information each time. During one call I was told that they couldn't understand what I was saying. My jaw was locked almost closed, so, yes, I was learning to talk again. I was hung up on by a supervisor, who claimed it was an accident.
The online system only allows for a certain amount of information to be uploaded. I went to a Centrelink office with my evidence. I asked for it to be photocopied as it was all originals. The officer said that they would not copy that amount of documentation and I would need to get it copied myself. I explained that I could not afford to do this, so the officer reluctantly agreed.
In May 2017 I had another surgery, but my application had still not been assessed. When it finally was assessed, I explained that treatment had been finalised. The assessor chose to do a file assessment, and my application was rejected as it was deemed that treatment had not been finalised. By this stage I was wishing I had died in the initial accident.
I found a psychologist who bulk billed, so I could work on the level of depression I was in and learn some techniques for managing chronic pain without pharmaceuticals. Eventually, I gained the strength to appeal. I then continued my twice weekly phone calls. Not once did I ever receive a call, nor was I offered the support of a social worker. By this stage I had learnt to call straight through to the complaints line. As they can deal with all areas of the system, they could answer questions as to what stage my application was up to and whether my appeal had been assessed. Eventually, I attended an appointment with an assessor. She advised me that a lot of people make up stories to get on the DSP. I was shocked. Really? I chose to break my neck and live with a permanent disability?
In May of 2018, I checked my bank account to see what bills I couldn't pay, and there was money in my account—back pay. My application had been reviewed and approved. I would have thought that that's the kind of good news phone call that someone from Services Australia would like to make.
Forms and guidance material
3.12
The committee heard that the DSP claims form uses complex concepts and terminology which are not adequately explained by Services Australia’s guidance material. In addition, inquiry participants said Services Australia’s website does not communicate information in an accessible way.
3.13
According to Ms Taraeta Nicholls, it was easier to find information about the claims process through advocacy organisations and social media:
The Services Australia website is very difficult to navigate. On the medical side, it was easier to navigate a guide written by people who had published it on social media. The references and information that they provided were able to help me understand the terminology, such as what a 'program of support' was, what 'fully treated and stabilised' was and what and where the guides were.
3.14
Mr Dermott Williams from EJA was also critical of the Services Australia website, noting the different approach his organisation was taking to provide accessible information via its DSP Help website. He said the following in his evidence to the committee:
The website that Services Australia has, in my opinion, is flawed. It does not communicate information in an accessible way. That's one of the cruxes of the problem we're trying to solve here—human centred design, putting the people that we're assisting first.
Seeking assistance from Services Australia
3.15
The challenges experienced with the DSP forms and guidance material are further compounded by the inability to seek assistance from a Services Australia staff member. For example, AFDO stated that staff have a lack of understanding about disability and the DSP and that, in some cases, people seeking help are ‘brushed off’ and told to locate the information online.
3.16
The committee heard that the shift away from face-to-face services, to online and phone communication, also isolates many participants. This includes older Australians; people living in rural and regional Australia; and people on low incomes who may face technological barriers.
3.17
An advocate at Spinal Cord Injuries Australia, Ms Diana Pedersoli, submitted that her clients are often distressed by staff providing unclear and/or conflicting information. Given this, she advocated for additional training for these staff members to improve their capability to assist people with disability—especially those with mental health conditions.
3.18
The Salvation Army Australia noted that people who transition to the Age Pension, by comparison, receive better assistance through Services Australia’s Financial Information Service, which provides support for people preparing for retirement.
3.19
Inquiry participants stressed the need for improved access to in-person and over the phone assistance from Services Australia. It was also noted that the wait times to speak to Services Australia are high, and that its telephone system needs to be better resourced.
3.20
In 2020-21, Services Australia reported that the ‘average speed of answer’ for calls relating to disability, sickness and carers payments averaged 6 minutes, 47 seconds. This compared to an average speed of answer of 22 minutes, 54 seconds in 2019-20 and 26 minutes, 0 seconds in 2018-19. However, the report also notes that customer satisfaction for telephone services ‘has been on a downward trend since November 2020, with the main driver being time to receive service.’
Support for deaf and hearing-impaired people
3.21
Inquiry participants raised concerns about the shortage of accredited interpreters, with only 257 for a population of 30 000 deaf Auslan users across Australia. The committee heard this has direct negative consequence for deaf people regarding sustaining their DSP.
3.22
Evidence from deaf First Nations witnesses highlighted their challenging experiences in dealing with Services Australia, and also indicated a lack of available interpreting services. For example, Mr Lesley Footscray told the committee:
There has been no Auslan interpreter provided to me since I've been going there, through 2021. It's important that I have an Auslan interpreter and a deaf interpreter at Centrelink to support me to properly understand what's being asked of me.
3.23
A representative of AFDO, Mr Patrick McGee, noted the pragmatic approach taken by a number of First Nations claimants to mitigate this issue, but submitted that it sets a dangerous precedent:
The First Nations Australians who are deaf are telling us that they have begun to use their NDIS plan funds to provide for Auslan interpreters so that they can take their Auslan interpreters to their interactions with Centrelink about the DSP. There's a very pragmatic outcome there for people who are deaf, but it sets a dangerous precedent when accessibility is the responsibility of government.
3.24
Although conceding that, in some instances, the availability of interpreter and translator services across Australia can be less than that demanded, a representative of Services Australia, Mr Brendan Moon, submitted that the agency is ‘continually working to make sure that our services are meeting the expectation of both government and citizens’. Notwithstanding this, Mr Moon argued that some things are ‘simply outside of our control’, and that ‘if there are no translators available to contract, we can’t contract them’.
3.25
The committee also heard that requests from a deaf DSP recipient for an interpreter were denied. Mrs Alma Smith told the committee that her request for an Auslan interpreter using video platforms was denied on the basis that 'the interpreters were too busy and that [she] could lip-read, and that would be good enough'.
3.26
Mrs Smith provided the inquiry with three practical suggestions to improve the experience for people who are deaf or hearing impaired:
The first is that, upon entry, there be a machine issuing numbered tickets; I could a ticket, sit down and wait for the number to be displayed on a light-up board. The second is that perhaps I could arrive with a card saying that I'm a deaf person and that I need an interpreter. I could then be presented with something similar to a restaurant pager, so that, when my name is called to say it's my turn, this device would light up and vibrate and I could let staff know that I'm there. My third suggestion would be that a tablet is issued, with which staff have pre-organised interpreters via video remote, and that, when they were ready and the staff were ready, they could wave to me and let me know. I'm a deaf person; I rely on visual cues.
Support from advocates
3.27
People navigating the DSP claims process benefit greatly from support from advocates and community legal services specialising in social security. Research from the University of New South Wales shows that reading and writing assistance during the application process ‘substantially increases’ the probability of being granted the payment.
3.28
Anglicare Australia told the committee that DSP claimants and recipients alike benefit from assistance with navigating the Services Australia website; making phone calls; interpreting communications; and providing evidence, information, emotional support, and reassurance.
3.29
The committee heard that advocacy groups and community legal services have been overwhelmed by requests for assistance with the DSP, and that further funding and additional services are needed to meet the demand.
Wait times
3.30
The committee heard that the wait times for DSP claims to be assessed are unacceptably long. Further, inquiry participants noted that any delay in processing a DSP claim is in addition to an already long application process, which can include a lengthy period of time completing a program of support (POS). For many people, the process of applying for the DSP takes years.
3.31
Even applicants with a terminal illness, who have submitted fast-tracked applications, are waiting four weeks or more for the outcome of their DSP claim. Financial counsellors have reported clients dying before their application were approved under the terminal illness provisions.
Understanding why a claim was rejected
3.32
It was submitted that insufficient information is provided about why claims are rejected. For example, AFDO argued that decision letters do not provide individualised information about why a person’s application was rejected, and do not outline that a person can request an explanation of the decision.
3.33
Even at the point of review, inquiry participants noted that the level of explanation about the outcome of the review decision is variable, with some decisions merely citing a ‘lack of evidence’.
3.34
The committee heard that some reviews stop as soon as one eligibility criteria is not met—for example, if a person does not have 20 points in the impairment tables. This leaves the applicant with no understanding of what evidence is required to support an increased impairment rating or to satisfy criteria regarding work capacity.
3.35
The committee also heard of instances where a person only learnt about a key aspect of the eligibility criteria late in the claims process, or at the point of making an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). According to AFDO:
A person may proceed all the way through to the AAT before they are directly given any substantial information as to what gaps are in their application.
3.36
For many people, legal advice has been the only source of meaningful information concerning the DSP eligibility criteria and assessment processes.
3.37
The Acting Deputy Ombudsman at the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, Ms Louise Macleod, said the following:
[S]ome complainants raise concerns about insufficient information being provided in the initial DSP rejection letter they receive. In particular, sometimes it's that there is only one reason for which their claim has been rejected. When they go through the review process and have an ARO [Authorised Review Officer] review, they're then getting a lot more reasons for why their claim has been rejected, which means it makes it difficult for a complainant or applicant, when they're going through a merits review process, to engage with the issues and understand what they need to address to successfully get their claim processed or appealed.
Appeals process
3.38
According to inquiry participants, the process to appeal a decision is complicated, stressful, and inaccessible, and often resulting in negative health impacts. ACOSS said:
People are being put through the wringer just to get essential income support so they can eat and keep a roof over their heads. So many people applying for DSP are forced to go through the appeals process to have their claims granted, not only wasting precious resources for the individual, legal services supporting them, and Services Australia, but also causing huge turmoil for the person applying.
3.39
The committee also heard concerns about the adversarial approach of the review process and the lack of available legal representation. For example, Dr Natalie Wade told the committee:
There is insufficient legal support for people with disability to press their case before the AAT, noting that the secretary has legal representation before the AAT at all stages. The approach taken is contrary to the objects of the AAT Act and Australia's obligations under international law.
3.40
Given that there are two and a half times more DSP appeals than National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) appeals lodged in the AAT, it was suggested that there should be specific advocacy or legal assistance funding for people who wish to appeal a DSP decision (as there is with the NDIS).
Experience of people with disability living on JobSeeker
3.41
The committee heard that the tightened DSP eligibility requirements have resulted in a new class of social security recipients living with disability and chronic health conditions on JobSeeker.
3.42
Inquiry participants told the committee that the lower rates of payment and mutual obligations for those on JobSeeker has detrimental impacts on health, economic, social, and employment outcomes for people with disability.
3.43
This group of people has difficulty meeting ongoing mutual obligation requirements and, due to the lower rate of the JobSeeker Payment, are unable to afford basic necessities, medications, and treatments. This also impacts on their ability to collect evidence and navigate the complex DSP claims process.
Partial capacity to work
3.44
A significant number of people on the JobSeeker Payment have a partial capacity to work. For example, in March 2021 there were an estimated 376 287 JobSeeker recipients assessed as having a ‘partial capacity to work’, which is 36.4 per cent of the total number of people on JobSeeker. This definition captures people with a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment who have a partial capacity to work because their impairment prevents them from working at least 30 hours per week, independent of a POS, within the next two years.
3.45
The majority (72 per cent) have the capacity to work between 15 and 22 hours per week; however, just because an individual is deemed to have a partial capacity to work does not mean that are able to find suitable work. Evidence indicated that only 16 per cent of people assessed with a partial capacity to work actually have earnings from employment.
3.46
Ms Linda Forbes of EJA told the committee that there is no real distinction between people on the DSP and people with a partial capacity to work on the JobSeeker Payment:
… there is an understanding on the part of some people that people with disability who have partial capacity for work are best placed on JobSeeker or other activity-tested payments, where people with actual disability go onto DSP. But that's a false dichotomy, because most people on DSP in fact do have partial capacity for work … For people that don't have advocacy and for people in vulnerable groups, it's luck of the draw where they land.
Mutual obligation requirements
3.47
Depending on their assessed capacity to work, a person may have mutual obligations around job search and training. Only 17 per cent of those with partial capacity to work have exemptions from these mutual obligations.
3.48
Mature-aged people with a partial capacity to work are frequently granted repeated short-term exemptions, in tacit recognition that they are unable to find suitable employment.
3.49
Victoria Legal Aid submitted that people on JobSeeker, who are waiting for their DSP application to progress, are required to comply with job-search obligations, even if it is contrary to medical advice.
3.50
Research by the Whitlam Institute found that people trying to apply for the DSP face significant barriers completing mutual obligation requirements for the JobSeeker Payment. The research found that this group felt that their mutual obligations were unrealistic, and that their impairments were exacerbated, or second impairments were acquired, due to being on the payment.
3.51
The Chief Executive of Anglicare Australia, Ms Kasy Chambers, told the committee the following:
We believe that if people cannot work because of a disability they should not be forced to look for work or participate in compulsory mutual obligation activities that do not help them and, in fact, worse, can lead to psychological harm. These people should receive an income support payment that suits their circumstances.
3.52
In their submission, the WA Association for Mental Health also noted that welfare conditionality is causing mental ill-health:
There is clear evidence from [Australia] and overseas that conditionality attached to income support payments, including the DSP, are experienced as punitive, undermine social citizenship, contribute to mental ill-health, are ineffective in moving people into work, and damage many people’s mental health.
Difficulties moving from JobSeeker to the Disability Support Pension
3.53
The committee heard that people on JobSeeker with a partial capacity to work have trouble applying for the DSP. As discussed in Chapter 2, the costs associated in gathering medical evidence in support of a DSP claim commonly means that people on the lower JobSeeker Payment are effectively ‘costed out’ of the DSP.
3.54
In addition, time and energy spent on mutual obligation requirements affects a person’s ability to engage in the DSP claims process. A carer for a person with end-stage pancreatic cancer explained:
He was getting Newstart (now JobSeeker), but you know every two weeks, he had to turn up at Centrelink. It was just ridiculous. He couldn’t get the DSP even though he couldn’t get out of bed. In the end, he just didn’t bother because he was too sick.
3.55
In its submission to the inquiry, the Darwin Community Legal Service articulated the issue as follows:
Due to the current DSP claim application process, a person who may have a chronic illness, or a complex health or disability situation and does not meet the ‘fully treated’ test gets stuck between JobSeeker and DSP. Such a person who is unable to work due to long term health issues are not able to move forward onto a social security payment which treats them with dignity. Instead of qualifying for a payment which will assist, they are often subject to expectations and conditions which are unresponsive to their circumstance. Effectively, this person gets stuck on JobSeeker with medical exemptions for their mutual obligations, instead of receiving DSP.
Harm caused by existing policies and administrative arrangements
Harm caused by the Disability Support Pension’s claims process
3.56
The committee heard that the DSP claims process and restricted eligibility criteria are causing significant harm to people with disability and chronic illness trying to get onto the payment. For example, the Systemic Advocacy and Projects Manager at People with Disabilities Western Australia, Ms Brianna Lee, told the committee that the failure of the Government to provide accessible support represents a 'wilful deprivation' and constitutes 'institutional abuse and neglect' for the following reasons:
… the scope and scale of harm which is experienced by a large cohort of people with disabilities over a sustained period of time; the lack of procedural fairness and the arbitrariness of decision-making, which leaves individuals feeling powerless and erodes the right to natural justice; and the negative psychological, emotional and physical effects of the process, which are then coupled with the negative social, cultural and economic consequences of being deemed ineligible.
3.57
Research by Monash University shows that reforms to the DSP over the past decade (including eligibility reviews, proof of participation in job seeking and introduction of impairment tables) are linked to a range of adverse health and employment outcomes for claimants.
3.58
The Acting Commonwealth Ombudsman, Ms Penny McKay, noted that about 15 per cent of all complaints her office receives each year regarding Services Australia are about the DSP:
In 2020-21 we received about 854 complaints about the DSP. Usually they're about the claims process, the review process, the payment rate, long wait times and complexity of process, and the number of tests that people are required to undergo to maintain eligibility for the DSP. More recently, we've been seeing complaints about the difficulty in providing evidence to make claims, poor or non-personalised information in letters of communications with claimants and long wait times for processing claims and reviews.
3.59
In her evidence to the inquiry, Ms Megan Bingham of Spinal Cord Injuries Australia noted the myriad negative impacts caused by the application process:
[T]here are several administrative hurdles embedded within the present process, as well as in the culture of Centrelink staff, that can result in lengthy delays, traumatising application experiences and eligible recipients resorting to withdrawing their applications altogether or compromising by applying for JobSeeker and receiving a lower rate of payment. These effects not only impact the financial security of people with disability but also affect several other interrelated domains of their lives, including family relationships, housing stability, confidence in taking next steps towards finding employment that matches their career aspirations and compromising on their continuity of care from their treating medical professionals.
3.60
The Senior Manager of Policy at People with Disability Australia, Mx Giancarlo de Vera, stated that the application process is humiliating and traumatic:
Accessing the DSP can be summed up as trial by humiliation, whether by meeting disability performance indicators to satisfy the dehumanising dependent tables or by proving how unemployable we are through the program of support. The application process is traumatic for those who are able to complete it.
Adverse health outcomes
3.61
Advocates and community legal services provided the committee with many examples of the adverse impact of the DSP claims process on their clients’ health and wellbeing. For example, Darwin Community Legal Service told the committee:
Our clients often experience adverse health consequences from the assessment process, including the nature and length of the process, the criteria and how they are treated. People can experience increased anxiety, depression, desperation, loss of self-confidence and other effects which also exacerbate other health conditions.
3.62
The administrative burden of the DSP, including gathering complex medical information, puts some people at particular risk of adverse health outcomes due to the nature of their disability. According to the AFDO:
For people whose disability impacts upon their capacity to plan and organise, the system seems to purposely set them up to fail. This includes people with intellectual disabilities, psychosocial disabilities, those who are neurodiverse, and those living with chronic pain or fatigue.
3.63
A Monash University study of 500 DSP applicants and recipients found that the experience was onerous and had a high, or very high, psychological cost for the vast majority.
Adverse economic and employment outcomes
3.64
The committee heard that the process of applying for the DSP also has detrimental economic impacts on claimants. For example, as discussed in Chapter 2, people can experience financial stress pursuing the necessary medical evidence to support their DSP claim. Even if a DSP claim is successful, delays in payments can also lead to a loss of income and housing, further debt stresses, and worsening health.
3.65
Having a DSP claim rejected has a significant impact on a person’s financial situation and ability to engage in employment. According to one claimant, the rejection of their DSP claim triggered a deterioration in their health and impacted their ability to work:
After being rejected four years ago my health has deteriorated extensively and have found it hard to work and get by. With no extra money for anything that may crop up I am barely scraping by, too unwell often to do the basic things and after bills, barely affording to eat or maintain where I reside.
Harm caused by the ongoing requirements of the Disability Support Pension
3.66
People living on the DSP also reported negative impacts on their health because of the required ongoing interactions with Services Australia and the fear that their payment will be taken away.
3.67
Research by Anglicare Tasmania found that the processes and demands for information by Services Australia negatively impacts people with disability and, when combined with the need to survive on low incomes, has a profound effect on their health and wellbeing. Anglicare Australia’s submission noted that:
Difficulties with Centrelink occurred on top of other adverse circumstances in their lives and were for many the ‘tipping point’ into anxiety and depression.
3.68
As discussed further in Chapter 5, the inadequacy of the rate of the DSP also places pressure on a person’s health, social, and economic wellbeing.
Harm caused by the deficiencies of the JobSeeker Payment
3.69
It was submitted that people living on JobSeeker, who are unable to access the DSP, experience particularly severe social, economic, and health impacts. Further, the committee heard that the distress associated with the DSP claims process, combined with the economic insecurity and welfare conditionality experienced on the JobSeeker Payment, can cause secondary impairments.
3.70
For those with existing mental health conditions, the mutual obligations and risk of sanctions can leave them demoralized, with poorer mental health and a greater risk of suicidal behaviour.
3.71
The committee also heard that people on JobSeeker experience food insecurity and are using high‑risk loans to pay for basic necessities. Professor Karen Soldatic of Western Sydney University told the committee:
… participants of our research were often only eating a single meal per day, which often only consisted of bread and spreads. On many occasions they found themselves pawning personal items to pay for basic necessities including electricity. Many of the financial counsellors we interviewed as part of our research also witnessed more of their clients accessing high-risk financial products, including payday lenders...
3.72
According to the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, any payment suspension related to a failure to meet mutual obligation requirement can lead to rent arrears, eviction, and/or severe hardship. For people experiencing secondary or tertiary homelessness, it can also result in rough sleeping.
Disproportionate impacts on vulnerable communities and people
3.73
The challenges experienced with the DSP claims process and eligibility criteria have a disproportionate impact on several vulnerable groups. This is explored further below.
Regional, rural, and remote communities
3.74
As discussed in Chapter 2, the DSP application process requires substantial medical evidence to support a claim. This can prove challenging for most claimants, but particularly for those in regional, rural, and remote areas of Australia where access to healthcare is poor.
3.75
Associate Professor Karen Soldatic, Michelle Fitts, Liam Magee, and Gerard Thomas explained how the lack of access especially affects people with psycho-social and cognitive impairments:
This is especially so for people with psycho-social impairments and many people living with cognitive impairments, and particularly within rural and remote households where supports are limited, involve costly transport and/or time off work for family members and support networks to take applicants to relevant appointments for the accrual of required evidence and assessments.
3.76
South East Community Links told the committee that accessing specialists in remote, rural, and regional areas is also a challenge for people with mental illness:
For many people living with mental illness, access to a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist is limited by financial hardship, availability and wait times, or both – particularly for people living in remote, rural or regional areas.
3.77
ACOSS noted that people in rural, remote, and regional areas face additional travel costs to access treatment and gather evidence for the DSP:
… the cost of travel and accommodation to visit health professionals is often prohibitive as people claiming DSP have limited financial capacity to cover these costs, as well as the cost of specialists.
3.78
In her evidence to the committee, the Chief Executive Officer of ACOSS, Dr Cassandra Goldie, spoke about remote access and the reduction in service delivery:
On the issue of remote access, I think it would be very important to establish from Services Australia and Centrelink the question about the cuts to those kinds of on-the-road, face-to-face support services from Services Australia. Historically, there used to be a much higher level of service. It's through direct contact and ongoing, repeat support that people do get access to the kinds of Centrelink supports that they need, and I think it's very important to interrogate that, because my understanding is that that's been severely cut back and it's almost token in the way in which it is covered.
3.79
EJA told the committee that, due to the complexity of the claims process, people in remote communities are completely reliant on Services Australia’s remote servicing teams and from the outreach efforts of various organisations, such as Darwin Community Legal Service. Without these services EJA said these individuals ‘can’t get started’.
First Nations people
3.80
Approximately 53 000 First Nations people with disability receive the DSP. In addition, 14 per cent of the First Nations population aged 18 to 64 is either on the DSP or Carer Payment, compared with 5.6 per cent of other Australians.
3.81
Inquiry participants submitted that a significant number of First Nations people with disability and chronic illness are unable to access the DSP when they should be eligible.
3.82
According to the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO), systemic barriers in the DSP disproportionately impact First Nations people due to existing systemic barriers to health, social, and government services.
3.83
The Central Australian Aboriginal Congress (the Aboriginal Congress) noted that disability for First Nations people does not occur in isolation for an individual or community, and is interrelated to intergenerational trauma, chronic and communicable disease, and complex and vulnerable family life.
3.84
According to the Aboriginal Congress, because the concept of disability is foreign to many Aboriginal people, its identification and prevalence is often misunderstood, under-represented and hidden. In addition, the Darwin Community Legal Service noted that the term ‘disability’ has negative connotations for indigenous populations which may dissuade people from applying for the DSP.
3.85
Several inquiry participants raised specific concerns around the requirement to provide medical evidence in support of a DSP claim for First Nations people. This requirement can force First Nations people to engage with mainstream services where there is limited availability of culturally safe services.
3.86
It was also suggested to the committee that there needs to be greater investment in Government-funded positions with First Nations advocacy services and Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations to support clients and services through the DSP application process.
3.87
These issues are further discussed in Chapter 2, along with the committee's view and recommendations.
People in custody
3.88
Concerns were raised around the impacts of the suspension and cancellation of DSP payments for people in custody. DSP payments are suspended when a person enters custody and, if the person is in custody for more than two years, their payment is cancelled and they will need to reapply on release.
3.89
Darwin Community Legal Service commented on the risks of this approach to a person’s health and chance of recidivism after their release, and noted that the permanency of a person’s impairment is not affected by their time in custody.
3.90
According to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service, the policy reason for cancelling the DSP is unclear, noting that few people leave prison in an improved state of health. It contended that these people are set up to fail on their release because they need to reapply for the DSP and commonly have insufficient funds to re-establish themselves:
By the very nature of their disability with the compounding effects of dislocation from previous supports prejail and difficulties with postjail conditions (such as poorer accommodation options and transport difficulties) they are not the best equipped to navigate their way through this process again and often find it overwhelming.
Carers
3.91
It was noted during the inquiry that many carers receive the DSP as their primary source of income, and that these individuals commonly experience greater hardship. For example, the 2020 National Carer Survey found that carers receiving the DSP are more likely to experience financial strain than other carers, as they incur additional costs related to their own care and support.
3.92
The committee also heard that many First Nations carers living with their own disabilities often did not pursue a DSP claim, as the significant time spent undertaking the claim process would take time away from their ability to provide care to family members, children, and extended kin.
3.93
Carers NSW told the committee its members have reported experiencing significant financial and psychological stress when supporting persons they care for to obtain the assessments and reports needed to apply for the DSP.
3.94
On this point, Professor Soldatic of Western Sydney University told the committee:
Often families and carers had to draw upon broader household resources to fund DSP assessments, such as the Medicare gap for medical or specialist services and travel to and from appointments. That's because people being placed on JobSeeker don't have access to the same level of entitlements that occur for someone on the DSP. Carer and support networks were often required also to take time off work to provide the support required to attend assessment and Centrelink appointments, which clearly results in greater household economic insecurity beyond the person with a disability inappropriately placed on JobSeeker—on the broader household and their network.
Victims of trauma, family, and domestic violence
3.95
Research confirms that women with disability have a higher risk of experiencing family violence. Good Shepherd Australia New Zealand stated that over the last 18 months, when various state-based COVID-19 restrictions were in place, there was a doubling in the proportion of women on the DSP presenting to the organisation who were experiencing family violence. It submitted that the needs of women living with disability need to be considered when reviewing the purpose, intent, and adequacy of the DSP.
3.96
In her evidence to the inquiry, Dr Roslyn Russell said the following:
Financial hardship is a major reason women are unable to leave a violent relationship and is why so many return. Recovery for women who have experienced family violence is not linear, and with a disability it is even more complex. Trauma impacts one's abilities to navigate and process information. The daunting and often inappropriate requirements to access DSP present a huge barrier to women with disability who've experienced violence.
3.97
Reflecting on her own personal story, Ms Fiona Cox highlighted the challenges she experienced during the claims process as a survivor of domestic violence. Her story is provided in Box 3.2 below.
Box 3.2: The lived experience of Ms Fiona Cox
[I]n regard to the DSP process, I found it very, very difficult. Actually, I think the word that comes up for me is that I still felt shamed. I felt shamed in the process. I did not feel validated. I felt that my history of domestic violence was not acknowledged and had no relevance in the administrative assessment process.
I pray for an early death because I know that I cannot sustain my medical costs, even with the help of the NDIS. With the other costs that are not covered, I will not be able to sustain my medical needs on the current payment. This is not my fault, yet I am made to feel through shame through systems, through continual abuse by the perpetrator, through systemic abuse in particular. No matter how hard I fight, I can never ever escape it. I am reminded every single day of what I had escaped. They say, 'Why didn't she leave?' I'm one of these women that left, and look where I ended up? That is really the sad truth here, and I think there needs to be a nexus drawn; there need to be special considerations for women in particular …
3.98
The Chief Executive Officer of the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children, Ms Terese Edwards, stated that domestic violence is hidden within Australia’s social security system. In her evidence to the committee, she said the following:
When they [Services Australia] look at job capacity, there is no looking at the trauma about the task of staying safe. There is no taking into consideration court appearances. In families where children have been affected by domestic violence, for them to participate or to even go to school, sometimes they need mum really close by, and she will talk to the school about doing some volunteer work. Again, none of that is taken into consideration. So it's not just the interface between domestic violence and the DSP; it's actually the complete absence of understanding domestic violence—how it pops up at different times and the workload that it takes to keep your family safe. It's completely invisible to the system. There is no surprise that women affected by DV will be denied the DSP, because it remains invisible within our scheme.
3.99
It was noted that Services Australia currently provides a one-off Crisis Payment to certain individuals experiencing extreme circumstances, such as family and domestic violence. To be eligible, the applicant must also be in severe financial hardship and get, or be eligible for, an income support payment or ABSTUDY Living Allowance. The Crisis Payment is equal to a week’s pay at the maximum basic rate of the applicant’s income support payment.
Committee view and recommendations
Claiming the Disability Support Pension
3.100
As discussed in Chapter 2, evidence strongly indicates that the DSP claims process is overly complex, difficult to navigate, and results in inequitable outcomes. The committee is concerned that vulnerable people living with disability are being put in impossible situations whereby they have to attend numerous specialist appointments to gather the required evidence, while also undertaking a POS and trying to make ends meet on the lower JobSeeker Payment.
3.101
The committee is concerned with evidence suggesting that a person’s literacy levels, and access to personal financial resources, directly impacts upon their ability to successfully claim the DSP. This should not be the case.
3.102
The committee has made a number of recommendations in Chapter 2 aimed at to reducing the negative impacts of the claims process by:
reforming the eligibility criteria;
reducing restrictions on professionals who can provide evidence;
improving cultural safety for First Nations people;
considering reintroducing the treating doctor’s report; and
reviewing the evidence requirements.
Forms and guidance material accessibility
3.103
Evidence indicated that the claims form is complex and inaccessible. The form uses overly complex concepts and terminology which are inadequately explained by Services Australia’s guidance material. The committee is concerned that this results in people having to source information elsewhere, such as through unofficial guides published on social media platforms.
3.104
As discussed in Chapter 2, inquiry participants also noted that health professionals have varying degrees of understanding of the DSP claims process and there is commonly a mismatch between the language utilised by these individuals and that required by Services Australia.
3.105
Given these issues, the committee suggests that Services Australia engages key stakeholders with the aim of making all guidance material, publicly available information, and the claim form simpler and clearer.
3.106
The committee recommends that Services Australia, in consultation with key stakeholders, reviews all guidance material, publicly available information, and the claim form, with the aim of making them simpler, clearer, and genuinely accessible for claimants and those who support them.
Claim rejection transparency
3.107
During the inquiry it was suggested that insufficient information is currently being provided to claimants who have their claims rejected by Services Australia. The committee is concerned about this lack of individualised information, feedback, and guidance contained within the existing rejection letter, and that claimants are only learning about key aspects of the eligibility criteria upon seeking an internal or external review. The committee is of the view that applicants should be provided with all the reasons why their DSP application was rejected.
3.108
The committee recommends that Services Australia improves the level of information provided to Disability Support Pension claimants when it rejects their claims.
The committee envisages that such information would, amongst other things, clearly and comprehensively explain why a claim was rejected and, if relevant, provide guidance on specific evidentiary requirements, as well as detailed information on the review process.
Auslan services for deaf and hearing-impaired people
3.109
The committee recognises that there is currently a shortage of accredited Auslan interpreters within Australia, and that this is hindering claimants’ abilities to communicate and understand what is being asked of them to successfully claim the DSP.
3.110
Of particular concern to the committee are reports that deaf and hearing‑impaired people have unreasonably been denied access to interpreters on the grounds that interpreters were ‘too busy’ or that the claimant could lip read. The committee is supportive of the common‑sense suggestions raised during the inquiry, such as a ticketing system linked with a visual display board at service centres; vibrating and illuminating pagers for deaf and hearing-impaired people to alert them to when they are being called; and the provision of digital tablets for remote access to Auslan interpreters during appointments.
3.111
The committee recommends that Services Australia ensures all of its clients who are deaf or hearing-impaired have the option of accessing an Auslan interpreter, either in-person or remotely, to make sure the application process is accessible.
3.112
The committee recommends that Services Australia enhances the visual and/or tactile cues available in its service centres to assist people who are deaf or hearing-impaired.
3.113
The committee recommends that the Australian Government undertakes a review of all Services Australia service centres to ensure genuine accessibility.
Support for advocates and community legal services
3.114
The committee strongly supports a well-funded advocacy and community legal services sector, as claimants rely on these services to navigate online websites; make telephone calls; interpret communications; provide evidence; and offer emotional support and reassurance through the commonly prolonged claims process.
3.115
It is clear that these service providers are being overwhelmed by requests for assistance and that additional funding is required to meet this elevated demand.
3.116
The committee recommends that the Australian Government provides additional funding to advocacy groups and community legal services to support Disability Support Pension claimants.
Harm caused by JobSeeker requirements for Disability Support Pension claimants
3.117
The committee notes that a significant number of people receiving JobSeeker have a partial capacity to work due to their physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment. The committee is concerned with evidence indicating that individuals are required to comply, sometimes contrary to medical advice, with various mutual obligations, such as job search requirements, while their DSP claim is being progressed.
3.118
The committee notes evidence suggesting that mutual obligations are commonly unrealistic, and can exacerbate or lead to further impairments. The committee considers that if a person cannot work because of their disability, they should not be forced to do so via compulsory mutual obligations, and that they should be provided with financial support suitable for their particular circumstances.
3.119
The committee recommends that the Australian Government remove JobSeeker mutual obligation requirements for Disability Support Pension claimants while their claims are being assessed.
Support for First Nations people
3.120
The committee is concerned by evidence indicating that a significant number of First Nations people with disability are unable to access the DSP due to systemic barriers. To mitigate this, the committee endorses greater investment in Government-funded positions with First Nations advocacy services and Aboriginal community controlled health organisations to support their clients through the DSP application process.
3.121
Further, as stated in Chapter 2, the committee is of the view that DSS and Services Australia should review the application process and supports available for First Nations people to ensure that the process is culturally safe.
3.122
The committee recommends that the Australian Government increases funding for First Nation’s advocacy services and Aboriginal community controlled health organisations to allow these organisations to better support their clients through the Disability Support Pension claims process.
3.123
The committee recommends that the Australian Government ensures the recommendations of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s 2016 report on access to the DSP are implemented in full.
People in custody
3.124
The rationale for cancelling DSP payments for individuals held in custody for more than two years is unclear to the committee, as evidence suggests that few people leave prison in an improved state of health. Further, the committee agrees with inquiry participants that removing financial support promotes recidivism upon release. Consequently, the committee considers that this policy be reviewed.
3.125
The committee recommends that the Department of Social Services no longer cancels the Disability Support Pension for recipients who are in custody for more than two years.
Carers
3.126
The committee recognises that carers are an integral part of Australia’s health system, and that they effectively support, encourage, and enable, the most vulnerable people in our community to reach their goals and aspirations.
3.127
The committee heard that carers managing their own personal disability are commonly experiencing hardship and financial strain due to the additional costs incurred for their own care and support. The committee is of the view that additional support be provided for carers living with disability who are applying for the DSP in their own right.
3.128
The committee recommends that Services Australia consults with carers and representative organisations in order to provide additional support for carers with disability who are claiming the Disability Support Pension.
Victims of trauma, family, and domestic violence
3.129
Family and domestic violence is a scourge within our community. The committee recognises that women with disability have a higher risk of experiencing this form of violence and intimidation, and that these risks have been exacerbated by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
3.130
The committee is very concerned by evidence indicating that family and domestic violence is not adequately taken into consideration, or even acknowledged, through the claims process, and that individuals are left feeling ‘ashamed’. The committee considers that the process for applying for a one-off Crisis Payment is too cumbersome for individuals trying to escape violence. Given this, the committee strongly supports reforms to ensure the DSP meets the needs of these claimants.
3.131
The committee recommends that the Department of Social Services and Services Australia, in consultation with key stakeholders, reform the Disability Support Pension to ensure that it is responsive to claimants who are experiencing, or are at risk of experiencing, family and domestic violence, and that it meets their specific needs and requirements.