Its not that easy to be granted DSP. There are a lot of hoops that you have to jump through. He might not have been granted DSP for a physical disability but for a mental disability.

---

@bluecat*dancing wrote:

What is wrong to me is the short sentence he received for plotting terrorist attacks here. There is a certain amount of time that you can be out of the country while on DSP. This is being tightened up and the amount of time is being reduced.

---

that is not what you said

 

we should be giving hin nothing.

he should not be allowed to return either

 

 

if he gets shot, travel insurance won't cover that.........he'll probably expect us to fly him home, which i believe should not be here

I doubt if terrorist groups would care if a willing member is disabled or not. 

 

So not sure why people are questioning his ability to recieve the pension. The issue of his disability pension (which from articles doesn't make clear if it was accessed but does make clear it was stopped in a timely manner) is separate from the issue of terrorist activities.

 

I can't imagine what would fill the pages of Murdoch newspapers if a handful of islamic bad eggs weren't around to keep their 'journalists' in a job.

 

By all means report on the seriousness of any Australian involved in terrorist activities. All of us need to know about this. But why devalue that information with silly information about pensions?

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

I doubt if terrorist groups would care if a willing member is disabled or not. 

 

So not sure why people are questioning his ability to recieve the pension. The issue of his disability pension (which from articles doesn't make clear if it was accessed but does make clear it was stopped in a timely manner) is separate from the issue of terrorist activities.

 

I can't imagine what would fill the pages of Murdoch newspapers if a handful of islamic bad eggs weren't around to keep their 'journalists' in a job.

 

By all means report on the seriousness of any Australian involved in terrorist activities. All of us need to know about this. But why devalue that information with silly information about pensions?

---

why are we paying a pension to a conviced terrorist?

they had australian targets.......meaning wanted to kill Australians.......he should be getting nothing

Not from the angle the news story is going from - DSP used to fund extremists activities - for how long?(by an Aust who left the country on false passport, which is major blunder itself, how he was able to do that) News story doesn't have any facts about that how long the DSP was paid once that person left the country.

The newspaper states they don't even know if he accessed his DSP money after he left the country. Centrelink's response in my post above.

I thought the thread was about him being paid a pension while out of the country and funding terrorist activity too................. silly me.

If he is eligible for the DSP then he is entitled to receive it, whether he morally should or not is another matter. Is the issue that he is a convicted terrorist or on DSP? Then there is airport security. He was allowed to leave the country using his brother's passport. That is more of a concern to me than a few thousand bucks.

Tall bearded wrote:

"I think people are missing the real issue here.

The question which we should be asking is not why he was being paid after he left, but how did he qualified in the first place."

That is not what the article quoted is about though.

Yes they may have a mental disorder, but the same applies.

 

The test is one of capacity.  That is ability/inability to do things.

 

Now I was in the military for 20 years and am quite aware of both the physical and mental demands that combat operations place on the individual, and the mere fact that it appears he is actively engaged in such operations indicates both a physical and mental capacity far in excess of what one should have and be entitled to the pension.

yes, maybe it's just me but try as i might to whip up some "disappointment" with a dash of "outrage" as one of those "aussie taxpayers" I just can't get past that other aussie tax payer funded bloke, you know the one on close to half a million (plus perks) who just this week managed to insult our WW11 veterans....maybe he has a different version of what "honour" means?

 

 

"Torture, starvation, murder and forced labour are not honourable.”