Kerri-Anne Kennerley accuses NDIS of age discrimination

TV personality Kerri-Anne Kennerley has weighed in on the NDIS age discrimination debate after her late husband John received only a fraction of care compared to those under 65 years of age with the same disability.

• Push for NDIS access for disabled senior citizens
• Club sued over devastating fall of KAK’s late husband

Kerri-Anne Kennerley claims the National Disability Insurance Scheme “completely discriminates” against those who become paraplegic or quadriplegic after the age of 65.

The television personality, who lost her quadriplegic 78-year-old husband in February this year, has swung her support behind a push by disabled senior citizens to have the age limit scrapped.

“They have taken this magic red line and put it under the age of 65, which eliminates anyone over the age of 64 and nine months,” Ms Kennerley told The Sunday Telegraph.

John Kennerley had a serious fall in 2016 when he slipped from a balcony at a golf resort in Coffs Harbour in March that year, landing on his head and back and fracturing his C2 and C3 vertebrae.

Kerri-Anne Kennerley with her husband John at the 2017 Logies. John became a quadriplegic after a fall in 2016. Picture: AAP/Tracey Nearmy

It left him a quadriplegic and only then did Ms Kennerley realise the age cut-off would seriously impact his care.

“I think the government should be sued on this because it is not an age-related injury. We were in the hospital with a 62-year-old accountant from Cronulla who got rolled in the surf,” she said.

“He being under 65 gets 60 care hours a week and that is what John would have been entitled to except John was over 65 so we got eight hours, which was the maximum on aged care.

“They need to put up a test case and literally sue them for age discrimination.”

MORE FROM JANE HANSEN:

Barnaby to mum: ‘You don’t have a mortgage on grief’

New breathalyser to test for cancer, diabetes

Ms Kennerley said she supported Chris English, who became a quadriplegic on his 69th birthday after a fall over a year ago. The Albion Park grandfather needs 24-hour care and cannot get out of bed without help.

Chris English, pictured with his wife Bobby, is a quadriplegic and on an aged care package, not the NDIS.

Last week, he told The Sunday Telegraph that, if he was under 65, he would be covered by the NDIS but, because it cuts off, he is only entitled to an aged care package that is failing to meet his basic needs.

His wife Bobby English, 64, is his main carer and has had to ration the care he can receive on his aged care package because it does not stretch far enough.

“I’m outraged, it’s a human rights issue and a discrimination issue,” Ms Kennerley said in response.

She said the care she had to pay and provide for John out of her own pocket was seven times what the aged care package offered.

“I started out paying $370,000 a year on registered nurses, three hours in the morning and one hour at night, I got it down to about $220,000, but not everyone can afford that,” she said.

“We got nothing, they just wait for you to die which they have been successful so far.”

The Age Discrimination Act 2004 explicitly states “age discrimination occurs when a person is treated less favourably, or not given the same opportunities as others in a similar situation, because he or she is considered to be too old or too young”.

Kerri-Anne Kennerley claims the NDIS “completely discriminates” against older disabled people. Picture: Sam Ruttyn

However, the NDIS website states “if you are 65 years and over and do not currently receive specialist disability support, or you are diagnosed with a disability after the age of 65 years, you will receive support from the Commonwealth aged care system.”

Sydney University law School professor Simon Rice said the Age Discrimination Act was full of exceptions and a test case would possibly fail.

“All the discrimination acts have exceptions that allow the Commonwealth Government to discriminate according to policy positions,” he said.

“Our migration laws are racially discriminatory, but there is an exception that allows for that.

“I think the question to ask is how do you set the age of 65, it’s pretty early, so if they impose some actuarial cost saving cap, then I’d be asking why 65 and not older.”