The idea that DSP numbers or spending are growing out of whack with the population or the economy is fallacious. We need to stop stigmatising people who often lack the political clout to fight back, writes Greg Jericho.

This week the new Minister for Social Services, Christian Porter, indulged in the rite of passage under Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull by slapping those on the Disability Support Pension (DSP).

And as with those ministers who came before him, Porter spoke of concerns that are massively over-hyped and serve only to further stigmatise people with disabilities.

All conservative government ministers need to appear tough on something, and social services ministers always seem to think kicking some of the most disadvantaged in society is the best way to do it.

Announcing that the DSP is out of control and needs to be targeted is a step that both Kevin Andrews and Scott Morrison took with glee when they were the responsible ministers, and now Christian Porter - the third such minister in two years - has joined in.

I have written on this in the past, but each new minister brings a new level of ignorance, and so once more unto the breach...

Usually it's The Daily Telegraph or 2GB that help with the kicking, but this time the assist went to The Australian. It led its Monday front page with "Disability burden hits $17bn a year: Growth unsustainable, Coalition to act".

Firstly, "burden"? Really? Nice loaded language there.

Secondly, the headline was rather odd given the $17 billion amount is hardly big news; it's not even new news, as the figure was announced in the budget nearly six months ago.

Porter told The Australian:

The Disability Support Pension is an important safety net but there is no doubt that we inherited a situation where the growth in people claiming the DSP stretched the system to an unsustainable point.

And yet figures from his own department don't back him up.

The latest DSP numbers released in January show that in 2013 (when the Abbott government "inherited it") the total number of people on DSP actually fell 0.6 per cent:

DSP numbers grew strongly during the 1990s - mostly due to more women talking up the payment.

This occurred because (as the ABS notes) in 1991 changes to the welfare system saw the DSP replace the invalid pension and the sheltered employment allowance. The DSP was aimed more at being a step towards work, and thus the eligibility requirements were changed such that some recipients could work up to 30 hours a week. The eligibility was also broadened to include "people with psychiatric, and drug and alcohol conditions".

And from 1995, the retirement age for women began its increase towards 65, which meant women who would otherwise have gone onto the aged pension were staying on DSP longer:

Age - and the ageing population - is a huge factor for DSP. In 2002, over 60 year olds accounted for 19.4 per cent of DSP recipients; by 2013, it was 24.8 per cent.

Since 2002, the total number of DSP recipients has increased by 162,823, and nearly half of that (75,762 or 46 per cent) was by those over the age of 60.

But then, really, how dare people get old and infirm?

While the growth of DSP declined in the early 2000s, when the GFC hit, it shot up.

Porter thus not surprisingly ignores the recent and projected figures and instead focuses on the past 10 years. Such a step might seem reasonable, but not if - as appears to be another pre-requisite for holding a ministry in the Abbott-Turnbull government - it involves pretending the GFC didn't happen.

DSP numbers - as with most welfare payments - are heavily linked to the state of the economy and thus during the GFC the numbers of DSP recipients grew quickly.

But is it a great shock to discover that people with disabilities are likely to lose their job during recession-like conditions?

And while the May budget showed that DSP payments are expected to grow by just 1.9 per cent this year, and 2.7 per cent in the following two years – essentially in line with the Reserve Bank's 2-3 per cent inflation growth target - the Minister wanted to focus on the past 10 years in order to claim the growth is unsustainable.

But that period included the highly abnormal GFC period.

Over the past decade, when unemployment fell, the growth in DSP declined. When unemployment rose during the GFC, DSP numbers rose.

Astonishingly, because of the changes to DSP eligibility brought in by the Gillard government in 2011, in 2013, despite unemployment rising, DSP numbers fell:

And yet Porter claimed in The Australian:

DSP spending over the last decade has been growing at a rate considerably faster than inflation and at a considerably greater rate than our population.

He also stated:

Suggestions DSP spending is merely increasing in line with population growth are simply wrong.

But comparing spending with population growth is rather silly. The population grows at around 1.3 per cent each year - and yet our economy grows by around 3 per cent on average, and inflation grows at between 2-3 per cent. Does Porter really think DSP expenditure should grow slower than inflation?

The Parliamentary Budget Office last year looked at various government spending programs since 2002-03. It showed that from then till 2015-16, DSP payments grew on average by 7.3 per cent. Certainly this would appear unsustainable. But, as is clear, the major reason for that level is the increase in DSP payments during the GFC.

And as for Porter's belief that the idea that DSP spending is merely increasing in line with population growth is "simply wrong", it is worth noting that in 2004, the number of DSP recipients represented 4.38 per cent of the population aged over 15; and in 2013, it had risen all the way to 4.4 per cent:

Hardly an explosion.

Indeed, the proportion of the adult population on DSP has actually fallen since 2011, and the ratio of people in the labour force to those on DSP has also stayed flat for over a decade.

Now, yes, the expenditure on DSP has increased, but there is a clear link between the growth of numbers on DSP and expenditure, and neither measure suggests what is happening at the moment is unsustainable:

Moreover, in June, the Parliamentary Budget Office forecast that DSP payments would continue to grow by around 4.9 per cent on average out to 2025. And while this may seem high, it is worth noting that the May budget predicts government revenue to grow by 6.7 per cent over the next four years. Thus the PBO also forecast that the percentage of government revenue going towards DSP would fall from the current level of 4.29 per cent to around 3.7 per cent:

That would still be higher than prior to the GFC, but is not surprising given the population will continue to age and the retirement age is also increasing over that period.

Porter and others might compare now with how things were in the 1980s - when, as David Crowe of The Australian notes, just 1.43 per cent of the population were on a form of DSP.

But such comparisons are pointless unless they acknowledge the massive shift in the ageing population from 14.3 per cent of the population aged over 60 to 20.1 per cent currently, the changes in the retirement age, and most importantly the massive improvement in how those with disabilities are regarded and treated within the community compared to then.

Far from applauding that the DSP numbers fell in 2013 when unemployment rose, we should be wondering whether that is a sign the changes introduced by the Gillard government - and added to by the Abbott government - have not really hit the mythical rorters, but merely made getting on DSP too tough for those who should be on it.

By attacking DSP recipients, and foreshadowing a need to keep things tough, Christian Porter may have ticked off his must-do list on becoming Social Services Minister, but any suggestion DSP numbers or spending are growing out of whack with the population or with the state of the economy only serves to ignorantly blame those who largely lack any political clout to fight back. It would be nice to get a minister who chose reality over the easy fear tactic.

Oh, well, maybe next time.

Greg Jericho writes weekly for The Drum. He tweets at @grogsgamut.