| Contents > Governing for the mainstream – the manipulation of the concept of 'mainstream Australia’ by the Howard government. Where do people with disabilities fit? by Anne Wills |
Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  |
The resultant policy shift
The government sought to restrict eligibility for the Disability Support Pension to those assessed as not being able to work or be retrained for work of atleast 15 hours per week within two years because of an illness, injury or disability. (Centrelink, 2007) Prior to this, people were eligible for the Pension if there were unable to work for atleast 30 hours per week. The Government’s introduced a Disability Support Bill in 2002, which applied the revised work hours test to current, as well as new DSP applicants. (ACOSS,2005, para. 2) After that Bill was rejected in the Senate, the Government introduced legislation with a grandfather clause, so that the new requirements applied only to new applicants. From July 2006, new applicants, assessed as being able to work for 15 hours per week will be placed on the Newstart llowance. Jobless people with disabilities will receive $45 per week less under the new system, and will be subject to activity requirements, with an associated compliance and penalty regime. It is estimated that the Government save around $800 million over the first three years by moving people to the lower payments. (Perry, 2005).
-
Giving voice to those who are the subject of government policy, the subject of government rhetoric and propaganda, and at the same time silenced by it.
The period leading up to the legislative changes has been one of high anxiety and worry for disability support pensioners and their families. Anthony Leggett, a quadriplegic who worked for 22 hours, spoke of the devastating effect that government rhetoric, and its proposed policy, had on him.
-
"I feel like I've had the rug pulled out from under me," he said. "The uncertainty is gut-wrenching. For me, this amount of work is what I can cope with. But I'm going to have to consider whether I should cut my hours. Just getting up, showering and dressing can take me three hours."
(quoted in Horin, 2004).
The comparative flexibility of the Pension, compared to the Newstart Allowance, helps
its recipients manage their disability, and community and work involvement. Beth
Spencer (2005) states:
“This is a culture that likes things black and white, whereas increasing numbers of us now inhabit that grey area between collapse and full ability; often swinging back and forth between these on a daily, weekly, or annual basis.
As such, one of the truly life-saving benefits of the pension - which has a strict income test but a fairly loose cut-off in terms of hours - is that it supports long-term rehabilitation back to paid work via a job, through the development of a suitable home business, or at least into some kind of community involvement. Ironically, while the Government claims that its aim is to encourage greater workforce participation and mutual obligation, it is those who do work, or want to work (but who cannot work full-time) who will be most penalised by the changes.”
Conclusion
The government has, by adopting this populist rhetoric in relation to the disabled, cruelly set them up for derision and discrimination in the community. The framing of the disabled as a burden on society bears similarities with their portrayal as `useless eaters’, a representation seen most starkly in Nazi Germany. (Goggin & Newell, 2005: 65-66). This portrayal of the disabled masks the contributions that they can and do make to society, and effectively prevents their full participation in the community. (Goggin & Newell, 2005: 66).
People living with disabilities incur greater expenses than those without disabilities. The government, rather than ensuring the financial security of those with disabilities, has further stigmatised them, and failed to acknowledge the existence of already rigorous eligibility criteria. (Goggin & Newell, 2005: 65-66). Rather than acknowledging that the extra costs of disability impinge on their ability to reach their full potential, the government has shifted responsibility for its inhumane and miserly policy, by blaming the disabled for their own predicament.
It is completely in keeping with economic rationalism, with its complete faith in the markets, and self reliance, that the issue of disability, for the purposes of social policy, be located in the individual rather than in the structures of power. (Goggin & Newell, 2005: 66).
The Howard Government has used propaganda and rhetoric to discredit people with disabilities, to paint them as people seeking to avoid individual responsibility, to get a free ride at the expense of `mainstream’ Australia. By doing so, the Government has subjected people with disabilities to increased scrutiny, and compliance requirements which they find difficult, if not impossible to meet. Its actions have, in fact, made it more difficult for people with disabilities to engage in the community and to the workforce, to their greatest potential. The end result of this Government’s rhetoric, and the policy that it supported, is that it is more difficult, rather than easier, for people with disabilities to support themselves financially through engagement with the workforce. Clearly, the Government’s populist approach is at best counterproductive, and at worst highly damaging to those people with disabilities.
| Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Contents > Governing for the mainstream – the manipulation of the concept of 'mainstream Australia’ by the Howard government. Where do people with disabilities fit? by Anne Wills |