(A version of this essay was first published
in the Age, Review section,
7th May 2005, p.8, as 'A Life Less Lived')
I have this image lately of a mass of cripples struggling
down a road, limping slowly, hobbling, helping each other along, making
jokes or singing to keep up their spirits. Then government officials
turn up – with one lot up ahead drawing a cart full of carrots
(although I'm not exactly sure what the carrots are the government
is offering in this case, all I’ve heard about are the sticks)
and the other lot beating at them to make them move along faster.
Of course what
happens is that some do manage to speed up to escape the sticks,
while others get bruised and bloodied because they just can’t
go faster, so they end up even more crippled, going ever slower
until they collapse. (And of course the singing stops: no room for
singing.) As time goes on, more and more drop -- going faster for
a little while, then stumbling and falling. Until several miles
down the track there are a few left trotting along upright striving
after the cart of carrots, with the rest carried off, collapsed
and beaten.
A successful
social experiment in some people’s terms: the reasonably able
bodied – previously hiding in the crowd of cripples -- have
been identified.
*
When the federal
government takes control of the Senate in July they will be bringing
in sweeping changes to the Disability Support Pension. People with
disabilities who are deemed to be capable of working 15 hours or
more per week will be shifted onto the lower unemployment benefit
Newstart, and treated as unemployed.
The government’s spin-doctoring of these changes has been
streamlined since they were first proposed in 2002, and tailored
for different audiences.
For advocacy
groups and people with disabilities, it’s presented as an
opportunity. Peter Costello on Insight on SBS the other week, for
instance, exuding a deep sense of compassion, claiming this as a
shift in emphasis from a focus on disability to a focus on capabilities.
Whereas for the general electorate it’s a familiar strategy,
honed on asylum seekers. Vilify, sow distrust, create myths, question
the genuineness of their need, play on the desire of stressed and
busy people to be relaxed and comfortable, and then tell them they
have no moral obligation to these others, that it is right to withdraw
support.
The pension, we are told, is too easy to get and too generous. As
a result too many people are choosing it as a way of getting early
retirement and a bludgey life.
This is the
preferred explanation for the rise in figures over the past ten
years; more convenient and more palatable than the other possibility,
which is that serious disability and chronic illness might actually
be increasing.
*
So who are
these people on disability pensions? From recent reports and discussions
you’d be forgiven for imagining that mostly these days it’s
people able to work 30 hours, but who just prefer to stay home and
watch television.
Well, let’s
see: there are people with cystic fibrosis, who have to be careful
of any infections that could permanently damage their lungs; people
experiencing chronic pain, often from work-related injuries; people
with severe epilepsy; those with congenital or accident-acquired
brain damage; ones with intellectually disabilities; those with
shattered nerves and debilitating psychological problems such as
chronic depression or schizophrenia; the chronically fatigued whose
lives are decimated at every level; the chemically sensitive (for
whom even new carpets at work or a co-worker who wears perfume can
spell disaster); people with quadriplegia, who also are subject
to a range of other health problems such as increased infections;
and so on.
We are the
ones with bewilderingly high-maintenance bodies and lives, often
living on a knife edge between balance and collapse: trying to avoid
the next illness or infection, the next bout of unbearable pain,
the next frightening episode or psychological disturbance; the next
recurrence of a problem that can never be cured, can only ever be
managed.
Indeed we are
the ones the medical system generally doesn’t know what to
do with, geared as it is towards high-tech, cure-oriented, acute
care. The very resistance of our problems is an affront to our culture’s
cherished beliefs in progress and science.
We are the
canaries in the coalmine -- warning of the accumulated effects of
millions of tons of chemicals, most of them untested, and few tested
in combination or for long periods; the shell-shocked and the casualties
of a fast-paced, speeded up, quick fix, high-pressure culture. And
we are the unwanted side effects of medical technology that can
prolong life, but not necessarily assure that it will be good quality.
For contrary
to what the government suggests, the main areas of increase in the
figures over the past ten years are not the ‘bad backs/early
retirement’ guys. Apart from the increase in women over 55
due to changes to alternative pension schemes, the strongest growth
has been in the areas of severe and profound disability, and in
new chronic and untreatable illnesses. There has also been an increase
in the number of young men, possibly due to higher rates of survival
from motor vehicle and other accidents.
The other reason
suggested for the growth has been higher productivity demands from
employers. In the past someone with a disability may have been able
to mask their difficulties or be accommodated. These days that’s
a lot less likely.
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 into
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.
For it is precisely
those who have persevered and managed their disabilities to the
point where they can work between 15 to 30 hours per week, and who
have struggled to find and keep jobs flexible enough to accommodate
their fluctuating or special needs, who will suddenly find their
gross income cut by as much as a half when they are shifted onto
Newstart. In fact many may need to give up their jobs, because they
are unlikely to be able to afford the travel and auxiliary expenses
of keeping them.
As an unemployment
benefit designed for people capable of full employment (and to encourage
full-time employment) Newstart is calculated only as a subsistence
allowance for temporary circumstances. It does not take into account
long-term life expenses, nor the extra and unavoidable costs of
living with a disability, and it certainly doesn’t allow for
any of the costs of trying to improve one’s health.
Not that the
pension allows for this either (the maximum single rate is $235
per week). Indeed financial survival for people with long-term disabilities
can be a constant, stressful and often frightening battle.
But with the current pension arrangements there is at least a sense
of entitlement: for the chronically ill, a feeling of respite or
sanctuary; for all of us, a small precious measure of independence.
Under Newstart, however, not only will this income be shaved back
by about ten percent, but people with disabilities will be kept
busy with job diaries, interviews, forms to fill in, medical assessments
– constant reminders that you live (and only barely) on the
good graces of the employed. A slow but sure tightening of bureaucratic
controls on people unable to free themselves from this control.
Indeed with
this new system it is likely that rather than doctors and specialists
-- who understand the complex diversity of conditions, and know
our individual histories – it will be a Centrelink officer,
with a few days extra training about the most obvious aspects of
the most common disabilities, who will be making the judgements
not just about our abilities, but also about what is best for us.
*
The Government’s
rhetoric holds out a seductive promise – fulfillment and economic
security through having a job; an acknowledged social role via a
pay packet instead of a welfare cheque; and freedom from the shame
and guilt so many of us feel, even if we don’t talk about
it much these days. But this is a promise that is unlikely to be
kept for the vast majority.
And despite
the talk about focussing on capabilities, within the new system
it is the capacity to earn money, the very thing that most people
with disabilities find most difficult for a range of reasons, that
is being reinforced as the only one that matters.
This is not
about reducing disability, or the impact of disabilities (the life
costs), but about reducing the financial costs of this to taxpayers
and governments.
And it’s
not about increasing the social contribution (mutual obligations)
of people with disabilities, but about conscripting them into the
reserve workforce to keep competition for jobs strong. They may
never get jobs, but as a layer of desperate people they help keep
it a buyers market as far as employment conditions go.
At present
there is such a low investment in rehabilitation support and training
for people with disabilities that it’s often a well-kept secret
just to keep demand manageable. It’s also interesting to note
that despite their recent rhetoric, the number of people with a
disability employed in the public sector has actually decreased
by about thirty percent over the period of the Howard government
(from 5.6 to 3.8 per cent).
There also
seems no interest in exploring ways of assisting those committed
to healing or improving their conditions by making a range of well-documented
therapies and self-help techniques more affordable and accessible.
And the government
has not, to my knowledge, once raised the issue of prevention.
*
Part of our
maturity – our responsibility in life – as individuals,
families, communities and governments – is to make decisions
about what we value, what we think is important, and what directions
we want to move in. Economic rationalism – the driving force
behind these changes to disability policy -- hands those decisions
over to ‘market forces’. While capitalism as the new
religion makes the work ethic the only one that matters.
Currently only
nine percent of people with disabilities have paid work, and this
is a figure that certainly can be improved upon. But to this you
would also need to add those who are studying (both formally and
informally), the ones parenting under difficult circumstances or
caring for another family member or neighbour, as well as those
engaged in part-time unpaid community service or cultural production.
There are so
many vital ways everyone contributes to the world (for good or ill)
every day outside of having a job. And for a healthy future it is
crucial that attracting money not be the only measure of social
value for any of us, especially with so many currently profitable
jobs involved in ecologically damaging and unsustainable pursuits.
Time management
books, too, are always warning us against valuing busy-ness over
achievement and effectiveness, and about the need to stand back
and get the big picture: to work smarter, not harder or longer.
For many of
us, our abilities and disabilities are all tied up together. Being
forced to lie on your back for long periods, for instance, can give
a very different perspective on the world than being nose down,
bum in the air. Certainly many of us have knowledge, skills and
strengths because we are living with disabilities, not just despite
this. But forcing us into even more poverty in low-paid unskilled
jobs, and subjecting us to endless bureaucratic rituals to keep
us busy is hardly the best way to utilise these.
Perhaps the
real concern of the government is that Australians in general are
becoming disillusioned with jobs as a means of life-fulfillment,
especially as they are being asked to work longer and longer hours
to maintain their place in the system and give their kids what they
see as the necessities of life. And are doing this in a world where,
no matter how hard they work, new technology, an injury or a major
illness could lose them their place on the social ladder overnight.
While the underlying
assumption fuelling the changes is that the economy must continue
to grow at all costs, maybe the real problem is too many people
in too many meaningless, unsatisfying and destructive jobs -- so
that from a secure safe distance, the idea of a life on the pension
starts to seem something worth envying.
Five years
ago no politician would have dared touch the pensions of people
with disabilities. And no one would envy disability pensioners.
What’s happened to Australian society for this to change so
radically in so short a time?
It seems even
the most satisfying jobs have become unbearable for many because
of the stress and overtime and working conditions. We are busier
and busier, but to what end?
*
As a culture
we are good at emergency care, and emergency caring. A person with
cancer or who experiences an acute trauma such as car accident is
given every assistance possible, with few monetary caps. Likewise
Australians opened their hearts and pockets to the victims of the
recent Tsunami. But long term compassion and a commitment to supporting
people with complex and difficult problems is harder to sustain,
and as such is always an easy target for cost cutting.
One of the
strategies used by the government to convince people with jobs to
support these policies is to suggest that their tax breaks are dependent
on cutting the costs of welfare. And that their current lifestyle
will be threatened unless we can reduce this burden.
Fear and favours.
Divide and rule.
It has been
shown that bullying in classrooms affects not just the students
being bullied, but that every child in that room is scarred by it
in some way.
If we allow
the most vulnerable groups in society to be bullied into working
beyond their capacity and to the detriment of their other roles
and obligations in life, with many pushed to their limits so that
they completely break down or suicide, all of us will lose.
Over time all
of us will be working harder and harder, for less satisfaction,
with less control over our working conditions, to the increased
cost to our lives outside work, and with no time to think about
or argue for the things that really matter in taking us into the
21st century. Things such as wisdom, resourcefulness, connectedness
(with each other and with the earth); the ability and the initiative
to make good decisions; the desire to turn our efforts towards things
that need doing; and empathy.
They came for
the unemployed and the students. Now they’ve come for the
pensioners.
Who will be
left when they come for you?
*