Choose equality!

I know what I am saying here is blunt and if I still had a voice you would have heard me shouting. Believe me, I am trying to stay sane and with humour even though this exercise has made me very upset. Frankly, I'm very worried about the impact of these changes to budgets and payment upon my ongoing contribution. But now I think I have to put before you all I need to say. While big changes are being made at federal and state level, residents should not be expected to take a significant hit to our lifestyle and we should not be expected to put our worries and concerns on ice.

For example, the federal and state issues are causing confusion – there is a crucial question here: is the rental allowance still to be a deductible item in a federally based system, to a state run organisation? That is just one question and I'm sure there are more. I can understand that service provider has real budget issues. But it is still us residents who provide (yes provide) the organisation with its basic purpose and that needs to be kept in mind when budget policy is implemented. There needs to be a genuine expression of equity across the entire organisation and residents should not be made to feel they are the organisation's cash-cow.

Such a choice in terms of genuine equity should be a known preference to the service provider's top managers. Let me be frank and specific. Is it possible, in the current climate, for the service provider's top management to become genuine public advocates for an ethos of equality across the entire organisation. I would have thought that they are corporately bound to uphold and safeguard the much-needed equitable and pragmatic functions of service providers (support workers) and residents in shared support accommodation. But how can they actually do this without becoming political advocates of a fundamental change to how senior management is configured legally, how their "high salaries" are calculated? This seems to me to be an important nub of the problem. Are senior management in some way legally prevented from speaking out against the unjust inequities that accrue to themselves as senior management?

To extend this line of argument, let me now draw attention to the consequences for disability pensioners of the possible increase of their residential rents. Will this not mean a corresponding reduction in disposable income and an increased potential for becoming those trapped in poverty?

Consider, our pension is a fixed living allowance; that is, professionally and scientifically judged to allow people with severe disabilities to live a life where some form of amelioration becomes a real possibility. We also must not forget the prevalent reality that most disability service providers carry the banner and highlight the fact that they are charitable organisations. "Choose equality!" is service provider logo.

But how does the choice of equality fit with service providers who are known for their core involvement in care for people with disabilities, when comparatively very large payments go to top level management? What is their remuneration package? How does it compare with average weekly ownings? It is not exactly a salary bordering on destitution. So then, why are Australia's most vulnerable people put at further risk, by allowing people with severe disabilities to absorb the budgetary restraints? "Choose equality!"

It is service providers motto which is "Choose Equality!". It's emblazoned on everything it publishes. Just who are being chosen for "equality" here?

Peter Gibilisco and Bruce Wearne

Somehow our understanding of political responsibility needs a fundamental rejigging. We need to redefine "advocacy" so that it is not put under constraint by corporate capitalist values. Those who are corporately responsible to implement "equity" across their welfare organisations, like senior management, should not feel that they are prevented, by some or other subtlety in corporate law, from publicly advocating just economic and income distribution. To do so will also mean promoting salary cuts at the "top end of town". Indeed let them show that they "choose equality"!

If we want to build a just economy, with an equitable system of welfare provision, then we should encourage social welfare providers, and social welfare providers should join in the effort, to develop such a self-denying approach to management! "Choose equality!" Let us move away from slogans and "smiley face" manipulation to genuine welfare, to genuine equity.