Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Social inclusion for the disabled is a mirage

By Peter Gibilisco - posted Tuesday, 8 August 2006


HomeFirst is a program that can help certain people with disabilities move to a more independent style of living arrangement that more equitably provides for access to community activities and facilities.

The HomeFirst program can provide up to 34 hours a week of care and or support, and can include up to $150 of additional support from Linkages.

Until January 2005, Linkages was the major administrator of my care needs. Linkages is a care/support program funded through the Department of Human Services as part of the HACC program. Linkages is budgeted to provide a maximum of 16 hours care/support a week, compared with HomeFirst’s 34 hours of care/support a week.

Advertisement

Linkages clientele are believed to require less frequent care/support assistance. Linkages is budgeted to deal with the provision of support for the elderly, and not the complex support needs of people with profound disabilities. I have been a recipient of Linkages care and support services for over seven years, and I presently receive Support & Choice funding for 24 hours a week, which is far less than what I need and would be provided by Homefirst.

In November 2002, in response to my application for the HomeFirst program, I was informed by mail that I was on the urgent list. To support my application, I produced a detailed account of my need for additional assistance, with the backing of references from people who are leaders in their respective fields.

Despite being on the urgent list, I have not as yet been accepted into the HomeFirst program. Any correspondence I have had with, or through, the Department about my need for the HomeFirst program is answered by the cliché about the government department having no money. This is a first indication that the rhetoric of the State Disability Plan has limited application in everyday life.

This failure to provide adequate care/support has significant implications for my wellbeing and quality of life. There is no known medical cure for Friedrich’s Ataxia: however, there are forms of therapy, mostly medical, that may provide some easing of the pain, or an adequate type of solution to many of the inherent side effects and problems carried by the disease.

Most of these treatments can be provided by a trained carer, including physiotherapists, occupational therapists, masseurs, and speech therapists. Presently I cannot take on any of these options due to the limited time I may spend with carers/support staff. This would only be possible through HomeFirst. This further throws into question the stated claims of the State Disability Plan to provide for human rights, dignity and self-determination, when individuals are denied access to programs that have as their goal the improvement of quality of life.

In terms of the emphasis on balancing rights and responsibilities, I contend that I fulfill my obligations to society, and as such the denial of my access to HomeFirst can not be based on ideas of mutual obligation.

Advertisement

I have been studying at a post-secondary level since the age of 23. I completed an Associate Diploma in Business Studies (Accounting) at the age of 27. After this I attended Monash University for ten years, being awarded with a Bachelor of Arts, a Bachelor of Business (Accounting), and a Master of Arts. My last academic association was with the University of Melbourne, where I completed a PhD in December 2005. I believe I am certainly fulfilling my obligation to contribute society.

In addition to undertaking an ambitious and successful course of study, I have lived independently on my own in Dandenong, Victoria, for the past 16 years. This has allowed me to develop social skills that have dramatically impacted on my life, allowing me to take responsibility for my actions.

However, the ability to maintain my life has progressively become harder, as I become older, less agile and more susceptible to pain and physical injuries. These are caused by the inadequate factors of care/support, such as those previously outlined that are involved with the performance of most of my daily activities. This unwarranted stress and hardship would be alleviated, to a certain degree, by the extra care/support that would be granted to me under the HomeFirst package.

Since I was allocated the 24 hours a week care and support from Support & Choice my disease and care needs have progressed and my ability to live independently without adequate assistance has progressively diminished.

This provision of care, which has not been responsive to my changing needs and life circumstances, again reveals significant problems in attaining the goals of the State Disability Plan in the context of the everyday lives of people with disabilities. It is a long way from the stated goal of the State Disability Plan to “focus on supporting people with a disability in flexible ways, based on their individual needs, so that each person can live the lifestyle they want to lead.

In conclusion, despite its language of social inclusion and social rights, the approach underlying the State Disability Plan promotes a vision of social policy closely aligned to the neo-liberal view that social supports are burdensome to marketised economies, and to the ultimate goals of delivering budgetary surpluses. As a result, today it appears rational to reduce social spending. The end result is not the achievement of human rights and social justice, but an increase in individual human suffering and social exclusion.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

This article is based on one previously published in Just Policy, March 2006.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

5 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Peter Gibilisco was diagnosed with the progressive neurological condition called Friedreich's Ataxia, at age 14. The disability has made his life painful and challenging. He rocks the boat substantially in the formation of needed attributes to succeed in life. For example, he successfully completed a PhD at the University of Melbourne, this was achieved late into the disability's progression. However, he still performs research with the university, as an honorary fellow. Please read about his new book The Politics of Disability.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Peter Gibilisco

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Peter Gibilisco
Article Tools
Comment 5 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy