Today’s Angry Cripple column was inspired by Christine Bigby’s ABC Ramp Up column that argued the success of the National Insurance Disability Scheme depends on the type and quality of support and disability services available for purchase. The author is Max Jackson (full bio below).
Mahatma Gandhi, one of the twentieth century’s greatest freedom fighters, once said of freedom, and I quote: “Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”
As emphasised by Gandhi, freedom is a right. However, despite Gandhi’s pronouncement all those decades ago, freedom as a right represents a shadowy illusion on the outer circle of disability rights.
Disability bureaucrats, funded advocates and academics all espouse choice as a key principle underpinning the ever-widening push for individual funding. The concept of choice has also become the battle cry of the proposed National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).
Despite the enthusiastic chatter, glossy brochures, new directions statements, research studies, ever-changing policies, and the might of the proposed NDIS, the fact is, choice is rarely a reality for people with disabilities and their families.
It is this double-speak about choice in accommodation and support, which has prompted this article.
The freedom to choose comprises two inter-dependent elements.
- Firstly, having multiple options from which to choose.
- Secondly, having the right to choose from the available options.
If it is, that the freedom to choose is a right that must be pursued, so it must also be that having a full range of options from which to choose, must be part of the same freedom.
However, if recent history exercises influence on future accommodation options, then we can be sure it is unlikely the ideologues and philosophical purists will support any form of accommodation other than the family home or individual living options.
This is because the alternatives do not fit their narrow view of inclusion. Such an attitude is nonsense of course.
There is no valid reason why the full range of accommodation options available to other Australians, should not also be available to persons with disabilities. The objections are not however so much about the people, but principally have their roots in philosophical purity and selective ideology.
They are based on spurious arguments about community inclusion and the argument that any form of grouping equates to an institution.
Should we accept the argument that persons with disabilities should not live together, because it allegedly denies social inclusion?
It is interesting to note, how the opponents of persons with disabilities living in the same proximity still couch their criticisms in yesterday’s argument about institutions.
Those who use yesterday’s arguments, do so because they believe it gives legitimacy to their condemnation about any form of accommodation where persons with disabilities live near to or with each other.
Community inclusion and quality of life, as determined by someone other than the person with disability or his family, are now at the forefront of the philosophical purist’s stance on choice.
It is a sleight of hand to suggest that if a person with a disability lives with another person with a disability they are not included in the community.
Community inclusion is not a singular concept: we all live in multiple communities, and the freedom to participate in our communities of choice, is ours. Accommodation options for others in the community are not ones of restriction.
We must stop the constant objections to cluster housing, small unit development, hostels and multi-dimensional housing. If we truly support the ideal that persons with disabilities should have the same choice and opportunities as other Australians.
By extension, we must then support the ideal that the same non-restrictive choices available to the non-disabled must also be provided to persons with disabilities.
Given, that what is available to other Australians is the benchmark for what should be available to persons with disabilities, the question must be asked: Other than their disability, what is it that sets persons with a disability apart from other groups?
Do those who advocate additional protection, such as special regulations, believe persons with a disability are the only vulnerable people? Let us not forget, support mechanisms are available to persons with a disability. For some guardianship applies, while for other there is family support.
Restricted or controlled choice is not real choice. Restricted or controlled choice abuses the freedom to choose. Abuse of the freedom to choose is an abuse of rights.
What then must happen if the freedom to choose is to go beyond the rhetoric and become a real right?
Five key ‘musts’ need to be applied in order to ensure the imperative of freedom to choose.
- Accommodation options for persons with disabilities must reflect what is available to other Australians.
- Governments must be prepared to take the lead in funding disability specific accommodation, as well as mixed models.
- National legislation that includes the freedom to choose, as a stated right must be established.
- Regulations must be framed so as to enable, rather than restrict the freedom to choose.
- Families must have the right to choose whether to provide accommodation and support for their family member with a disability.
We must advocate that the freedom to choose must be available, with no strings attached.
We must never let go or lose sight of the principal, as espoused by Gandhi, that the freedom to choose and the freedom to err is a precious right.
Max Jackson is the Director of JacksonRyan Partners, a boutique company specialising in workplace conflict and investigations, and consultancy to the disability sector and families. Max has over 40 years high level experience in the public, private and funded sectors. Particularly, he is a former Special Education teacher and was Chief Executive Officer of Kew Cottages. He is currently on the National Board of Special Olympics Australia.
Facebook Recommendations
Read all about it
Punch live
Up to the minute Twitter chatter
US Google Doodle features a girl's touching depiction of her father's return from Iraq http://t.co/4LiRFOntTY
@paulwiggins Ha. Actually, I like hiding away with a quality read. The internet used to be a guilty pleasure, now it's the other way round.
RT @tobyharnden: The Times reports: "The two suspected Woolwich killers were known to the security services" http://t.co/Gwa9PmXe6O
Recent posts
The latest and greatest
The Punch is moving house
Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…
Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?
I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…
Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”
In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…
Nosebleed Section
choice ringside rantings
From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go
Tim says:
They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go
Kel says:
If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]Gentle jabs to the ribs
Superman needs saving
Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more
Most commented