Opinion & Commentary
Gillard misses the chance to help the disabled and define her legacy
Spooked by the economy, Labor has put middle class welfare ahead of the needy
BY not committing to a firm timetable and funding mechanism, the Gillard government has passed up a unique opportunity to lock in important reforms to the disability sector.
Julia Gillard was widely expected to announce a pilot disability insurance scheme, as recommended by the Productivity Commission in a report handed to government in late July. Instead, she announced a Rudd-esque Council Of Australian Government committee and $10 million for ``technical work'' to move towards eventual implementation.
Spooked by economic uncertainty, Gillard may have missed the chance to undertake a bold and socially progressive micro-economic reform with the potential to define her legacy.
The Productivity Commission recommended an agreement between the commonwealth, states and territories by early 2012, ahead of a limited rollout of the scheme in 2014 and full implementation by 2019. It also called for the establishment of a high-level task force to work on detailed implementation planning.
Gillard's establishment of an advisory group headed by respected former Families Department chief Jeff Harmer goes part of the way to meeting this goal.
But her announcement did not include any commitment to launch pilot sites by 2014.
The lack of any firm dates or details about how the scheme will be funded suggests implementation could be pushed back beyond the next election.
The disability sector as it stands is a patchwork of underfunded, and often inefficient for-profit, not-for-profit, and government agencies. Coverage and quality vary dramatically across the country. These agencies compete for state and federal block grants.
Funding does not necessarily go to the organisations that serve the most need. Some organisations struggle to get any funding. Undoubtedly, those adept at writing grant applications succeed. There is a significant mismatch between supply and demand.
The Productivity Commission's answer to this is to overhaul funding arrangements by introducing market principles. A person-centred voucher scheme will see people with disabilities awarded a tailored funding package, based on their individual treatment and support needs. Choice and competition, not central planning, will be the order of the day.
Individuals (and their families) will be able choose which disability organisation they use, or purchase services themselves. As in any competitive marketplace, disability providers will have to provide high-quality services or face losing their customers.
Unlike the Disability Support Pension, which is poorly targeted and includes many people who are not in the greatest need, the national disability insurance scheme will target those Australians with the most profound and severe disabilities -- about 400,000 by the Productivity Commission's estimate.
The Gillard government agrees that these reforms are necessary.
What it baulks at is the price tag.
Between them, the state and federal governments spend about $7 billion a year on disability support. The Productivity Commission estimates that a further $6.5bn will be needed if the scheme is to operate as intended.
For a government whose political credibility rests on a return to surplus in 2012-13, facing economic uncertainty at home and abroad, this is tough to cop.
The government appears to have sensibly rejected a tax or spending hike to fund the scheme. But the decision to delay raises important questions about the government's policy priorities.
We will spend $112bn on welfare and social security this year. More than $13bn will be spent on Disability Support Pensions. Billions will go to well-off households in the form of baby bonuses, family tax benefits, and parental leave. Billions will be spent on industry assistance, first-home buyers' grants and a plethora of other wasteful government programs.
Is middle-class welfare more important than providing wheelchairs to people with spinal cord injuries? Is corporate welfare more important than ensuring kids with severe intellectual disabilities get adequate support?
If Labor, professed social democrats and defenders of the welfare state, don't see the merit in securing adequate care and support for the most profoundly disabled people in the community, it's difficult to imagine what they would support. What is the point of a welfare state if not for this?
Is Labor committed to helping those most in need, or just buying off the largest and most powerful voting blocs?
There is plenty of money available, if the government is willing to cut spending in other areas.
But spending cuts require difficult choices, careful communication, and strong convictions -- in other words, a bit of backbone.
It's a shame the government has not shown more of it.
Jessica Brown is a Research Fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies
