Support for disability policy should be no-brainer

THIS week the Productivity Commission handed down its final report into the state of disability support and care in this country, which included a recommendation for a national disability insurance scheme.

Julia Gillard gave in-principle support to the idea, which originated at the 2020 Summit. That's right, at the much pilloried summit in 2008 that Kevin Rudd arranged to help kick-start ideas for his government.

The head of Philanthropy Australia, Bruce Bonyhady, raised the concept and former parliamentary secretary for disability services Bill Shorten used the years that followed to convince his colleagues it was an idea worthy of serious consideration. Who said the 2020 Summit didn't come up with any bright ideas? Me, but let's not dwell on that.

Credit should go to Rudd for giving Shorten (the man who orchestrated his downfall) his start in the executive in this important policy area. Cynics may say Rudd did so because it was a policy backwater at the time. Those less cynical would argue that Rudd wanted a heavy hitter on the rise to bring disability issues to the fore, which is exactly what Shorten did.

Unfortunately, Rudd's head was in another space during his prime ministership, distracted by the "greatest moral challenge of our time", climate change.

The disability insurance scheme proposed will be expensive at just under $14 billion a year, almost double the cost of funding the present ineffective and fragmented approach to disability services. But it is a classic case of what a Labor government should be doing. It fulfils the social script set out by successful Labor governments of the past.

When you look at the dire state of the Labor government, thanks to problems with implementation across policy areas -- from pink batts in roofs to a costly National Broadband Networkand to a carbon tax that will do little to mitigate climate change -- you have to wonder why addressing the deficiencies in disability services wasn't given central billing after the 2020 Summit.

Or even before. It's not as though senior government figures such as Jenny Macklin haven't spent a lifetime in this policy space. I question why a Labor government forced to sit on the sidelines through more than a decade of Coalition governance didn't have a scheme such as this ready to go the moment it was elected.

It was too busy opposing the GST and proposing expensive action on sexier topics, I suspect.

Having spent two years living with and caring for my mother after she was struck down by strokes and early onset dementia, I have a (small) understanding of what carers of severely disabled relatives go through. We had the means and the know-how to get the most out of a system in crisis, but looking after Mum was still hard work.

I shudder to think how difficult it must be for a parent caring for a disabled child, with all the fears of what will happen to them when the parents pass away. At least being a child looking after a parent feels like the natural order.

And how difficult must it be for those without the means to fund basic requirements for providing proper care? Then there is the effect on the working lives of the carers, which has a flow-on effect for our national productivity. And the effect on carers providing support decade after decade, with little respite. The mental toll would be enormous.

Waiting for government to fix this mess with universal disability services in this country has gone on for too long, especially given that we have an excellent template for doing so with Medicare.

Fortunately, even if the government falls at the next election, the opposition has given in-principle support to the scheme. The key for commentators the nation over will be to put pressure on shadow treasurer Joe Hockey to make that support stick when he does his budget calculations.

Whether the scheme is supported with a levy or spending cuts really doesn't matter as long as excuses to delay or water down its implementation aren't allowed to stand.

About one in 50 Australians suffers from a severe disability, but the effect of that widens when you consider the family members who must help assist those in need.

The present ad-hoc system makes it near impossible for the disabled to move from suburb to suburb, much less state to state, whether doing so is for job or lifestyle opportunities. That's because the services provided change when local or state government boundaries are crossed.

One of the key ingredients of a national scheme is giving greater mobility to the disabled.

Another is the universal coverage that would be provided, avoiding pockets of severe disadvantage as is the case at present, for example, among people who are born disabled or suffer an accident at home.

The Prime Minister has described this situation as a "cruel lottery".

But anyone in favour of paying more to look after our neediest citizens shouldn't get complacent on the back of this week's developments. All the government has committed itself to so far is $10 million towards assessing the Productivity Commissions recommendations. And the proposed starting date of 2014 is one Gillard specifically avoided signing up to.

While at one level it is crude to focus on the political consequences of this policy area hitting the headlines, they are significant.

A minister once told me "there are a lot of votes in disabilities" which, while a crude observation, if true, at least means that the political class should start taking disability support more seriously, if only for base self-interest.

There is good and bad in the Productivity Commission's report for Labor.

The obvious good is that Labor kicked this issue along after decades of neglect by previous governments of all political stripes. If implemented, a national disability scheme would be a standout achievement.

However, the political negatives for Labor are that it may not happen as quickly as it should because of wasteful spending to date. That's a negative for the disabled, but it's also a negative for a government that needs achievements, and fast, if it is to have any chance of turning around present polling.

Shorten in particular should rise in stature on the back of the Productivity Commission's report. Without him having championed this issue it would not have entered the mainstream political arena. When you consider the twin issues Shorten has argued for in his time since entering parliament, they are disability services and compulsory superannuation increases. Not a bad double act. He has picked two of the most important issues Australia faces: protecting the most vulnerable and planning for the ageing society of the future.

That is leadership.

If Labor wants to find its soul again and give its traditional working-class base a reason to reconsider voting for it, it could do a lot worse than letting the likes of Shorten play a greater role in identifying the issues that it should pin itself to.

Peter van Onselen is a Winthrop professor at the University of Western Australia.