It really gets me hopping mad!

I need to get something off my chest. I get more than a little annoyed with people like our Prime Minister and the likes of Dick Smith issuing holy writ on matters that they clearly know little about.

Not long ago, in speaking to a report on Australia’s aging population, Prime Minister Rudd virtually decreed that we will all need to work harder. Sure, we know that our aging population will require a higher tax take on the diminishing work force over time; no sensible person would deny that and it didn’t really need the authority of a formal report to declare it so. But work harder? What kind of a solution is that?

Australians are known the world over as hard workers – Aussies don’t shirt putting in the hard yards. What the PM really means is that we’ll all have to work longer hours to get paid more so that the ATO can tax us harder. Putting aside the fact that this is really a non-solution from a Prime Minister who simply doesn’t have the ticker to name the elephant in the room, it’s deeply offensive to all Australians and young families in particular when families (working families) are already stressed beyond reason and good sense in the time that they’re away from the home striving to pay the bills.

The elephant in the room, by the way, is the reality that we’re beginning to reap what we’ve sewn over the past thirty years and more. Every economist knows that children and young families drive the domestic economy. Abortion isn’t simply a choice for an individual – it has significant long term ramifications for all of us. When we begin to understand that many of those children aborted in the 1970s and even 1980s would themselves now be forming their own families we can see the compounding effect that these ‘choices’ have.

And while the real answer to the aging population lies in increasing the nation’s birth rate from the current (admittedly historically high) 1.9 children to at least the basic replacement rate of 2.1 children per couple, there are other breast beating prophets who would rather see us spare the planet by putting humanity on the endangered species list.

Renowned entrepreneur, Dick Smith, recently called for families to limit their offspring to only two children for the sake of the planet. Smith, like the earlier famed Malthusian, Paul Ehrlich, either simply doesn’t get humanity or ignores ‘inconvenient truths’ for the sake of his argument. Smith bases his apocryphal predictions that an increase in our population will spell doom for us all on the premise that our food and water supplies simply could not cope with this increase. Smith, like Ehrlich before him, fails to consider the ingenuity of mankind and our ability to find solutions to complex problems (that is, when we’re not wasting time and money at events like Copenhagen!).

Maybe I’m just riding high on my hobby horse. Please, you don’t have to believe what I say, check it out for yourself. Two movies that should have won Nobel Prizes instead of Al Gore: Demographic Winter and the Population Bomb tell the real story.

You can view the trailers at: http://www.demographicwinter.com/index.html

On disability, euthanasia and the State Election

In my last blog entry, I began by quoting former US Vice President Hubert Humphrey on the moral test of a good government. I argued that the only true measure of a just society (not just of government) should be how we treat those who “live at the margins”, experiencing poverty, dysfunction, disability, homelessness etc.

This disability question is extremely and personally important to me for a number of reasons. Firstly, I have a young son with Down Syndrome and my wife’s brother lived his whole life with a significant disability. My Upper House running mate, David McCabe’s brother also lives with a disability. I know that Dave would agree with me when I say that the profound and immeasurable privilege of sharing in the lives of these wonderful individuals in all their pains and their joys makes progressing justice and dignity for those with a disability ‘deeply personal’.

Secondly, as some of you will know, I am a long time campaigner against euthanasia and assisted suicide. When I read the literature, it is blindingly obvious to me that the mere legalization of voluntary euthanasia (VE) or Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) in places such as the Netherlands, Switzerland and some US States, at the very least, becomes the ‘elephant in the room’ for those living with a disability in those places.

As many disability activists have noted, it is not that they feel their lives at imminent risk. It is more about the eventual extension of who qualifies for VE and PAS to more and more groups of persons. It is about doctors, trained to save, who become desensitized to the value of life once they begin down that path. Think about questions of scarce and expensive medical resources and a judgement about who is worthy to receive them and who isn’t. And, closer to home, once society accepts that some lives are of more value than others, it is not difficult to foresee the beginnings of a subtle shift away from principles of equity and justice for the disabled.

This is scary stuff indeed, but it is also the reality in some places and it might be where we’re heading too.

As many of you will recall, SA Greens MLC, Mark Parnell’s recent euthanasia bill was defeated in the Upper House by one vote not two months ago. The closeness of the debate shocked me, especially considering the flaws in the bill and the clear risks associated with it.

I was also shocked, and deeply dismayed by the references in speeches by Mr. Parnell and the Hon Ann Bressington to a talk given by Dr. Paul Collier on the steps of Parliament House on the 28th of October at a rally in favour of this bill organised by the SA Voluntary Euthanasia Society.

As Mr. Parnell mentioned, Dr. Collier was a candidate at the last State Election for Dignity for the Disabled (now Dignity for Disability) and may stand again for the March 2010 election.

Let me say, at this point, that I respect every person’s right to hold and promote their views. I also know something of Dr. Collier’s work and admire his advocacy and passion. The fact that by his appearance at the SAVES rally and by the references to what he is reported to have said (appearing in Parliamentary Hansard), it is obvious to me that he supports a right to choose euthanasia and would, I imagine, therefore support pro-euthanasia legislation. That’s his right.

I do question, however, the fact that, by the wording of the SAVES leaflet for the event, he spoke as a representative of Dignity for Disability. Even if he were to have made it known (and he may have) that what he said that day in favour of euthanasia was his own private view and not necessarily that of Dignity for Disability I would seriously question the right of anyone to formally represent any organisation whilst espousing a view on something so fundamental as life and death, where the organisation had no policy position on the issue and where, in all probability, the membership had not the opportunity to express their views.

As for Dr. Collier’s candidacy at the next election, I would suggest that his public position on such a contentious issue, (particularly for those with a disability, as I have already discussed) has the potential to fracture the organisation and to dissipate support. If the candidates have yet to be chosen, I urge their selection committee to give this matter serious consideration.

Ultimately, if Dr. Collier is a candidate for the Upper House, then I respectfully suggest that South Australians who want a fair go for disability have a clear choice: support for the Democratic Labor Party is representative advocacy that respects life – what we call true human dignity.

Your views are welcome. I would love to hear from people living with a disability and those who represent the various peak bodies.

Note: anyone who wanted to follow up literature supporting my position vis-a-vis disability and euthanasia and assisted suicide would do well to read the online version of the US Disability and Health Journal this month, particularly the article by Diane Coleman.

(Go to: www.disabilityandhealthjnl.com/current) You can also read a summary article at: www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/is_death_better_than_disability.

Priorities

“The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.”
Last speech of Hubert Humphrey 1 Nov 1977

A close friend of mine reminded me of these fine words of the US Vice President and Senator, Hubert Humphrey. Humphrey retired after this speech from the last of an impressive list of public offices he had held during his long career in public life. I get the sense that this reflection, only months before his death, was the synthesis of the creed he had lived by rather than simply musings on regrets for things left undone.

I had been expressing to my friend my own thoughts about how we measure the success of our society. Should it be by the number of stadiums we have, by the new hospitals we build, by the achievements of our sporting stars or by way of a ‘triple A’ credit rating? Should it be by the regular ranking of ‘league tables’ that score each state and city in the Commonwealth by its liveability?

Paraphrasing Humphrey, surely the only true measure of a just society is about how we treat those in or midst that live at the margins; that experience poverty, dysfunction, disability, loneliness and fear. All other achievements, no matter how grand, come to nothing if we cannot protect and support the vulnerable; answering their need and ensuring, as far as is possible, that they enjoy access to the benefits of our modern society in equal measure with everyone else.

Folks, in SA we fail this test. There remain in this State, pockets of significant disadvantage where, amongst other social ills, children may have never seen someone in their household go off to work. Having no positive modelling, a lack of hope and sense of purpose is a breeding ground for all manner of social dysfunction.

We know well that Families SA social workers are overworked and under resourced. If we’re to protect children properly, to support families in their needs and to build social cohesion (rather than the current band aid approach) we’ve simply got to resource these frontline workers better and to let them know that their work is valued.

How is it in this State that we have a long waiting list for mobility devices for disabled children? How is it that parents of students with disabilities frequently report that they feel victimized and unwelcomed at their local schools? These are not matters that should be on the government budget ‘wish list’ to be fixed at some future time when the coffers are fatter; these are matters of basic human dignity which should be priority one.

All we’re asking our government to do is simply to draw up their budgets based on human dignity and answering the needs of the marginalized and the disabled. That’s essentially what every family does: we feed and clothe the children, pay the bills and then, with what’s left, maybe plan for a new car, a holiday (stadium, tramline)etc. Is it that difficult, really?

It might seem like a cliché, to say that society as a whole suffers when we do not answer the call of those in need, but it’s true. The reverse is also true: the more care we take for those in need the better our society will be because respect and compassion bear good fruits.