I'm yet to be pursuaded that the 'insurance' approach to disability funding, as distinct from a 'welfare' approach warrants the effort of implementation.

The only difference, in practical terms, is that every taxpayer would have an extra section in their tax return following the Medicare Levy which would be called a Disability Levy. Every taxpayer would pay it, but whether we call this an 'insurance premium' or a 'taxation levy' really doesn't make much difference.

The more important question, semantics aside, is the political case we develop for disability funding being accorded a higher political priority than, say, corporate welfare. Consider the recent Commonwealth decision to hand out $3.2b of taxpayers money to the car industry (ie four global for-profit corporations) to subsidise their car-making operations in Australia.

This Commonwealth decision is a straight handout driven by political interests. There is no evidence-base for it: in fact all the evidence shows that this $3.2 billion will be money poured down the drain - there will be no long term impact on the competitiveness or business viability of the local car industry.

Should we have a universal insurance scheme to raise funds to subsidise our car makers? We could. But in reality governments will continue to offer car-makers 'welfare handouts' even as they cut back funding in areas of significant human need. Corporate welfare is driven by political imperatives, not 'evidence' or 'good policy'.

The case for increased, consumer-directed disability funding also relies on the generation of an electoral imperative which governments cannot ignore. At the moment they can ignore it, because the electoral impact of the disability community is miniscule, courtesy of a weak tradition of political self-organisation by that community. Car-makers, sugar-cane farmers, and elite sports bodies, to name but a few, know how to organise and get politicians to give them what they want.

In the end, the capacity for political organisation by the disability community, is the decisive factor in determining whether we will have a paradigm shift in disability funding arrangements.

Vern Hughes
National Federation of Parents, Families and Carers
federation@civilsociety.org.au

Hello Peter

New Zealand has a wonderful government-run, universal, no fault accident compensation scheme called ACC that started 35 years ago. It is funded by small levies on motor vehicle registration and on all workers, but it covers all NZers injured by accident whether they are earners or not. It covers all medical expenses, rehab, technology, disability support, wage compensation and even trauma from witnessing something horrific. Unfortunately, the new right wing National government wants to privatise it!