Post by Iain Dooley on Aug 14, 2016 12:08:29 GMT
This is an email I got from my dad, who suffers chronic pain and has been on the DSP for as long as I can remember. I'm including the message in full as an "open letter" to the AEP (even though it's technically just addressed to me 
and I would consider that the time my dad spent representing himself in a legal battle against the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service was such an undertaking that it could be considered original research (seriously I remember the 1,000s of ring binders and submissions and appendices etc. it was an epic battle). Anyway here is what he wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------
Hi Iainfutureprimeminister,
I'll vote for your party if you address 2 issues.
THE SPARTAN ETHIC. This is something I identified in the process of my dealings with CRS & its parent department (started as Health, Housing, Local Government & Community Services but went through 3 name changes in the period of the court case ~ suffice to call it the Department that operates under the Disability Services Act, hereinafter called the Department, not to be confused with the Department of Social Security or DSS). I believe the Spartan ethic exists at an atavistic instinctual level in broader society.
The Spartan ethic was summed up in my 'Vehicles Analogy' in Appendix 4 of my submissions which I will happily relate to you orally whenever you want ~ it would take about 5 minutes.
Basically the Spartan ethic consists of a rejection of people with a disability and a reluctance to accept their involvement in many areas of 'normal' life including the right to be self determining and the right to engage in employment at whatever level they can manage.
Basically the Department seemed to be able to accept me as a total write off or as having recovered from my disability but not as someone who was in between those extremes. On the day of the AAT hearing I was told at a supposed pre hearing mediation session ordered by the tribunal that I should get a job to pay for the rest of my training. Then in the hearing their lawyer argued that I was not fit to continue my training as my disability was too great. Kathi was there for the whole thing and I have the transcript of the hearing in which the dichotomy was in evidence at several points in their arguments.
I believe it is precognitive reaction the same as exists in animals where sick or injured animals are excluded from the herd. To a greater or lesser extent the fact that the human race has, at least partially, overcome this animal reaction is evidenced by the existence of disability services. This has been part of the process of civilisation ~ but it takes it to another level if an individual with a disability, or I prefer to say a level of disability, wants to do more than just passively accept charity and wants to make decisions about their life and have a career to whatever extent that can be achieved within their limitations.
I truly think that the non disability sector is confused by their feelings about such an individual and his or her aspirations. I hasten to add that the actual legislation, formulated by people who have confronted this confusion in themselves and who are experts in dealing with the area of disability services, is really good. Or at least it used to be ~ I don't know what changes have been made to he Disability Services Act (DSA) since the 90s. The delivery (or should I say non delivery) of the services by ignorant hillbillies is the problem.
I found out about a number of other people with varying levels of disability who had had similar experiences to mine.
DISABILITY LEGAL SERVICES. I believe the Spartan ethic affects lawyers on both sides of disability cases and maybe some judges too although Justice Neaves was exemplary. As I have said, it's something you have to confront in yourself before you accept involvement of disabled people into mainstream society's normal arenas. I'm reminded of Paul Shepanski shamefacedly telling me that the his friends at Kiama Highschool had a term for disabled people ~ TARCRIP ~ short for retarded cripple.
The two other main problems with legal professionals in the area of disability services were a) lack of precedent, and b) ignorance of the relevant laws.
Lack of precedent. Lawyers largely work on applying what other lawyers and judges have done in the past. If there is novel legislation maverick litigators (clients and lawyers) have to fight test cases for future lawyers and judges to rely on for their arguments and deliberations. In the disability services area there is a vicious non cycle because people with disabilities are too busy coping with their disability to have any energy left over to fight legal battles ~ they give up before they start. Basically I would have been better off doing that. This perpetuates a dearth of precedent which mitigates against lawyers wanting to engage in the area so the legislation remains untested.
Obviously a high proportion of disability cases need assistance from Legal Aid ~ but there's a clause in the Legal Aid Act which says that in deciding whether or not to assist someone they must 'have regard to the likelihood of a positive outcome'. So if the lawyers simply don't know what the outcome of a case will be, because there is no precedent, they reject the application. Which brings me to my second point:
Ignorance of relevant legislation. Research needs to be done and lawyers need to be educated in the same ways of thinking and areas as the experts who formulated the legislation. But Legal Aid and Legal agencies, such as the Welfare Rights & Legal Centre that I was dealing with, are chronically underfunded. Their caseloads are huge compared to government lawyers ~ they simply don't have the resources to engage in such research and education. Lawyers I dealt with hadn't read the DSA and didn't understand much of the terminology it used anyway.
An example is the term Independent Living. The DSA allows for a person with a disability to pursue goals of a vocational or independent living nature ~ either singly or concurrently. Independent Living is defined in the CRS manual as a multifaceted concept covering everything from self care to self determination to sexuality. Stephen Langman, the lawyer who I was initially assigned to wouldn't accept that it meant anything other than financial independence. When I said it was a lot more than that, and suggested he should read up on the subject, he said he didn't have the time.
Anyway I could go on for hours ~ but I truly believe that the above factors cheated me out of regaining a proper career in professional music and forced me onto the streets as a busker for the bulk of the latter part of my working life. I suppose, to be completely honest, it was also due to medical mismanagement and negligence on the parts of the Canberra Hospital Pain Management Clinic (in particular Dr Tom Lithgow) and ACT Pharmaceutical Services.
But that's another saga.....
Let me know if you want me to lay the Vehicles Analogy on you sometime.
Love Dad
--------------------------------------------------------
and I would consider that the time my dad spent representing himself in a legal battle against the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service was such an undertaking that it could be considered original research (seriously I remember the 1,000s of ring binders and submissions and appendices etc. it was an epic battle). Anyway here is what he wrote:--------------------------------------------------------
Hi Iainfutureprimeminister,
I'll vote for your party if you address 2 issues.
THE SPARTAN ETHIC. This is something I identified in the process of my dealings with CRS & its parent department (started as Health, Housing, Local Government & Community Services but went through 3 name changes in the period of the court case ~ suffice to call it the Department that operates under the Disability Services Act, hereinafter called the Department, not to be confused with the Department of Social Security or DSS). I believe the Spartan ethic exists at an atavistic instinctual level in broader society.
The Spartan ethic was summed up in my 'Vehicles Analogy' in Appendix 4 of my submissions which I will happily relate to you orally whenever you want ~ it would take about 5 minutes.
Basically the Spartan ethic consists of a rejection of people with a disability and a reluctance to accept their involvement in many areas of 'normal' life including the right to be self determining and the right to engage in employment at whatever level they can manage.
Basically the Department seemed to be able to accept me as a total write off or as having recovered from my disability but not as someone who was in between those extremes. On the day of the AAT hearing I was told at a supposed pre hearing mediation session ordered by the tribunal that I should get a job to pay for the rest of my training. Then in the hearing their lawyer argued that I was not fit to continue my training as my disability was too great. Kathi was there for the whole thing and I have the transcript of the hearing in which the dichotomy was in evidence at several points in their arguments.
I believe it is precognitive reaction the same as exists in animals where sick or injured animals are excluded from the herd. To a greater or lesser extent the fact that the human race has, at least partially, overcome this animal reaction is evidenced by the existence of disability services. This has been part of the process of civilisation ~ but it takes it to another level if an individual with a disability, or I prefer to say a level of disability, wants to do more than just passively accept charity and wants to make decisions about their life and have a career to whatever extent that can be achieved within their limitations.
I truly think that the non disability sector is confused by their feelings about such an individual and his or her aspirations. I hasten to add that the actual legislation, formulated by people who have confronted this confusion in themselves and who are experts in dealing with the area of disability services, is really good. Or at least it used to be ~ I don't know what changes have been made to he Disability Services Act (DSA) since the 90s. The delivery (or should I say non delivery) of the services by ignorant hillbillies is the problem.
I found out about a number of other people with varying levels of disability who had had similar experiences to mine.
DISABILITY LEGAL SERVICES. I believe the Spartan ethic affects lawyers on both sides of disability cases and maybe some judges too although Justice Neaves was exemplary. As I have said, it's something you have to confront in yourself before you accept involvement of disabled people into mainstream society's normal arenas. I'm reminded of Paul Shepanski shamefacedly telling me that the his friends at Kiama Highschool had a term for disabled people ~ TARCRIP ~ short for retarded cripple.
The two other main problems with legal professionals in the area of disability services were a) lack of precedent, and b) ignorance of the relevant laws.
Lack of precedent. Lawyers largely work on applying what other lawyers and judges have done in the past. If there is novel legislation maverick litigators (clients and lawyers) have to fight test cases for future lawyers and judges to rely on for their arguments and deliberations. In the disability services area there is a vicious non cycle because people with disabilities are too busy coping with their disability to have any energy left over to fight legal battles ~ they give up before they start. Basically I would have been better off doing that. This perpetuates a dearth of precedent which mitigates against lawyers wanting to engage in the area so the legislation remains untested.
Obviously a high proportion of disability cases need assistance from Legal Aid ~ but there's a clause in the Legal Aid Act which says that in deciding whether or not to assist someone they must 'have regard to the likelihood of a positive outcome'. So if the lawyers simply don't know what the outcome of a case will be, because there is no precedent, they reject the application. Which brings me to my second point:
Ignorance of relevant legislation. Research needs to be done and lawyers need to be educated in the same ways of thinking and areas as the experts who formulated the legislation. But Legal Aid and Legal agencies, such as the Welfare Rights & Legal Centre that I was dealing with, are chronically underfunded. Their caseloads are huge compared to government lawyers ~ they simply don't have the resources to engage in such research and education. Lawyers I dealt with hadn't read the DSA and didn't understand much of the terminology it used anyway.
An example is the term Independent Living. The DSA allows for a person with a disability to pursue goals of a vocational or independent living nature ~ either singly or concurrently. Independent Living is defined in the CRS manual as a multifaceted concept covering everything from self care to self determination to sexuality. Stephen Langman, the lawyer who I was initially assigned to wouldn't accept that it meant anything other than financial independence. When I said it was a lot more than that, and suggested he should read up on the subject, he said he didn't have the time.
Anyway I could go on for hours ~ but I truly believe that the above factors cheated me out of regaining a proper career in professional music and forced me onto the streets as a busker for the bulk of the latter part of my working life. I suppose, to be completely honest, it was also due to medical mismanagement and negligence on the parts of the Canberra Hospital Pain Management Clinic (in particular Dr Tom Lithgow) and ACT Pharmaceutical Services.
But that's another saga.....
Let me know if you want me to lay the Vehicles Analogy on you sometime.
Love Dad
--------------------------------------------------------
