Page 2877 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 14 August 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
its founding principles was that people with a disability should be able to enjoy life to the same extent as people without a disability. Whilst the rhetoric of empowerment, respect and autonomy remains, it has been heartbreaking to see those principles trashed in implementation. And now, when it comes to the sexual release of those with a disability, here comes the paternalism, straight from the 1950s, straight from the worst of the shameful past of mistreating, institutionalising and abusing the vulnerable.
We are a better society today, but not according to the National Disability Insurance Agency, and not according to the relevant federal minister, Stuart Robert. They seem to reckon that treating people with a disability as whole people by providing sexual release—
MADAM SPEAKER: Ms Cody, you are running quite close. You can talk in general terms, but saying that we have been provided with proof that this matter—
MS CODY: This was in a newspaper article. That is fine?
MADAM SPEAKER: Just be very mindful.
MS CODY: Okay. Beyond the right to sexuality, there is another principle at stake in this debate. That is the role of government. When, as a society, we accepted the responsibility to take proper care of people with a disability, just as earlier we had done for the aged or the unemployed, some people seemed to take it as an opportunity to rob them of their dignity. The NDIS is insurance; it is not an invitation into the bedrooms of the disabled. For all the talk of libertarianism we sometimes get from the right in Australia, their enthusiasm to get into the bedrooms and lifestyles of those receiving assistance seems pervy and gross.
I hear persistent rumours that the Indue card is coming for pensioners. I see the NDIS being used not as a support for those with a disability but to micromanage their lives, to sort the worthy from the unworthy poor. I reject the idea of a society where the rich and powerful can do what they like and the poor have the morality of the worst of moralising politicians imposed upon them.
Whilst the court case was about sex therapy, my motion also captures sex work. This city has a long history of being a leader in the sex industry, be it pornography or prostitution. It is something we should be proud of. For those with a disability, the services of sex workers can be especially important. Social isolation and prejudice mean that some people with disabilities are unable to find partners. In other cases, people with physical disabilities may not be able to reach their genitals or may not have the dexterity to masturbate successfully. As a society, we should lend them a hand.
In my research for this motion, I came across some very informative case studies. I would like to highlight one now. Heidi, a sex worker from Sydney whose name is not her own, has a few regular clients who have disabilities. She told Hack, a Triple J publication, that people with disabilities who use sex workers for sexual experiences
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video