|
|
Post by aussieinusa on May 22, 2014 12:48:03 GMT 7
|
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on May 22, 2014 13:07:51 GMT 7
|
|
|
|
Post by aussieinusa on May 23, 2014 11:21:36 GMT 7
I've given the report a first skim-read (first 150 pages, anyway) and I'm extremely unimpressed. "Equality, Capacity and Disability in Commonwealth Laws" should not be the name of this report; it should be something more like "Amending Commonwealth Law about who gets to speak for people with Disability".
Most of the individual submissions they published were written by family members who lost money they expected to inherit when a non-family member became their relative's guardian... and most of what the ALRC have delivered is just what those people would like, i.e. family getting their hands on PWD's money rather than strangers. What I've read so far is mostly about giving legal privilege to non-disabled family members to make decisions for us (over non-related people), with a few checks and balances about how much decision-making power people have on our behalf.
They had extremely broad terms of reference, and it looks like they've narrowed it down to being mostly about decision-making powers, which I understand given time constraints, but looks like they've really dropped the ball as far as the "Equality" part of it.
Just a first impression, and maybe on a second reading I'll find more to like. But so far: not impressed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on May 23, 2014 12:03:39 GMT 7
We're somewhat in a state of flux at the moment with fighting the reassessment of DSP recipients having equal or greater discussion time on the forum as portability.
Should we come up with a group response where do you think we should go with it?
|
|
|
|
Post by aussieinusa on May 23, 2014 12:18:29 GMT 7
In particular, these are the questions (from the 'easy english' version of the issues paper) that seem to have been ignored in their draft proposals:
The other questions from the original issues paper are answered well (and yes, it's a long list) but these ones seem to have fallen through the cracks.
This is no doubt in part because most of us cripples are basically shut out of the process, so instead of getting a pile of submissions from us, most of the individual submissions came from relatives who lost an inheritance due to their relative having someone else appointed guardian by the court.
Ideally at least some of us would send them submissions with our experiences with discrimination, trying to work, dealing with Centrelink, etc., and our ideas about how the laws could be changed to make things fairer.
|
|
|
|
Post by aussieinusa on May 23, 2014 12:20:54 GMT 7
We're somewhat in a state of flux at the moment with fighting the reassessment of DSP recipients having equal or greater discussion time on the forum as portability. Should we come up with a group response where do you think we should go with it? It would be great if we could get together a group response that deals with some of the questions above; I'll have a think about how to structure it so it's succinct and reflects the common experiences all/most of the DSPers, APers with disabilities etc. here have in common. I think the common thread about the things above (or at least, the ones that effect all/most of us) is that question of making ends meet and having some minimal quality of life. It's not the law's job to provide us a decent living though; just to remove legal barriers that stop us having access to the same things others take for granted. |
|
|
|
Post by zingzingzing on May 23, 2014 13:46:57 GMT 7
I'll be making a private submission, but thanks for going through some of it already.
|
|
|
|
Post by aussieinusa on May 24, 2014 17:23:27 GMT 7
Good to hear, zingzingzing. This is one of the few chances we have to speak up for ourselves and possibly be listened to, so the more of us let them know the issues we experience, the better. |
|
|
|
Post by zingzingzing on May 30, 2014 18:09:06 GMT 7
Having a quick read through the questions on the online submission form.
This sounds like getting rid of the protections, rather than improving them (considering that Disability Commissioner recently got the sack & privatizing disability employment programs).
i.e. Proposal 2-1 says:
The Australian Government should review the Interpretative Declaration in relation to art 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities with a view to withdrawing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Denis-NFA on May 30, 2014 23:16:19 GMT 7
Good to hear, zingzingzing. This is one of the few chances we have to speak up for ourselves and possibly be listened to, so the more of us let them know the issues we experience, the better. Thank you aussieinusa, and others, for spending the time. I do not have the energy any more to contribute so I appreciate your efforts. All the best. |
|
