I am also sympathetic to the cause of disabled people (my aunt has both intellectual and physical disablities and has lived in a group home since she was 18. She is now 50.), but I found the article difficult to read in its double-speak, as others have noted.

To me, the main issue for people with disablities is the frustration and stupidity of constantly changing rules. For example, every two years my aunt has to have a full medical work up from her GP, who then has to write a comprehensive report on her health and ability to work and function independently. (For centrelink etc) Every time the criteria gets tighter, and causes both her and her mother (now in her late 70s) much stress and anxiety that she will be forced out of her living situation. Surely, after 32 years in an assisted living environment, only ever working in a protected workshop situation a day or two a week, it would be recognised that there is no miracle cure, and they would stop harrassing her?

I know there has to be accountablity, and that the 'system' has to stop people falsely claiming benefits, but it is very difficult for those with legitimate claims.

saintfletcher, this government is what my GP calls them, "Evil".

He calls them evil because they are forcing a number of his patients into working who can't. He said that many of them are sicker now than they have been for a long time and the health system is ignoring them.

The Howard Government is a callous, evil, sinful government. So much for their Christian Moral Values.

Laurie, I met this man in his late 60's who was caring for his son in the mid 40's. His son is Autistic and has Cerebal Pausy and every two years, they try to force this disabled person, who is a vegetable, back into the workforce.

Howard & Co. need a certain necktie.

I support the content of the article and I also support the comments of Pericles. My view is that at least the subject is being debated and we can hound politicians and agencies with these and our own opinions. I have a disability that is not typically classified as such, however it does determine my ability to work. I think that it is important that people such as myself are recognised within the classification of disabilities so that we have a chance to improve our quality of life. So I support any activity that could or would work towards this.

Being both married to a person with a disability, having a father who has had a stroke and paralysed, and having worked in the field supporting people with high needs in "open employment" I understand the issues from both sides of the fence, but really am left less than impressed with this paltry offering. Do these people actually have any contact with people with disabilities? I haven't seen many references to Down's syndrome by people who actually work with these people and know it's technically Down syndrome, but I'm being a bit too picky methinks.

Part of the reason that people have to go from one place to another for services is that these disabilities require in depth and expert care. I would rather traipse around seeing three people who know what they are doing rather than one who is OK at most stuff, jack of all trades and master of none. Or were they talking of integrated service delivery? I can’t make that one out.

Also, anyone with half an ounce of experience knows that the federal/state funding divide is what causes most anxiety. The number of times I have tried to get a client (not consumer, that is one of the most abominable descriptors I have ever come across) in to a service that would particularly help them only to be told that I have to either get them out of one they were already in because they are already "federally funded" and seeing this new program was "state funded" they were seeing as double dipping. You see they were already having some needs met and having them part of two service providers meant that someone who had nothing missed out, and again, who gets the "stats" for getting them in to self sustainability? Me or them?

We need empathy not sympathy