The clear intent of the new Disability Bill of Victoria is demonstrated by the deliberate omission of the word "services" from the name of the act. There are 2 things patent in this diabolical law - that less is the new more and the other is that which was expressed by Steve Bracks and that is the right ........ to live and participate in the community on an equal footing with other citizens of Victoria ..... becomes an expectation and voila we are in the brave new world ceated by a legislature which has transformed a civil society into an economy.

How does one insure against the accidents of birth or life? If you are left disabled insurance payouts are capped for almost all civil and/or criminal injuries. I don't know what comfort can be had knowing that catastrphic injuries, if there is insurance may provide adequate payout.

In this world we are all vulnerable and it is we the people who must choose whether we want an an economy or a civil society which responds humanely to human need.

Peter Giblisco's comment on the Victorian State Disability Plan reflect the hard facts of Victoria's disability services: there is no entitlement/right to service and access to support is based on this being in the context of a fair priority.
The new disabilty legislation to come into effect 1 July 2007 reinforces these hard facts. Debate on the legislation highlights that the government refused to legislate a right to service, choosing instead to legislate for the Secretary of the Department to develop and publish criteria to enable priority of access to disability services to be determined in a fair manner.

Questions do need to be asked though as to why Peter is applying for HomeFirst, a capped program which has supposedly been superseded by Support and Choice, an uncapped program. Peter should be able to revise his Support and Choice plan, include additional/varied service needs, and submit to regional DHS office. Support and Choice was initiated to reflect the intent of the State Plan.

Sadly, Victoria's disability service managers and providers are apparently very reluctant to relinquish the comfortable jobs they now have, when it is so easy to say "There's no money".

Given the lack of concerned people/organisations making submissions to the Federal Senate Inquiry into the funding and operation of the Commonwealth State Disability Agreement, it is small wonder that governments ignore the rights and needs of people with disabilities and their families.
Margaret Ryan

Margaret Ryan

I don't know much about disability services etc, because so far in my life I haven't had to find out about them.

However, I noticed that Peter keeps talking about his contribution to society (which I don't doubt for a minute). I think it is appalling that people who are obviously in need of assistance (which we could so easily give them), feel the need to have to justify why society should meet that need.

Yet there are people in society with obscene wealth (who obviously don't "need" it at all), and the mechanisms of society seem to justify them having it - and help them get more of it.

There is something seriously wrong here.

Margaret

There are more differences between Home First and Support and Choice than you describe. Home First is used solely to find services provided by carers and other workers, whereas Support and Choice is more flexible. Some people have both.

Liz

I agree whilst Social inclusion is the aim, it is quite another to actually achieve it. I struggle with work in understanding the challenges that disabled people have in just getting to work, let alone meet their performance targets. In someways via technology and constant battling those of us with challenges have come a long way - but this week has made me realise that we have such a looong way to go still. My dream is to take Worker's with Disabilities out of the too hard basket into the "what can we do to help" basket. It's a mind shift that Management don't want to take on, but will have to face one day.