Naming values, and the values of names

Being immersed in two projects funded by the NDIS Practical Design Fund, it has been harder than usual to keep up with the rapidly developing NDIS scene. However, last week's government announcement that the NDIS will be known as Disability Care Australia warrants a response, however late.

The announcement seems to have come as a surprise to many, including us, though we have been told the disability sector peak bodies were briefed on the process and given the opportunity to comment.

It is no surprise that some people might see the upside of a word like ‘care’. At its broadest level it carries meaning about compassion, about connection, and who doesn’t want some of that in their lives. The British media yesterday reported the UK government’s response to a public enquiry about health, concluding that the National Health Service needs more compassionate care. I can entirely see how a comparable sentiment may have brought the word ‘care’ to the list of possible names for the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

But this is a word that has layers of meaning, making it a problematic choice for the scheme’s name. And I encourage people not to make the mistake of assuming that name selection is a minor issue, a sideshow that has little consequence given the other important considerations about the scheme’s design and implementation. The name is a brand, intended to convey the values of the scheme. As such it is the first and most telling signal of the scheme’s culture. More on this later.

The difficulty of using the word care is well summed up in the following excerpt from Craig Wallace’s opinion piece for the ABC's Ramp Up:

“Instead of choosing a name that speaks to a new world, of rights, choice, inclusion and control, with people at the centre, we have a moniker that puts people with disability to one side - as people to be cared for. It spells more of the same.”

Hitting a similar vein, the National Council on Intellectual Disability posed the question, “Where is the language of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities?”

Further, one Facebook contributor to the debate suggested the only way the use of the word care could be less unacceptable would be if it were applied to every Commonwealth government department, for example the Department of Infrastructure and Transport Care, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet Care, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Care etc.

In its defence, the Commonwealth government might argue the name Disability Care Australia was a good fit with existing public funding brands like Medicare. Understandable, then, that the government might wish to build a brand stable. However, there remains the question on whether it is the right name for its target beneficiaries – people within the disability community.

In this regard, and in addition to consulting with disability peak bodies, we understand the government commissioned a series of focus groups comprising people living with disability and their families from a range of communities around Australia, and that there was good support for the name Disability Care Australia.

If this was the clincher (and it would have to, because the ‘brand stable’ argument isn’t enough by itself to justify the adoption of this tricky word ‘care’), we might seek to deepen our understanding as to the nature of the focus group participants. One might reasonably assume the focus group membership was derived using sampling techniques typical of market research companies, so that the focus groups bring a range of perspectives typical of Australia's disability community.

If true, fair enough, but focus groups are typically small so there are limits on what a focus group can tell you about trends across a broader population, especially the complex, multi-layered population called the disability community. But let’s just stay a little longer with the focus group issue.

I don’t know the focus group research agency’s identity so I am drawn to this next question: what did that agency truly understand about disability community demographics. It may have known enough to look for focus group participants with, among other things, perspectives covering person and family, metropolitan, regional and rural Australia, and the differing causes or types of disability. But this isn’t enough. However small or large the consultation, a demographic we cannot afford to overlook is the range of experiences that different people have in accessing support. What I mean by this is there are people within the disability community who have had differing types of experience with the disability service system. This includes people who have been ‘done to’ by the system, rendered passive service recipients, neglected or worse, and where the notion of care has become synonymous with an absence of control and choice, of being mis-served by paid carers who don’t.

It is not unusual to find that this particular demographic of painful service experience comprises people with greater degrees of disability and vulnerability, with less voice heard. These are the people who arguably have the greatest moral stake in the new system, because they are often the most distant from good life chances. These are the people we might hope can make the greatest advances in their life chances as a result of the changes.

If this is true, and I believe it to be, then because of the damage done in its name to some of those with the greatest stake in the success of the new system, the word ‘care’ should not have made the long-list of naming options, let alone the focus group short-list, let along being anointed as the chosen one.

The NDIS reflects a set of values the government wishes to advance and uphold; values around control, choice, participation in community life and participation in the economy. For values to truly come alive in any field of human endeavour, every decision and every action needs to be coherent and consistent with those values. Otherwise, the values will die the death of a thousand cuts, where a sequence of misaligned decisions and actions, however well-intentioned, serve to wound the intended values-based culture.

Ultimately, the success of the NDIS hinges on its capacity to live out the stated values, to express a values-based culture that advances people’s chances of a good life. Every decision and action taken will either contribute to, or undermine, the emergence of that values-based culture. Choosing a new name for the scheme is one such decision. Because of the complex and diverse perceptions of the word ‘care’, including for some people a profound negative emotional weight, it doesn’t present itself as an obvious choice to encompass the scheme and its values, and I don’t think the prospects are good for its rehabilitation.

I remain hopeful that the government – indeed the various governments including bipartisan support – truly wish to see a paradigm shift in the way people living with disability are supported, in line with our nation’s commitment to the UN Convention and the values underpinning it. If so, choosing a name for the NDIS warrants further reflection, in the hope that a different name emerges that better captures the values we want the new system to live by.

Will the earth move?

image by  'Leagun' www.sxc.hu

As the disability community watches and waits for the design and implementation of a National Disability Insurance Scheme, opposition leader Tony Abbott did no one any favours when he opined last month that the proposed scheme was an aspirational goal that should only be realised when the Australian economy was in strong surplus.

This brought an understandable reaction from many people within the disability community, and also more recently from members of the Liberal Party’s Parliamentary caucus.

Notwithstanding such pushback, there appears to be increased fretting in political circles about the estimated funding shortfall for the scheme, which rose from $6 billion to over $8 billion as a result of the recent Fair Work Australia ruling on pay equity for staff in the social and community services sector.  

This means the national disability debate could become framed by the timing of the Australian economy achieving surplus, and how aggressive each party’s first budget will be to deliver this surplus should they win government in 2013. 

It is wrong to place increased disability support funding in the context of a surplus economy. Increased funding is intended to advance people's reasonable expectations of ordinary valued life chances. In other words, it is about people getting a fair go, based on every person's inherent value and potential as a human being.

This includes the value of a person having authorship of their own life, accessing opportunities on the same basis as other people, being able to participate in community life, and having authentic active membership of the club called Australia. 

Upholding and advancing these values should not be conditional on an economy in surplus.  And if a National Disability Insurance Scheme is designed to uphold these values, its introduction should be based not on the arrival of surplus but on the principle of doing the right thing.

For contrast, let us look to our neighbours New Zealand.  Despite having a deficit economy that will be around for at least the next several years, the New Zealand government, with bipartisan support, has committed over 8 billion dollars to help rebuild people's lives following the earthquakes in Christchurch.

Some people might argue this is not a helpful comparison because a response to the consequences of an earthquake in New Zealand is different to a response to the consequences of living with disability in Australia.  I disagree, because there are clear similarities.

Both situations involve hundreds of thousands of citizens living with an issue that has had a dramatic impact on their prospects for housing, employment, daily living, health, and participation in community life.

Both situations will cost billions of dollars in remedies, to build or rebuild the capacity of people and communities.

Both siutations involve remedies that will lead to a positive stimulus for the economy.

Both situations are taking place in countries that currently have a deficit economy.

Both situations demand action now, because it would be wrong to leave people in such desperate circumstances.

New Zealand has taken action.  Australia has not.

Be it the large jolt of a high magnitude earthquake or the relentless multi-generational rumble of exclusion and discrimination, the urgency of the imperative is similar.  We cannot wait for a surplus economy before we do the right thing by the Australian disability community.  

Why I won't be observing International Day of People with Disability

First, apologies for the long absence.  I've been away, and now I'm back.

image from website www.idpwd.com.au/

Tomorrow (3 December) is the annual International Day of People with Disability (IDPWD).   I won't be observing it.

IDPWD was established in 1992 by the United Nations General Assembly, at the conclusion of the United Nations’ Decade of Disabled Persons (1983-1992), to promote awareness of disability issues and the abilities of people with a disability.  In Australia its observance is coordinated by the Department of Families Housing Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA). Their aim for the day is "promote an understanding of people with disability and encourage support for their dignity, rights and well-being. The day also seeks to increase awareness of the benefits of the integration of people with disability in every aspect of political, social, economic and cultural life".

So who should celebrate it?  People Living with Disability and the families in their lives?  Hardly.  There's not a lot to celebrate in Australia if you live with disability.    As reported most recently in PriceWaterhouseCooper's Disability Expectations; Investing In A Better Life, A Stronger Australia, people living with disability are half as likely as non-disabled people to be employed and we look particularly bad when compared to other OECD member countries (the OECD is the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development whose mission is "to promote policies that will improve the economic and social well-being of people around the world").  Poverty is a common experience for people living with disability. Across the OECD countries 22% of people living with disability are living in or near poverty.  In Australia it is double that.  In Australia the amount of money that is spent on long-term support for people under 65 is around half that spent in other countries like UK, Sweden and Denmark.  

Maybe service agencies?  I can imagine a lot of agencies will be hosting events, where they hope to raise awareness of disability.  I am sure there is plenty of good intention behind this, and the events will be appreciated by those involved.  However, because of the way most services are currently funded and arranged, chances are that individual people living with disability are not getting a full and fair opportunity to grow into a highly personalised  ordinary valued life.  Not enough to celebrate there.

How about the wider community?  I understand the sentiment of the day, which is to prick the conscience of the broader community, to raise awareness of people's circumstances.  The problem is when we do this on just one 'official' day we inadvertently train the community that they only have to think about disability once a year.  And maybe send a donation.

There is no point in having one day of the year where people make a fuss of your situation for it to then be placed in the unchanging shadows the rest of the time.  That is why I won't be observing it.

I was talking to an overseas colleague earlier this week, who sees Australia on the edge of a great opportunity, given the work of the Productivity Commission on a National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).  If crafted and implemented well, an entitlement-based funding scheme could see Australia leap-frogging other nations in giving people living with disability authentic control of their lives, a fair go at funding support, and the chance to be part of community life as valued citizens.

It's all about If.  A small word with big consequences.  But if this happens, then Australia's observance of International Day of People With Disability would be a much more authentic celebration.




You can join the campaign for an entitlement-based funding scheme (NDIS) by clicking here. 

Commissioning Productive Citizens: an imaginary conversation

First, apologies for the long lay-off from the blog, which was caused by a perfect storm of annual leave, crushing deadlines and miscellaneous turbulence.  Normal service has been resumed.

The Productivity Commission released its draft report here on the future of disability care and support. The full report is two volumes of around 800 pages and reading it is a formidable task. Even the short version has novella dimensions. However, we might be encouraged by such density if it suggests there has been much sincere thinking. After all, this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change the way that our society supports people living with disability.

Since its release at the end of February, the draft report has excited a number of conversations, and people have the opportunity to make formal written comments to the Productivity Commission here by 30 April 2011. In addition people can have their say at the series of public hearings that the productivity commission is undertaking in the main metropolitan areas. These are happening now - click here for details.

It can be hard to know where to start in trying to unpack such a large report. One helpful way is to attempt to describe the report in 15 seconds, as though being interviewed on the street by a reporter. In which case, I would use my 15 seconds to make two points: first, the draft report acknowledges that disability support funding in Australia is profoundly inadequate and doubling-up the funding by $6 billion is a good start; and second, the report proposes a national scheme of entitlement where eligible people living with disability get individualised funding in line with their support needs. This is a very good thing.

If the imaginary reporter found my response sufficiently engaging and awarded me a bonus 45 seconds to talk about some of the main features, I would say the draft report appears to assert the scheme would operate in the context of people living good lives, as valued members of the community and as active participants in the economy, with expectations that mainstream services such as education, health, and transport would be routinely, properly, inclusive.  I would enthuse that support funding would be assessed not just on each person’s present situation but also on the future, with a focus on the person’s strengths, capacity, and vision.

I would also note the draft report says eligible people could receive their support funding in one of three main ways: as a direct payment (“cashed out”), or via a third-party brokerage agency, or via a direct relationship with their nominated support agency. All three options are typical features within the methodologies of Individualised (self directed) Funding operating elsewhere.

So in just one minute, it is possible to identify the most thrilling elements of the draft report: entitlement-based funding, designed to assist people into ordinary valued lives, and personalised via Individualised (self-directed) Funding.

At this point, my imaginary reporter, on the hunt for a ripper sound bite, might ask me what is wrong with the draft report, and to take as much time as I want, because grumpy sound bites are particularly entertaining. I would kick off with the complicated issue of whether people should pay a contribution to their disability support. In the draft report people will not be required to make an ongoing contribution to their own disability support, at least not until they reach the age of 65. This is because people accessing aged care funding are typically over the age of 65, and they are assessed for co-contribution.

I'm not entirely convinced there need be a separate funding mechanism for older people because, if you stop to think about it, the support issues for older people and those for people living with disability are similar; for example, assistance with daily tasks, access to equipment and adaptations, community transport, support to remain connected in relationships,and support to maintain participation in (and contribution to) community life. I think it might be better to have a single funding support mechanism to assist people, regardless of the cause of their circumstances.

I would note to my imaginary reporter that the name National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is a problem.  The word insurance is not helpful , and I've said so before here. Most people's understanding of insurance is an arrangement where you pay a premium to cover the risk of something happening in the future, so that you receive assistance if it does. However the proposed NDIS will cater for people who already have their disability. Indeed, the people who will be excluded from the National disability Insurance Scheme will be those people whose disability has resulted from an insured event such as a road traffic accident, who instead will be directed to the proposed National Injury Insurance Scheme (NIIS). This parallel scheme is presumably deemed to be necessary because the states and territories have differing approaches for providing funding support for people injured in road traffic accidents etc. The Productivity Commission's draft report says that the states and territories would need to work together to link their various injury insurance arrangements into a national scheme. It will be interesting to see how that plays out in reality, and it will be particularly important that the NDIS and the NIIS have good interconnectivity so there is common best practice.  Otherwise we will create two classes of citizenhood within the disability community.

The draft report envisages the establishment of a new independent agency to run this the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I know there have been some concerns voiced about this and how it might be a vehicle for the perpetuation of unhelpful bureaucracy. However, to be fair to the Productivity Commission, I am not yet clear on what the better alternative might be.

Someone somewhere has to determine the mathematical model that underpins the generation and distribution of funds for the scheme. Someone somewhere has to determine the visionary and strategic parameters for the scheme.  Someone somewhere has to determine the operational policies and procedures that will help ensure that the scheme reflects best known practice in personalised funding and supports. Someone somewhere will need to determine and oversee how people apply for funding support. Someone somewhere will need to determine if the overall scheme is operating as it should be and the extent to which it is making a positive difference in people's lives. 

The alternative to a stand-alone new agency would be an existing federal government department, such as FaHCSIA, or federal government agency, such as Centrelink, or through a dispersed arrangement involving state and territory bodies. Each of these alternatives has its own problems. The advantage of a new stand-alone agency is that the agency can be calibrated, and the people within it recruited, to establish the culture best-suited to assisting people living with disability into ordinary valued lives.

In which case, the problem that I have is not with the idea of a new agency, but with its governance arrangements. The draft report envisages that the new agency will be governed by a board comprising people with expertise in insurance, finance, management etc. Unfortunately there is no mention of people having a lived experience of disability. While the draft report talks of a separate advisory panel where the perspectives of people living with disability, together with other stakeholders, can be channelled through to the board of the National disability Insurance Agency, this will not be good enough to ensure that the agency operates in a way that best delivers an authentic impact on people's lives. The board needs to include members who have a lived experience of disability.

If anything, the problem I have is with the proposed agency's governance arrangements. The draft report envisages the new agency be governed by a board comprising people with expertise in insurance, finance, management etc.  These are all sensible skill sets.  Unfortunately, it is an incomplete list because there is no mention of board member expertise in the lived experience of disability. While the draft report talks of a separate advisory council where the perspectives of people living with disability, together with other stakeholders, can be channelled through to the agency's board, this will not be good enough to ensure that the agency does the right thing by the disability community.  The board itself needs to include members who have a lived experience of disability.

At this point my imaginary reporter is probably interrupting me because I have not delivered the grumpy-and-entertaining sound bite, and is demanding that I sum up in less than 10 seconds the main problem with the draft report.

I would quote Wilagan's Fact, which states:

A good idea is at its most vulnerable during implementation.

In other words, the devil will be in the detail.  Have your say, leave nothing to chance.

Cultural exchange about cultural change

Continuing the In Control International theme of my previous posting, the two-day international meeting covered topics that are relevant across a range of cultures. Amongst other things, the meeting covered:

• cultural change (in terms of service planners, agency staff and the broader community)
• planning and renewal
• safeguards
• the connection between rights and responsibilities in people's lives
• the changing role of service agencies
• the challenges of collaboration.

I can easily imagine that these topics will be of intense interest to people living with disability, families, service agency staff, and government staff. If you would like more information, or want to hear more about any of these topics on this blog, then do get in touch, either via the comments section of this blog or via the email address on our website.


For this post I'm focusing on the first one - culture change. The word 'culture' is used in a number of ways. It can be something you grow in a petri dish especially if you haven't cleaned under the kitchen sink in a while. It can be used to describe ethnicity, for example when you visit a different country or community and encounter people who have a different shared experience to you. Or it can be used to describe the arts, where apparently you are getting culture when you watch ballet.


It can also be used to describe the main features of people's attitudes and behaviours in an organisation or system. This version of 'culture' covers the shared ideas about how work gets done It's about "the way we do things around here". From the international conversation it was clear to me that culture change is an important consideration for every country represented at the meeting, and why wouldn't it be?  People live in every country, and people are complicated, especially when they organise themselves into groups.  This is because rules and guidelines have to be figured out so that everyone knows what to do.  Usually those rules and guidelines are designed to reflect the values and attitudes and goals that brought about the group enterprise in the first place. 

Unfortunately, unless people are particularly vigilant, this connection between values, attitudes and goals and the associated rules and guidelines can, over time, become less clear.  People follow the rules and guidelines without checking back why they were installed in the first place, and changes happen to the rules and guidelines without checking back to see if such changes make sense in terms of the original goals and values.  this often happens with the best of intentions, for example when new opportunities come along.

Eventually, the prevailing rules and guidelines that are driving people's behaviour have very little connection with the original values, attitudes and goals, and become simply "the way we do things around here".  Just like the proverbial dog that gets wagged by its tail, the rules and guidelines install a new set of values, that people may not have chosen in the first place had they known it would come to this.

Across all kinds of human endeavour, many organisations and systems have this problem.  This includes organisations and systems that support vulnerable people.  For example, I have encountered a number of organisations that began from a value base of wanting to see vulnerable people have a fairer go at what life has to offer.  Move forward a number of years and we find those same organisations providing services that in fact have largely achieved the opposite, by separating people from the wider community, rendering them invisible and much more vulnerable to neglect and abuse.  This is happening today, as we speak, probably at an organisation near where you live.

Yet, despite the increasing signals that we are failing vulnerable people in our communities, we seem to struggle to achieve widespread positive change.  Why?  Culture.   Within our support systems for vulnerable people, the majority of behaviours uphold the status quo, such is the strength of 'the way we do things around here'.  

If we are to achieve genuine helpful changes in the lives of vulnerable people, then paradigms like Individualised funding, National Disability Insurance, Person-Centred Planning, Active Support, and a multitude of others, will not have the impact we might hope for, because by themselves they won't necessarily change culture. 

Culture is changed when enough people make it known that 'the way we do things around here' is not good enough.  Culture also changes when those people in positions of power, responsibility and leadership, have the courage to recognise that the systems they administer are failing people.

These people include the leaders within service agencies, and the leaders within governments, and the leaders within communities.  Such people can play a pivotal role in changing culture.

This is the essence of leadership.  If we are agreed that vulnerable people have the right to choice and control in their lives, to be active contributors to their communities, to grow into rich, valued lives, then every leader in every support system needs to guide their resources towards this, to 'change the way we do things around here'.  They need to do this today and tomorrow and the next day, and so on until it's done.

A hundred leaders

In Control International is an international community of interest on the topic of self-direction in disability support. I’ve just attended the latest meeting, an opportunity to share ideas and experiences that can assist the momentum for helpful change in people’s lives. The meeting covers ideas ranging from the personal to the national.

Participants in these conversations (not limited to these face-to-face meetings) include Australia, Scotland, Czech Republic, England, Japan, Wales, Finland, Ireland, and the US. Some connection has also been established with NZ where there is a very interesting momentum towards self-directed support.

A set of principles guide these connections, one of which is the notion of ‘open source’ sharing. This is a bit like Wikipedia, in that everyone is recognised as having something to contribute to a growing body of knowledge about what it takes to support vulnerable people into good lives. This is very exciting because it means that In Control Australia has access to a rich seam of useful resources from both within Australia and overseas.

It is clear to me that helpful change is often initiated by people sharing their stories and then taking action together. As part of Julia Farr Association’s support to In Control Australia we will shortly be re-developing the In Control Australia website to assist people to access useful information. Within the new website we would like to build a collection of people’s stories, of how individualised (self-directed) funding has helped the person to build the life they want, and also stories from people who don’t yet have a personalised budget but who can describe how they imagine their life would be different if they did.

So I would like to ask all Australian readers of this blog to think about who you know (if not yourself) who might like to tell their story. It’s as easy as talking into a voice recorder, or talking to a computer webcam, or writing the story in a Word document, or telling the story through something like PowerPoint. That recording/file can then be sent to us and we’ll take care of things from there. At all times we will have careful regard to honour the degree of privacy that people ask for.

Given the national enquiry that is taking place about disability insurance, and the various state/territory activities in relation to individualised (self-directed) funding, now is the time for people to tell their stories, so that the focus of a national disability insurance scheme, and the direction of local arrangements, is on how people can be supported into lives of choice and citizenhood.

Someone mentioned to me the other day that, "...I like hearing people's stories but enough already!  I get it, so now tell me how to make change happen".  I can understand that view, and at my agency we have plenty of information that we can connect people with on the 'how'.  I will say this though.  Story-telling remains important, for at least three reasons i can think of.  First, people's stories often contain great wisdom about the 'how', and we just need to tune into that wisdom and grab it.  Second, we need to keep being reminded about why all this is important, and people's stories provide the best kind of reminder.  Third, one of the most potent sources of influence on the design and shape of future disability support arrangements will be the stories that people tell about how their lives change for the better because of a highly personalised approach. 

Imagine having the stories of a hundred vulnerable Australians who have taken control and built a much richer life through personalised funding and assistance.  That would be a very powerful anthology of personal authority and citizenhood, one that could help achieve critical change in the way our governments, service agencies and communities think and feel about disability.

So let's get it done; let's get a hundred stories of a hundred people who have taken leadership in their own lives.  A hundred leaders. 

Reform....again

The South Australia government announced today that there will be a whole-of-government reform of disability.  According to the official media release, the Premier and the Minister for Disability have "asked the Social Inclusion Board to develop a blueprint for long-term reform - to join up services between Health Education, and the Department for Families and Communities".

Sounds jolly exciting.

I confess that I have become at least partially immune to announcements of 'reform'.  My experience, especially here in South Australia back in 2006, has been that 'reform' has not necessarily delivered added value to the people who need it most, but instead has been shorthand for other matters, such as organisational restructuring, imagined resource efficiencies, and greater bureaucratic control.  So why should this announcement be any different?  After all, past performance is a good predictor for future performance. 

Well, whilst not completely abandoning my capacity for skepticism, there are several promising signals.

First, the reform has been placed in the hands of the Social Inclusion Board (SIB) who, one can reasonably assume, need no convincing about the importance of social inclusion in the lives of people living with disability, a perspective that seemed strangely absent from the previous reform in 2006.

Second, the SIB Chair, Social Inclusion Commissioner Monsignor David Cappo, has signaled that the SIB will be listening to people living with disability, their families and supporters, and others who can assist the realisation of an agenda of inclusion where people living with disability are participating as citizens in the life of our community.  'Listening' must surely mean that the SIB will have careful regard for people's situations,and what can most help people to live a full and rich life. 

Third, the SIB will be looking at the work of several government departments in relation to disability,including Health, Education, and Families & Communities. This is encouraging because people living with disability should have the genuine choice to use their local mainstream health services and, critically, their local neighbourhood school.  I simply don't think it right that some kids have to be dispatched to a special school.  There is no reason why any local school cannot be welcoming of all local kids, regardless of their particular circumstances.

Fourth, as part of this work the SIB will be looking at consumer-directed funding (ie Individualised Funding).  This is important for reasons that regular visitors to this blog will hopefully be familiar with.

Fifth, Lorna Hallahan has been appointed to the SIB.  Lorna has had a very long association with disability issues, is a very clear thinker and is highly respected.  

So that's the encouraging stuff.  What is on the downside?  A couple of BIG things spring to mind.

First, one can imagine that running a process of building a blueprint will take time.  But how long?  At a national level, the idea of a Disability Strategy is a fabulous idea but it's taking an epoch for the strategy to emerge.  We don't really want the same thing to happen here; local people living with disability have been waiting long enough, don't you think?  A comprehensive process of listening, reflecting and designing doesn't have to take an age.

Second, there is no guarantee that the South Australia government will implement the SIB's recommended blueprint,either in its entirety or in part.  However, it would be a particular kind of government that would turn down a well-thought-out blueprint, built on consultation with the disability community, and anchored in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

So if you want to be heard on this, I suggest you make contact with the SIB to let them know you'd like to contribute your views.  And do your best (as I am doing) to fight any cynical thoughts that this government announcement has been timed to toss a fish to the disability community three months out from the state election.  Much of formal politics these days seems to be about getting in power and then staying in power, and it is getting harder to distinguish between the various mainstream perspectives.  Frankly, I'm less concerned about the extent of any government self-interest in this, so long as a decent blueprint is delivered and implemented.

You can find out more about the Social Inclusion Board by clicking here.
For more information about the UN Convention, click here.