|
|
|
|
CONTENTS
PADP – BUREAUCRATIC STALLING AND AGREEMENTS BROKENAugust 18th Trigger for Political Action In our May and June newsletters – THE pdcn ADVOCATE – we reported on what we believed to be progress towards a new arrangement for PADP. We understood that after months and months of negotiation we had convinced the Department of Health and the Ageing & Disability Department to adopt a new set of eligibility criteria. Our belief is based on the agreement reached at the March meeting of the NSW PADP Advisory Committee. As the minutes of the meeting show, representatives of the Health Department (including the Deputy Director General at that time), the ADD and disability sector representatives agreed in principle to accept a paper prepared by PDCN. Barely six weeks have passed since agreement was reached by the committee but it now looks as if ill-informed bureaucrats in the Health Department’s head office and at ADD have reneged on the committee’s decision. We fear they have abandoned an "in principle" agreement reached after more than a year of negotiations over PADP. As a result, a meeting of key physical disability stakeholders last Friday (July 7th) resolved that unless the Department confirms the original decision, people with physical disabilities will have no option but to return to the type of major campaign of political action that forced the Government to release the Cranny Report on PADP in the first place. The BackgroundPDCN began a campaign two years ago to double the PADP budget, and make the PADP eligibility criteria fair, transparent and accountable. The funding increase has not been doubled. What has happened is that the Minister for Disability Services has made a special allocation of $2million per annum over 4 years for equipment for children to be administered through PADP. Although the first year of that funding was supposed to be for the 1999/2000 financial year, less than $100,000 was spent. We believed that progress was being made on the eligibility criteria through the PADP State Advisory Committee (made up of PDCN and representatives of AQA, Disability Council of NSW, Paraquad NSW, the Northcott Society, MS Society, Spastic Centre of NSW, ACROD NSW, Continence Foundation of Australia (NSW) Inc., Muscular Dystrophy Association, People with Disabilities NSW, post-Polio Network NSW Inc., DeafBlind Association of NSW, Blind Citizens Australia (NSW) an equal number of bureaucrats from the Health Department and a representative from ADD. And we thought that increased funding was contingent on progress with respect to eligibility criteria. How wrong we were! It seems to us that the views of some of the bureaucrats who administer PADP in the regions have been given undue wait. We also understand that some bureaucrats informally have supported our position, and we welcome this support. The blowout follows more than 12 months of negotiations to fundamentally change the way PADP applications are considered. We proposed:
The June edition of the THE pdcn ADVOCATE outlined the new eligibility criteria as we understood the committee agreed in March - download www.pdcnsw.org.au/..padpincome.html for a full version of the PDCN proposals. Now it seems that Health Department want to start the whole debate again. It’s back to square one with old objections that had already been raised, discussed and resolved through negotiation at the Advisory Committee. Maybe the Health Department reps slept through the year and a half of negotiations. Maybe the disability reps misunderstood the nodding heads as agreement rather than sleeping eyes wide open. Their objections boil down to the following:
Admission of Unmet Need The first objection is an admission that too few resources are allocated to PADP and that if the criteria were made fairer, then the waiting lists would blow out. This compares with the current system whereby eligibility criteria are so tight that few people apply for PADP, keeping the waiting list low. This first objection is an implicit admission that as a matter of organisational policy under the old system, Department policy has been to keep measured demand low by making most people who need PADP eligible. Somebody up there – Health Department, Treasury, Premier’s - doesn’t want fair eligibility criteria because they think that the $1.6 Billion Health Budget cannot afford the extra $12 million required to meet the needs of people with disability. The ‘powers that be’ understand that under the new system they would have had to collect official statistics of unmet need - and once the real demand data is official – someone might have to do something about it! Better to keep everyone in the dark so that consciences don’t get pricked, so that the officials can crow about themselves and the lack of a waiting list. Denial of Cost of Disability The second objection - that people on above average incomes will be eligible for carefully regulated support for equipment needs - continues to ignore the undeniable fact of the higher cost of living faced by people with disabilities and the high one-off nature of many of these costs. The bureaucrats simply cannot distinguish between a café latte, a holiday to Hawaii and a wheelchair, hoist or crutches. The bureaucrats cannot believe that a person who needs a wheelchair or a hoist will have other expenditures which will more than likely give them a disposable discretionary income which would be classified by any economist, statistician or ordinary observer as "poor". Hypocrisy of Assets Testing The third objection of opponents to a fairer PADP system is just rank hypocrisy. Those bureaucrats who are prepared to scuttle the PADP agreement don't seem to have much trouble in accepting the idea that education and health services are made available to the public without requiring either assets testing or income testing. . But when it comes to providing equipment to people with disabilities, these bureaucrats conveniently forget the principles of equity that apply in other publicly funded services. Somehow, they want us to believe that PADP is different . PDCN and the Advisory Committee debated this point at length. The disability sector representatives came down on the side of not assets testing PADP for the following reasons: Education, hospitals, medical rebates, roads, local government services, and many other public goods and services are provided by governments and are paid for by everyone out of general taxation. Since the introduction of GST it’s even more the case that every person contributes to the tax take that funds public spending. Asset testing is the job of the Australian Taxation Office, not the NSW Department of Health. PADP equipment should be "free at the point of provision" just like an operation in a hospital or a mathematics class in a junior school. Surgeons don’t conduct asset tests before they ‘scrub-up’ for open heart surgery and teachers don’t asset test before they teach us e=mc2". It would be discriminatory to apply assets testing to PADP. Government representatives accepted the disability sector arguments about a new PADP system. They agreed with our proposals in March. Suddenly, two days before the start of the new financial year, it appears that following consultation with local branches and ADD - or was it Treasury or the Premier’s Department? - we are now back to where we were 18 months ago. What is to be Done! Last Friday’s meeting of disability sector members of the PADP Advisory Committee decided that unless the Department confirms its original agreement , people with physical disabilities will mount a major campaign of political action. If it is correct, as we are now being told, that Departmental officials want to re-examine all the arguments in favour of the new system that ought not to take very long. We’ve said that people with disability are angry and have waited for change for too long already. That’s why we have proposed that any ‘re-examination’ should be completed quickly. We have agreed to participate in the Department’s re-examination – we are reasonable people, after all. We are not prepared to wait longer than two months, however. We believe this task – it really must be the final task in this process – can and must be completed by the end of August. We think it’s not unreasonable at all to insist of NSW Health that by August 18th the department’s officials:
At our meeting last Friday, The disability sector noted the implicit admission of NSW Health that new eligibility criteria are unworkable because of the lack of funds allocated to PADP. We agreed it was appropriate to begin a course of political action IMMEDIATELY to demand an increase in the PADP budget. It is difficult not to be cynical and ANGRY about the PADP process. It is difficult not to think that the 18 months since the Chifley Square PADP rally in January 1999 has been a waste of everyone’s time and a heartless stalling tactic. It is hard not to think that governments only listen when we take to the streets! ORTA - HREOC GRANTS EXEMPTION BUT THE FIGHT IS NOT OVER!In a mind-boggling decision, the Human
Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has granted the
exemption from the DDA requested by the Olympic Road
Transport Authority (ORTA) with respect to ORTA’s
commandeering of accessible Government and private buses
presently running on routes across Australia during the
Olympics and Paralympics. For the background, see
www.pdcnsw.org.au/bulletin/00/02.html
and for HREOC’s "reasoning", see The HREOC decision is not the last word however in that:
PDCN believes that the HREOC decision sends a signal that if an event is big enough and pubic enough to be "important" to the community, then the organisers of that event can make a strategic decision to ignore the DDA in its planning and to make a last-minute decision to apply to the authorities for an exemption. It may seem like a high-risk strategy on the part of an organiser, but it is a "no-loser" for them because:
PDCN accuses the Olympic "family" of using such a strategy from the start. It is the sort of strategy which high-priced uptown lawyers are paid big money to devise. Given the lack of transparency and accountability that has been built into the Olympics, and given the tightness of the Olympic decision-making and the weakness of the full SOCOG Board, PDCN accuses ORTA of planning the exemption strategy as a substitute for planning accessible transport. The only other possible explanation is that the poor dears just plain forgot about access issues! Either explanation leaves them condemned in our eyes. PDCN believes that HREOC has erred in its judgment and is working with People with Disabilities Inc. and the NSW Disability Discrimination Legal Centre at looking at the pluses and minuses of appealing the decision. In some incredible pseudo-sophisticated argumentation, HREOC argues that to not grant the exemption would penalise bus companies that have done the right thing in providing accessible transport to their communities! HREOC is implicitly arguing that bus companies made their investments principally for the Olympic/Paralympic contracts and that providing access to local communities is a side-benefit for which people with disabilities should be grateful. HREOC has erred in its implicit argument that granting the exemption will advance access by not penalising past actions. Past actions cannot be affected by current decisions! Current decisions affect only future actions! HREOC's signals to private and Government bus operators and to organisers of large events diminishes access is that the rights of people with disabilities can be trampled on with impunity! PDCN is not against the Olympics and Paralympics. Our own President is a torch bearer in the Paralympics torch relay. We know that people with disability are prepared to share some of the inconvenience that is being borne by the rest of the community. But this cost must be shared fairly. The granting of this HREOC exemption is not fair. Discussions have started on possible political actions in the lead up to the Games if ORTA proceeds with its unacceptable plan. Legal and other forms of action will ensue unless a substantial and speedy revision of ORTA's plan is announced soon. ALL options are being actively canvassed. TAXIS: A RUMOUR, A PLAN, AN ANNOUNCEMENT - HOW WILL IT PAN OUT?Strange things seem to be happening with respect to wheelchair accessible taxis in NSW. All we can say for sure at this stage is that the statements are garbled and unclear but that more will be revealed as things become clearer in the course of the next two weeks. Let’s hope that in all the comings and goings behind closed doors at the moment that decision-makers keep the needs of people with disability at the front of their minds. First - the maxi-taxi RUMOUR There are a number of variations to the story, but there is a basic rumour that is essentially consistent. We are told that a substantial number of "maxi taxis" have been block booked up by hotels, businesses, sporting clubs and other non-disability organisations for the period of the Olympics. With 8 weeks still to go, we know already that they will not be available for hire by wheelchair users - unless they work for a big corporation or stay at a plush hotel or are in the ORTA trough. Unless, of course, you want to travel at some outlandish hour like 7am. No-one denied the truth of the rumour. The best anyone has said about it (and that best is not good) is that there is nothing anyone can do about private arrangements which are made by individual drivers. We have been told that as of May there were 375 block bookings with drivers offered $800 net for a 12-hour shift. So first ORTA takes away the accessible buses and now the Department of Transport sits by as the money’d folk take away the accessible taxis. Will they take away our wheelchairs next? Second - the Unicab PLAN A new company, Unicab, has applied for 1,000 taxi licenses and is prepared (with disability-trained drivers) to have 300 on the streets by the Paralympics if the Department of Transport gives them the go-ahead. All their taxis will be able to accommodate at least 1 wheelchair, and half will be able to accommodate 2 wheelchairs. They will be Chrysler Voyager and Toyota Tarrago type vehicles which will fit most (but not all) of the criteria of a "universal taxi". Unicab will service wheelchair users and, they tell us, will not accept pre-arranged block bookings of the type we mention above. The Department of Transport is currently considering the proposal. We have no axe to grind here and we don’t favour any particular company over any other. We do believe, however, that new entrants into the Sydney taxi market are desperately needed. There needs to be more competition. There ought to be more choice. If this new operator can meet the normal requirements of providing a service, we say open up the doors, let some fresh air into the industry, increase competition, promote choice and let a more dynamic market decide. Just agree with us – a larger number of accessible taxis are needed urgently. Third - the Minister’s ANNOUNCEMENT NSW Minister of Transport Carl Scully made a major announcement this week about increasing the number of taxis and improving taxi services along the lines recommended by last year’s IPART report into the taxi industry. Wheelchair accessible taxis formed part of the Minister’s statement. We welcome the proposal that 200 of the 450 additional licences will be for wheelchair accessible taxis. We still want to know, however, what’s going to be done about the 340 wheelchair taxi licences that are stored on some official’s shelves because none of the current operators can or will take them up. We welcome the proposals to introduce performance standards for the future and initiatives such as printed receipts with driver and journey details. What about current performance though, with people waiting up to five hours for taxis? It is right that Government should seek to tackle the problems of a taxi industry that refuses to embrace the concept of access and services for all. We don’t have to wait for the new arrangements to be consulted upon and debated in Parliament (which we understand will have to happen). The Government and the Department of Transport can act now. Do something about the 340 unused licences. And take a positive decision about Unicab. There is nothing in their proposal that is inconsistent with the Government’s intentions or any other proposal to increase the number of wheelchair accessible taxis before the Olympics. We think that Government can and must act swiftly to offset the shortage that is likely to come about if the Olympics rumour is true. We surely don’t want a repeat of the Mother’s Day flowers fiasco when wheelchair users were left stranded at home while wheelchair accessible taxis operating under wheelchair accessible regulations were scooting around the city delivering bouquets of flowers for a mere $50 per hour! How will it all pan out? If the rumour is true and the Minister does nothing about it, then we can expect shortages that will be much worse than Mother’s Day. This time we can expect to wait more than 5 hours, and we can expect it every day of the Olympics. We accept that there will be inconvenience during the Olympics, but we want the same level of inconvenience as everyone else - not more! We support the Unicab plan even though the taxis fall short of the desired "universal taxi" design. We welcome competition into the wheelchair accessible taxi sector and we welcome many of Carl Scully’s initiatives. We do not welcome the block bookings of the maxi taxis during the Olympics and demand that something be done about it IMMEDIATELY. GST - A PRIVATE RULING ON DOOR OPENERSPDCN's Treasurer asked one of the officers assigned to charities for the rundown on the GST implications of installing a door opener/closer with an electric strike which works with a security deadlock on the front door of the family home. After noting the issues, the ATO officer got back a week later with the basic suggestion that our Treasurer seek a private ruling. He simultaneously warned it would take a few months to get the answer and he warned that the question to be ruled on needed to be carefully crafted. The answer went like this: If you get the door opener and locking system installed by a HACC home modification scheme, the components and the service would more than likely be GST free because HACC services are nonprofit organisations and the price charged by the HACC service will more than likely be less than 75% of the cost of installation. If you get the system installed by a service organisation such as Paraquad or Northcott, then the door closer will more than likely be GST-free but the carpentry and electrical might or might not be GST-free - depending on what the service organisation's private ruling says. If you buy the same door opener from a commercial company, then the door closer will only be GST-free if you have a private ruling to wave at the company confirming that the opener is an Item 52 Schedule 3 disability good (i.e. if you manage to convince the Tax Officer that the door closer is a disability good in your case). While in theory this ruling should in principle also apply to the carpentry and electrical work, it is extremely unlikely that the contracting carpenter or electrician will be able to offer their services without GST. So much for a simple, fair and user-friendly tax system! The address for private rulings is: Department of Taxation, GST Section Our Treasurer will be seeking a ruling on the door opener and PDCN will report results as they come through. We will let you know when the letter seeking the "private ruling" will be put on the PDCN Website. Watch this space! MARTIN FERGUSON: Opposition Transport Spokesman - Bias on DDAFrom the April edition of Truck and Bus magazine, reporting on the Bus and Coach Association's (ABCA) Annual conference. The first crack in political will on imposing the requirements on the DDA on bus travel has opened. Showing a welcome willingness to buck party policy on the issue, federal opposition transport spokesman Martin Ferguson conceded the ALP nor the Federal Government had the money to be able to institute all the necessary infrastructure to meet the DDA requirements. "Its time for straight talking on this issue" he said. "In kerbside work alone, governments at all levels face a $4.5 billion bill. No government has the money to commit to what the state transport ministers have imposed on us." The opposition was willing to reach a compromise on the issue. We need to bring all parties together to find a staged approach to bring us all forward. No government, no matter what the party, has the capacity to do what some would expect, from a financial point of view." This opened hope within ABCA that their proposals for alternative services for disabled passengers would again be considered." (page 79) On page 78 of the magazine, Ferguson is photographed with Jim Bosnjak of Westbus - the largest private bus operator in Australia. The caption? "Ex-employee with former boss: Martin Ferguson (right), who once worked as a mechanic at Jim Bosnjak's Westbus operation in western Sydney. Bosnjak (left) said that Ferguson had become an expert in moving head gaskets from 0305s". PDCN does not dispute Mr. Ferguson’s right to canvas all opinions but we would prefer he got his facts right when he fronts up to be wined and dined by his ex-employer. The Transport Standards are about a staged approach - 20 years in fact! Over 20 years, kerbs get replaced as a matter of course. To lumber the national kerbside maintenance program onto the Transport Standards is the type of accounting methodology which makes Mr. Ferguson an appropriate Opposition spokesman rather than a Minister of Government! We wonder what else Mr. Ferguson said at dinner to make Truck and Bus believe that the cost of kerbs had anything to do with "alternative services". A separate apartheid style alternative system would presumably also require kerbs! CITYRAIL AND PORTABLE RAMPSAlthough CityRail's Easy Access Program has seen an increasing number of stations made wheelchair accessible, some wheelchair users continue to report difficulties in getting off the train at their destination. This is because the trains do not have automatic ramps and station staff have to ensure that portable ramps are available. The station of departure is supposed to arrange with the destination station for the ramps to be ready. Sometimes, however, these arrangements have fallen through. As a result, some passengers in wheelchairs have missed their station and have had to stay on the train for lengthy periods until they have been in a position to alert rail staff to the problem. This situation has happened to Greg Marshall on a number of occasions and Greg has now had enough. He has submitted a DDA complaint against CityRail to HREOC. If anyone has experienced this problem on Sydney's rail network or know of somebody who has, please contact David Brice of Australian Quadriplegic Association on d.brice@aqa.org.au or by calling him on (02) 9661 8855. NATIONAL CONTINENCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY(NCMS)The Department of Health and Aged Care, via the NCMS has let a tender to Flinders Consulting (Flinders University) for the development of a Consumer Guide and Information on Continence Products. Hugh Carter, a consumer representative appointed by the National Caucus of Disability Consumer Organisations to the National Continence Expert Advisory Committee, has been seconded to this project and would like any persons who experience incontinence (urinary or faecal) to provide input before 15 July 2000, covering problems experienced with such things as unmet need regarding continence products, difficulty in obtaining suitable products, difficulty in determining which products would actually be suitable, the need for a system of classification of products as to capacity, purpose, disposability, re-use etc. etc. Concise anecdotes of experiences would be of great value. If you intend to respond and wish your privacy to be protected, please respond as "Anonymous" or use a Pen Name, eg. "Joe of Nubeena" If you wish to be consulted during the life of the project, please send Sue Egan pdca@ozemail.com.au a separate email with your contact details stating that you are prepared to be either interviewed or to take part in a focus group. Depending on responses there will be no guarantees as to who will be consulted and contact details will be destroyed at completion of project. This project has met the requirements of the Ethics Committee of Flinders University and personal information will not be used other than the purposes for which it is provided. Send comments to Hugh on: hdcart@netspace.net.au SHORT TERM (18 WEEKS) EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYDisability Information and Referral - Up to 18 Weeks Employment - Sydney 2000 - $18.90 per hour. Three temporary positions (up to 18 weeks) commencing in August 2000 to assist in providing disability information and referral for the Olympic and Paralympic period. The Information Officers will provide answers to telephone, fax, tty, and email enquiries. The position requires computer literacy, good communication skills and knowledge/experience of the Disability sector. For a position description please contact 02 9273 1583. Positions will be based at the State Library of NSW, Macquarie Street, Sydney and at AQA, Little Bay. Expressions of Interest and Curriculum Vitae by close of business 13 July 2000 to access@slnsw.gov.au or by mail to: Disability Access Service, State Library of NSW, Macquarie St., Sydney NSW 2000. TERTIARY EDUCATION OPTIONSThe Universities Disabilities Co-Operative Project (a DETYA funded project) and the State Library of NSW are organising a seminar on tertiary education options for people with disabilities on Saturday 26th August The program includes alternative entry and Education Disadvantage Schemes, choosing careers, disability services, scholarship and financial issues, assistive technology, library facilities. For further information or to advise of special requirements call Liz Claridge by phone on (02) 9385 6768 or Email l.alsop@unsw.edu.au before Friday 11 August. PARALYMPIC GAMES COVERAGEIn a deal signed between the We Media
Inc. and the Sydney Paralympic Organising Committee, We
Media will have live coverage of the Games over the Internet
through its web site New York-based We Media is the first and only multimedia company designed specifically for Americans with disabilities, their families and friends. We Media publishes a glossy consumer lifestyle publication as well as operating its website. The website is worth a look. CENTRAL COAST DISABILITY DIRECTORYThe Central Coast Disability Network has produced a Disability Services directory containing over 240 entries from Sydney, Newcastle and the Central Coast. The directory is available from CCDN, PO Box 1600, Gosford NSW 2250 for $10 including postage and handling or Email Judith.Sonter@bigpond.com for more information. INTERNATIONAL HOUSE SWAPPINGA Dutch-based company, specialising in international home exchanges is compiling a catalog of people with disabilities who are interested in switching homes with other people with disabilities. The company, Anno Agency, says that those interested should write in, specifying the special facilities in their home, such as hoists, ramps and special beds, bathroom adjustments etc. The catalog is due to come out in November. For information contact Sandra Meijer or Tessa Wever at anno@anno.nl Joint Editors: Jack Frisch and Dougie Herd Dougie Herd, Executive Officer
Feel free to let others, including
members of your organisation know that they can sign up for
free by E-mail the above particulars to pdcnsw@pdcnsw.org.au
Our mission is to spread advocacy of physical disability
issues far and wide. Our bulletins will aim to call a spade
a spade! Let us know if you have received duplicates of this
E-mail and please let us know if you want to be taken off
this list.
Tel: + 61 (0) 2 9552 1606 PDC NSW Inc. is funded by the NSW Government's Ageing and Disability Department. Views expressed by PDC NSW Inc. are not necessarily endorsed by the NSW Government.
Bulletin Index | Our Publications |
|
||||
|
©PDCN,
Physical Disability Council of NSW
• 184 Glebe Point
Road, GLEBE NSW 2037 Australia |
|||||||
