logansrogue: (arthurwtf)
[personal profile] logansrogue
The federal government are bringing in a new scheme called "Harmonisation of Disability Parking Permit Schemes in Australia". Full discussion on what this means over at lauredhel's blog. She says it much better than I could. Essentially, those without visible aids for mobility but are still unable to walk long distances (people with chronic conditions like fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue Syndrom, etc) will not be able to use disabled parking.

The government are TAKING IN FEEDBACK NOW. IF YOU CARE, SAY SOMETHING!

If you're not Australian, pass the information on. If you are, help those with invisible disabilities, I beg you. Help them keep their independence and mobility! Me, I don't need this parking space just yet, but damned if I'm not going to defend those that do.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-06-01 06:28 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] greteldragon.livejournal.com
Oh wow, wtf. Those that need canes can't access it? Farking hell, I'm not allowed to use a cane (will permanently rather than temporarily fuck up my walking apparently), but I can't manage far back parking in a lot of carparks, and people keep asking me if I have a disability permit.

Hm. Probably not making much sense but fuck, that'd prevent my grandma from having a permit, and by christ, I fear for the other cars in a carpark if she isn't allowed the big bay.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-06-01 07:16 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] angriest.livejournal.com
I've read the discussion paper and I don't see how someone with chronic fatigue, MS, etc, doesn't qualify under criteria #3 for permanent disability parking pass:

Criteria 3: You do not use a mobility or medical aid but your ability to walk is permanently restricted by a significant medical condition or disability, which sometimes requires the physical assistance of another person and limits your access to the community.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-06-01 07:27 am (UTC)
ext_4241: (Default)
From: [identity profile] lauredhel.livejournal.com
The "which sometimes requires the physical assistance of another person" requirement is the problem. There's no "or" there, it's an "and" construction.

I'm independent; I don't require the physical assistance of someone to locomote; I just require short distances.

Aside from that, disability should not be defined in terms of dependence on carers. Accommodations should be administered in terms of what effectively reduces socially- and structurally-caused disability, and improves community acccess for PWD.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-06-01 07:49 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] logansrogue.livejournal.com
*points to lauredhel* What she said.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-06-01 10:25 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sugaryfun.livejournal.com
That's really dumb. *shakes head* I'll have a read of the discussion paper and leave some feedback. Thanks for drawing attention to the problem.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-06-02 04:20 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] flyingreptile.livejournal.com
Harmonisation? OMFG, K. Rudd really is a Chinese agent, and his cover is starting to slip :P

(no subject)

Date: 2009-06-02 04:23 am (UTC)
ext_4241: (Default)
From: [identity profile] lauredhel.livejournal.com
For absolute clarity on the fact that this is in no way about "harmonisation", check out our more recent post detailing the current schemes.

http://viv.id.au/blog/20090601.5150/harmonisation-of-disabled-parking-schemes-what-are-the-current-state-and-territory-criteria/

Profile

logansrogue: (Default)
logansrogue

April 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags