Peter Botsman I Fear for My
Country
Peter Botsman is a former Director of the Evatt
Foundation,
The Whitlam Institute, and The Brisbane Institute, and an
ex-
member of the ALP.
"I fear for my country
because the major political parties are a
farce. I fear because
everyone acknowledges this, but few will
act to change things. We
cling on to the same old rhetoric about workers
and class even
though such terms are now empty vessels and merely
instruments for
political opportunism. We choose between the same old
choices...
I fear because
our representatives are now, in the words of the current
Prime
Minister, "professional politicians" who, despite all the
rhetoric, literally
replicate and represent the nothing class of Australians.
A professional politician
like those who now predominate in Canberra are
people who in many
cases have no special abilities other than that they have
a father
or uncle or relative who has learned to penetrate the thicket of
issues that you must traverse to be elected as a representative
within a
major political party. If you do not have a father or uncle
or relative who was
in politics you will invariably be a lawyer or
media boffin or gofer who, at
some time or other, attached him or
herself to a politician.
The women who have come to
occupy positions within the Labor Party have
come to power on the
basis of an affirmative action policy which simply
perpetuates the
long lines of factional emptiness. There are some who argue
that
these women are the hope of the future. But when they open their
mouths the spin and froth of the empty factions flows. So in the Labor Party
we have a heaving mass of factionally aligned and
impatiently ambitious
men, who represent nothing other than their
own interests, led by women
who are their fronts. There is nothing
wrong with the affirmative action policy;
there is everything wrong
with the structure and operations of the Labor
party that puts its
female candidates forward.
This is the problem with the
Madame Gillard ascendancy. Rudd, whatever
you thought of him, or
whatever his weaknesses, was the most independent
Prime Minister the Labor Party has had in its history. He was free of
factional fetters
and there was, an albeit slim, hopeful course forward for the
party,
if he had endured. Now its back to business as usual for the
powerbrokers. As the Victorian factional leader Bill Shorten
revealed on
ABC’s Q&A soon after the Gillard ascendancy ‘we made the
decision and
the Prime Minister announced it on the weekend’. Prime
Minister Hawke
used to call this consensus decision making. But at
least then the factions
meant something and there were men and women
of substance sprinkled
around them. Now there is nothing except
blind ambition and opinion polls.
When ever you hear ‘the
people of Australia’ or ‘working families’ keep your
hands in your
pockets and apply a modest lining of wax to your ears.
At most times in the short
history of Australia when political parties put up
candidates for
the Prime Ministership that were not grounded in life they
were
beaten by a candidate of substance. Think Whitlam v Billy Mc Mahon
or Howard v Latham. This time we have Abbot v Gillard. Tony Abbot
has also
spent his life in politics. His main work has been working
as a spin merchant
for other politicians. He is the sort of person
who would be worth talking to if
he had some practical experience
ground into him...
I don’t know the Liberal
Party as well as I know the Labor Party. But I know
enough to see
the same processes at work. After all when you think about
it, Kevin
Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull were eminently more qualified and had
far
greater ability than either Gillard or Abbot. Yet we see these less
able
people at the threshold of Prime Ministerial power - Abbot I
suspect
because he is a rabble rouser, was able to organize numbers
and was more
sociable with his fellow parliamentarians and party
members than Turnbull.
Abbot is the ultimate parliamentary boarding
house candidate. Gillard is
leader because she is a Trojan horse for
others ambitions...
I fear because the malaise
we face in our political representatives, public
institutions and in
too many instruments of society will someday result in the
formation
of terrible problems in our country. Without a press that will
investigate issues from the outside, and not the political inside,
we are
doomed to suffer. Without independent politicians who will be
fearless in
pursuing the hard tasks, and not run everything through
the game of party
antics in Canberra and our State capitals, our
country will inevitably fall on
hard times.
These are the things I fear
for my country.
Peter Botsman is a former Director of the Evatt
Foundation, The Whitlam
Institute, and The Brisbane Institute, and an
ex-member of the ALP.
Click here
to read the full text of this article.
|
 |
Say No to Professional Politicians
Invite your friends to join this Facebook Cause
Can we have 100,000 Australians sign up to make a stand? |
NDIS John Della Bosca and the
road to the bottom
Belinda Neal
(infamous after a night of rampage at Gosford's Iguanas
Club)
and John Della Bosca (doyen of the NSW Labor Right) are the
professional
politicians' pin-up couple. She collected a lifetime
parliamentary pension of
$120,000 a year by resigning from the federal seat of
Robertson at the end of
July without facing the wrath of the voters in the next
election. On the same
day, hubby John collected a lifetime parliamentary pension of
$120,000 a
year by resigning from the NSW Legislative Council.
But because
these two pensions are not enough to live on, John Della
Bosca
will receive $150,000 a year as Director of the National
Disability Insurance
Scheme (NDIS) campaign - courtesy of those faithful donors to
disability
charities like The Spastic Society and Yooralla.
"We are
absolutely delighted that someone with John's experience
as well
as commitment and passion for reform has agreed to spearhead
our
efforts," said Dr Ken Baker, spokesperson for the National
Disability
and Carer Alliance, and CEO of National Disability Services.
"As a former Minister for Disability, John is well aware of
the crisis
confronting people with a disability, their families and
carers in this
country," he said.
Indeed he is
well aware of it, and as Minister for Disability
Services in NSW
between 2005 and 2007, did nothing whatsoever about it.
Presumably,
we will soon be hearing John Della Bosca as NDIS
Campaign
Director tell us that "the disability system is broken". It
needs
"transformational change". And the sector "needs to speak
with a united
voice" to get politicians to bite the bullet on reform.
He will read
the script as directed. But there's one problem - John
Della
Bosca was a Disability Services Minister and did nothing,
like so many of
his colleagues before and after him. His energies, since he
began working for
the NSW ALP as Secretary in 1983 and as Right faction leader
from before
that, always pulled his attention to more pressing matters.
Some critics
of the NDIS campaign have said it has not done enough to
get
the participation of people with disabilities and their
families, and has been a
top-down, behind-the-scenes, deal-making exercise.
They are
correct. The campaign to date bears all the hallmarks of
the work of
another Labor Right faction leader, Bill Shorten in Victoria.
Widely
reputed
to have won preselection for his seat in 2007 through the
deft use of branch-
stacking technigues, Shorten is a Della Bosca protegee.
For this
reason, the appointment of John Della Bosca is entirely
consistent
with the values and modus operandi of the NDIS campaign from
day one. He
is a
perfect choice for a backroom deal-making,
decision-making from the
top, sign-up-to-what-has-already-been decided-for-you
campaign. Mr Bosca
will bring a professional touch to a top-down,
provider-driven, we-know-what's-
good-for-you way of working. Dissenting voices will get
short-shrift.
The real
crime is that John Della Bosca's salary of $150,000 a
year will
come from the elderly ladies who faithfully donate to kiddies
with disabilities
through the big disability charities, as well as from
taxpayers' funds allocated
to agencies for services to people with disabilities but
which have been
withheld in order to fund the Della Bosca/ Dean lifestyle.
Service
providers who say they are drastically under-funded have
supplied a
three year budget of $5.5 million for John Della Bosca to
work with. The
budget is
available here.
At the end of June 2010, 35 service providers had
already coughed up
$1,072,000, which can only come from either of two sources:
donations from
the public intended for supports for people with
disabilities; and grants of
taxpayers' money intended for supports for people with
disabilities.
Money
intended for these purposes
has been found for the salary of a failed
Minister for Disability Services, who failed to introduce
"transformational
change" while he was a Minister, but will now talk it up on
donors' and
taxpayers' money that was given for other purposes.
What
is at work here in getting us to this sad point? The
culture of the
professional politician has been added to the managerial
culture of the
captured disability agencies that were originally formed by
parents to support
their sons and daughters.
Readers are invited to suggest ways that people with
disabilities and families
might respond to this plundering of our money for use in a
political campaign
set up to serve the interests of providers who long ago
severed their roots in
the quiet, voluntary self-help efforts of parents and
families.
CLICK HERE
to send in your suggestions.
Noel Pearson
On Aboriginal conservatism
"Liberalism and social democracy are
necessary but not
sufficient: man cannot live by bread alone.
If the engine of self-interest is cranked up, if the
incentives
structure is right, if people exercise choice, if the
institution
of private property is well developed, if there is social
democrat provisioning of opportunity -- our lives will still
be unfulfilled. What
we human beings really want to do are things like studying
the Bible and
Talmud in the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, or maintain
Aboriginal
Australian languages in order to uphold week-long song cycles
such as
those of the Yolngu in Arnhem Land.
This may seem a strange claim when many people appear to
have few
interests beyond socialising and entertainment. Individuals
have the right to
choose their lives; my hypothesis is however that the
cultural and spiritual
side of human nature is suppressed.
Aboriginal Australian traditional culture is evidence
that when human
behaviour is at an equilibrium, people build structures of
tradition tied to
language and land and pass these traditions on to the next
generation.
Conservatism is the insight into the imperfection and
mystery of human
nature. This imperfection and mystery will ultimately make
liberal and social
democrat structures inadequate and unfulfilling.
Conservatism is the idea that distinct groups of people
should continue to
exist because deep difference (not just multicultural
diversity) is an end in
itself. We don't know what the purpose of existence is, if
any. The
homogenisation inherent in liberalism and social democracy is
risky
because it robs us of many possible attempts to answer the
unsolvable
existential enigmas.
Conservatism is qualitatively different to liberalism
and social democracy.
Liberalism is based on a few principles, and we let people do
the rest
through choice. But there is no end to the number of human
traditions.
Japanese and Aboriginal Australian liberalism are the same;
Japanese and
Aboriginal Australian social democracy are similar; but
Japanese and
Aboriginal traditions are different worlds. Tradition is by
definition about the
detail and not the broad principle.
Self-interest is the engine that drives the vehicle of
social and economic
progress. But tradition is the engine that drives the human
will to exist.
Conservatism makes the case for continued existence in a deep
sense, not
just in the trivial sense of having biological descendants.
This is what Australian conservatives don't understand.
They believe
Aboriginal Australians will be content to survive physically
and become
prosperous and culturally assimilate to the great global
English-speaking
tradition. We will not."
CLICK HERE
to read the full text of this article.
Vern
Hughes Immigration,
Refugees and Civil Society
[This is an Issues Paper, and readers are invited to send
in your comments. Click on the link at the end.]
Few topics in public debate generate as much heat, and
as little light, as that of asylum seekers and boat
people. Two simplistic positions dominate the airwaves:
turn-back-the-boats or let-em-come-and-settle.
Neither position fits a nation that is confident in its place in the world. The
first has its roots in our century-long White Australia Policy, which was the
first and defining plank in the ALP Platform for over half a century. Its
popularity forced
the non-Labor Parties into an early me-tooism.
The second
has its roots in a residual cultural
cringe, a feeling that
Australia is still a dull and boring
place and should be enlivened
with a liberal sprinkling of exotic peoples from other places.
The
gap between these two positions is
immense. Public debate on these
issues resembles a conversation between the deaf - neither side hears the
other, or shows the slightest interest in wanting to hear. The ALP is
still
paralysed by guilt over its formalisation of White Australia, and eschews
debate on immigration and refugees, hoping it will all just go away. The
Coalition is torn irresolvably between its reliance on its corporate
donors
who want more immigrants so that the economy grows, and its populist
attachment to harvesting votes by scaring voters over asylum seekers.
If the
positions of political parties are
confused and bereft of any guiding
principles, is there a way out of this mess?
Here are
four
principles
that might serve as a useful beginning
point for
a more constructive policy approach:
1. The
dislocation of peoples from their
countries of birth due to war and
internal persecution is extensive and will continue to grow for the
forseeable
future.
Australia
has an ethical obligation to provide a
safe haven for
dislocated people until they can safely return home.
2. Immigrants to Australia vary in their capacity and will to integrate
into
Australian society. Those from
Northern European countries integrate
culturally more successfully than those from the Balkans. English-
speaking people from the Pacific islands integrate more successfully than
non-English speaking people from sub-Saharan Africa.
It is ethically legitimate and
practically sensible to favour
immigrants
from sources which have a better integration record.
3.
Australia has a significant overseas aid
program to assist people in the
developing world. However, many people in developing countries feel that
the rate of development in their own country is too slow, and seek to
emigrate to countries with a higher standard of living, as economic
migrants.
It is
ethically untenable for Australia to
invest significantly in overseas
aid in developing countries while accepting skilled migrants from
these countries who are needed more at home.
4.There is a
social cost to host communities in
Australia where
newly
arriving immigrants and refugees must find a home, learn English,
look for employment, and endure the frustrations of menial work that falls
below their expectations. This cost is not spread equally - working class
suburbs and schools take on a disproportionate share of this cost
compared to leafy middle class suburbs, which compounds aggregate
disadvantage in these areas.
It
is ethically legitimate and practically
sensible to disperse the costs
of hosting newcomers broadly throughout society.
What are the
implications for policy and social
cohesion of a broad
acceptance of these principles? 
Implication
1.
Australia would be able to take
a much greater number of dislocated people and
asylum seekers if our policy goal is to offer a
safe haven for dislocated people until they can
safely return home.
This would
mean temporary protection rather
than permanent residence until conditions
change in their homelands. For instance,
Iranian dissenters
and religious
minorities should be generously offered safe haven in
Australia until a
change process takes place at home.
When a
change process is underway, as in Afghanistan through
the United
Nations, or in Sri Lanka through a cessation of civil war,
Afghans and Sri
Lankans who have taken refuge in Australia should then return
to their
homelands to participate in a reconciliation process.
All of us
have an ethical obligation to participate in
reconciliation processes
at home, contributing to the removal or violence and
discrimination in the civil
society of our family and culture.
Implication 2.
There is no
question that the source countries with the least
successful record of social and cultural integration into
Australian society
are Turkey and Lebanon. These are the two most ghetto-ised
communities in
Melbourne and Sydney.
Evidence-based policy would mean a cessation of immigration
from these
countries.
Implication 3.
It is ethically untenable for Australia to accept large
numbers
of Indian, Pakistani and Arab doctors and engineers when
skilled
professionals like these are needed in domestic development.
Saving money on the training of doctors and engineers by
outsourcing
supply from South Asia undermines our development investments
in these
countries.
There should be a strict ban on overseas students not
returning to their
homelands on the completion of their training.
Implication
4. The
majority of immigrants and refugees in Australia settle
in
the suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne, usually in the vicinity
surrounding
hostels and detention centres - which are invariably located
in the
areas of greatest social and economic disadvantage. Schools,
sporting
clubs, and voluntary associations in these areas have quietly
born the costs
of seismic cultural and social difference in their own lives,
while politicians
and policy makers usually reside in Anglo middle class areas
far removed -
as in Melbourne - from the night air of uncertainty of
Springvale and
Footscray.
Career
politician and former Labor leader Simon Crean is a case
in point.
Crean's electorate of Hotham is based on Springvale
in outer Melbourne,
but
good 'ol Simon resides in genteel Albert Park, one block from
the bay, in
close proximity to good schools and safe parks. What makes
the suburb of
Albert Park safe and expensive is, in part, the fact that
Springvale's residents
are safely 20 kms away.
How can we
disperse social and cultural diversity more broadly?
This is
difficult, because Sydney and Melbourne are highly segmented
cities along
lines of class, ethnicity and culture. But setting a mamimum
percentage of
students in schools (say 40%) from any one ethnicity is a
possibility, which
would mean intervention into at least nine secondary schools
in Melbourne in
the outer north west where the figure currently exceeds 50%
of students
from one particular ethnicity.
Readers may have other suggested policy tools to make social
inclusion a
reality and not merely a fad amongst policy wonks.
CLICK HERE
to send in your comments on this article.
Health
Reform Campaign
Consumer-Centred Health Care
With neither side of politics offering the leadership
necessary to drive
transformational change in the health system, consumers and social
innovators have bitten the bullet and taken the lead in driving a
National
Campaign for Consumer-Centred Health Care.
Members of the
Campaign's Steering Group are:
Professor Debbie Kralik,
Royal District Nursing Service
SA
Dr
Samantha Thomas,
Consumer Health Research Group (CHaRGe),
Monash University VIC
John
Stubbs,
Cancer Voices Australia NSW
Maxine
Drake,
Health
Consumers Council WA
Professor
Enrico
Coiera,
Centre
for
Health
Informatics,
Australian
Institute
of Health Innovation UNSW
Ronald
Hicks,
Hunter
New
England
Area
Health
Service
NSW
Colin
Frick,
Improvement
Foundation
Australia,
SA
Jose Simsa, Community Participation Committee Inner South Community
Health Service VIC
Yvonne Orley, Self-Care Advocate QLD
Professor Kerry Bennett, Diabetes and Diversity in Western Melbourne,
Australian Community Centre for Diabetes VIC
Jacqui Gibson, Prahran Mission VIC
Debra Carnes, Consumer Advocate TAS
Geoff Barry, Sydney South West Area Health Service Consumer
Community Council, NSW
Sharon Lawn, Chronic Condition Management and Self-Management,
Flinders University SA
Geoff Isaac, Consumer Advocate QLD
Professor Craig Veitch, Community Based Health Care Research Unit,
University of Sydney NSW
Kim Smith, Mental health Consumer Advocate, Clubhouse SA
Jacqui Crowe, Family/Carer Consultant, Ballarat Health Service Psychiatric
Service, VIC
Vern Hughes, Social Enterprise Partnerships VIC (Convenor)
The
Campaign's
five-point campaign is for the
following:
-
Person-Controlled Electronic
Health Record
-
A Care Coordination and Brokerage
Payment of $2000 for every consumer with a diagnosed chronic and mental illness
-
A
Person-Controlled Health Management Tool
-
A Health Care Price and Safety Information Service
-
110
Divisions of Consumers as Incubators of Innovation
CLICK HERE
for further information on the Campaign.
These
five innovations are not the last
word in health reform. They are simply
starting points for the
re-direction of reform efforts away from a narrow pre-
occupation
with hospitals to a focus on the total consumer experience of
health and health care. As starting points in this process, our
Campaign has
a focus on the funding and structuring of consumer decision-making,
empowerment, self-care
and self-management.
There are many ways you may become involved in
the National
Campaign for
Consumer-Centred Health Care.
- Invite a speaker from the
Campaign to visit your group or organisation
-
Convene a regional
initiative/forum in your area
CLICK HERE to become involved in any of
these ways.
Tell us what you think. We would be pleased to
receive your comments or
suggestions.
CLICK HERE
to
use a
feedback form.
Mobilising
Parents Families and Carers as a
Movement for Change
DISCOVERING AND BUILDING OUR
STRENGTH
IN EDUCATION HEALTH DISABILITY AGEING
NATIONAL
SERIES OF WORKSHOPS
Brisbane:
Tuesday 31 August
Sydney:
Monday 6th September
Melbourne:
Thursday 9th September
Adelaide:
Tuesday 26th October
Canberra:
Friday 29th October
10am - 4pm
Register Here
The ways we care for our families - children, the elderly, the ill and those
with a
disability - are shaped by crucial government decisions which have
been dominated for the last two decades by a neo-liberal/managerial view of
the world which reduces discussion about families to rhetoric about
'working
families' and increased workforce participation, and assigns 'support'
exclusively to formal and often impersonal agencies. There is no serious
discussion of realistic policies to ease what most of us experience as a
collision between work
and family life.
On health, or schools, or disability, or parental leave, the debate is
restricted
to politicians, academics, and service providers, with parents and
families
invisible.
Often the only voice claiming to speak for families is the
conservative Christian lobby through organisations like the Australian Family
Association, but such groups do not ‘represent’ the diversity of contemporary
Australian families. Because there is no inclusive and representative voice,
too
many of us are excluded from public debate on policies which profoundly
affect
our well being.
These Workshops will explore ways of changing all this and
developing a
broad parents and families movement.
You are warmly
invited to participate.
What are the
obstacles to parents families and carers
working together to
become the strongest movement for change in the land?
What are the
divisive issues and how can they be overcome?
How do we influence the public
debate so that parents and families do the
talking,
and not simply be talked about?
How do we
build up our own capacity?
Who are our
leaders?
Our aim is to develop a parents
and families movement that can have a
profound influence on the next
Commonwealth government (whoever that is)
over the coming three years.
Register Here
Program
CLICK HERE
for further information.
"Our right to take
responsibility" Declaration of Independence
People with disabilities and their
families are invited to sign up
to the
"Our
right to take
responsibility"
Declaration of
Independence.
This is a declaration that your right to take
personal responsibility for
disability
supports will not be given away to an insurance
company following
the Productivity Commission's
Inquiry into a Long Term Disability Care and
Support Scheme.
The
text of the Declaration is:
|
Declaration of Independence
Self-direction and personalised
control of supports in disability is a basic
human right for myself
or my family member. This human right is not compatible with an insurance
scheme which treats decision-making about
supports as a 'liability management'
prerogative of an insurance company.
I declare that
decision-making about disability supports is
the prerogative of people with disabilities
and their families. I will not give away
this right to an insurance
company.
|
Use
this online form
to add your name to the Declaration.
CLICK HERE
for further information.
Disability Support: Options for Reform Conference
21-22 March 2011
Papers and contributions are invited for presentation at
this national
conference on March 21-22 2011.
The
conference will provide an opportunity to explore the
options for reform
arising out of the Commonwealth's Inquiry into a National
Disability Long-
term Care and Support Scheme. This Inquiry will report to the
Commonwealth Government by July 2011. Its Terms of Reference are
available
here.
The conference will
examine the main proposals for reform, scrutinise their
strengths and weaknesses, and explore their implications for people
with
disabilities and their families.
Expressions of
interest are invited in presenting on any aspect of the
disability support reform process, including:
International
models of disability support
International case studies of disability reform processes
Funding models
Eligibility frameworks
Entitlement frameworks
Insurance models
Self-direction frameworks
Individual budgets models and case studies
Agents/ brokerage models
Fundholding and management models
Technology for self-direction and self-management
Legislative requirements for reform
Federal/state relations
Financial costs of reform
Transition issues
Assessments of the National Disability Insurance Scheme
proposal
Assessments of the Lifelong Disability Entitlement Scheme
proposal
Political leadership in disability reform
The deadline for contributions is
30 November 2010.
CLICK HERE
to submit your expression of interest and
abstract.
CLICK HERE
for further
information.
Street by Street
Information Workshops
Brisbane:
Wednesday 1 September
12noon - 4pm
Sydney:
Friday 3rd September 9.00 -
1pm
Melbourne:
Friday 10th September
9.00 - 1pm
Street
by Street is a project which links up people who
live in the same
street or nearby for mutual support in practical helping tasks such as taking
the bin in and out,
hanging washing, getting a few items from the shops, or
getting mail from the
letter box.
More information is available at
Street by
Street
Our goal is 100 auspiced Street by
Street groups by the end of 2010. And
1000 by 2011.
Community centres, service clubs, neighbourhood
houses, community
health centres, scout and guide groups, and voluntary
associations are
some of the organisations participating in auspicing a local
Street by Street
initiative.
These Information Workshops will examine the
operational and
organisational issues, and how you may participate.
Register Here
Program
Circles of Support Information
Workshops
Sydney:
Friday 3rd September 1.30pm - 5pm
Melbourne:
Friday 10th September
1.30pm -
5pm
Circles of Support are a key strategy to
make
social inclusion work for people with disabilities,
people with mental illnesses,
vulnerable children
and families, young people in foster care, single
young parents,
and others struggling with social
isolation.
More information is available at
Circles
of Support.
Our goal is
100 Circles of Support by the end of 2010. And 300 by 2011.
These Information Workshops will examine the
operational and
organisational issues, and how you may participate.
Register Here
Program
CLICK HERE
to participate in the Community Building National Network.
There is no cost.
CLICK HERE
for information on the Community Building National Network.
Volunteer
Three roles available with
the Centre for Civil Society
The Centre for Civil Society is experiencing huge growth
in the scope and
scale of its
activities. If you are looking for a volunteer role that
is
intellectually stimulating and
practically challenging, we want to hear from
you.
We have
three roles for which we are seeking to appoint
volunteers.
Applicants are
invited from all states and territories, for varying
time
commitments.
-
Events Organiser
-
assisting in the organisation of forums and
conferences
-
Writer
-
mentoring and support is available in writing news
and opinion pieces on various topics which fit the
Centre's agenda
-
Administrative Assistant -
assisting in various administrative, financial and
database management tasks
If you have
an interest in any of these roles, please send a CV and
the
names of 3 referees along with
a covering letter on your interest in the work
of the Centre to
Liz Stewart.
Organising by Federal Electorate
CLICK HERE
to register
in your electorate
(there is no cost).
On registering, participants will
be
connected to an online forum in their
electorate, and will receive
access to resources and guidelines for local
activity.
CLICK HERE
for more information.
Events
Mobilising Parents
Families and Carers as a Movement for Change
Brisbane:
Tuesday 31 August
Sydney:
Monday 6th September
Melbourne:
Thursday 9th September
Adelaide:
Tuesday 26th October
Canberra:
Friday 29th October
10am - 4pm
Street by Street Information Workshops
Brisbane:
Wednesday 1 September
12noon - 4pm
Sydney:
Friday 3rd September 9.00 - 1pm
Melbourne:
Friday 10th September
9.00 - 1pm
Circles of Support Information
Workshops
Sydney:
Friday 3rd September 1.30pm - 5pm
Melbourne:
Friday 10th September
1.30pm -
5pm
March 21-22 2011:
Disability Support: Options for Reform
National Conference
Melbourne.
