Showing posts with label Institutional Reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Institutional Reform. Show all posts

Friday, 22 January 2016

Reforming NDIS : Online Consultation - First Round : Revolutionising Disability Services : Reforming Mental Health : Breaking the Inertia in Reform

National Reform Series 2016 | Civil Society Australia
Reforming NDIS:
Fulfilling the Promise to Revolutionise Disability Services
 

 

 
 
Online Consultation - First Round

 


What Do You Think?
The following are proposals for reform of NDIS. There are twelve (12) proposals on which comments are invited. We want to know what you think.
Our aim is to receive comments on these proposals so that refined proposals can be presented to the National Conference on Reforming NDIS on 21 March 2016.
 1      Participants' Plans
 2      Participant-Controlled Information Tool
 3       Local Area Circles and Networks

 4      Registered Providers of Supports
 5      Monitoring and Protection of Self-Direction
 6       NDIS Board and Advisory Council
 7      Election of 50% of NDIS Board by Participants
 8      Control of Management and Administration Costs
 9      Participant-Driven Employment Assistance
 10    Small /Micro-Business Development Grant
 11    Family Support Entitlement
 12    Advocacy Voucher for every NDIS Participant
If you have suggestions for reform of NDIS and its operations, processes and culture, you have until the end of January 2016 to send them in.  CLICK HERE to submit a proposal.

People with disabilities, families, friends, support organisations, community groups, services and policy makers are invited to contribute to this people-driven process to ensure NDIS delivers on the promise to Revolutionise Disability Services.

Reforming NDIS: Process and Timeline
1 December 2015 - 31 January 2016
Submit your suggestions and proposals for reform of NDIS. Proposals will be distributed  for consideration. Participants consider various suggestions and proposals for reform, and offer their assessments.

1 February - 21 March 2016

Refinement of proposals based on participant feedback.

21 March 2016

Conference participants assess proposals for NDIS Reform and establish mechanisms for driving an ongoing reform process.
 CLICK HERE to register your interest in participating in this process.

 CLICK HERE to submit a suggestion or proposal for reform.

 CLICK HERE to read the submitted proposals and add your comments.

 CLICK HERE to register for the 21 March 2016 national conference.
 




Two Days in March 2016This process and conference on Monday 21 March 2016 forms part of a series of reform events hosted by Civil Society Australia in 2016. Two events will be held in March 2016. Participants may attend one or both of these as they wish.
Monday 21 March 2016 
Reforming NDIS
Revolutionising Disability Services

Tuesday 22 March 2016 
Reforming Mental Health
Breaking the Inertia in Reform

CLICK HERE for further information.
Venue
The Angliss Conference Centre is located in the Melbourne CBD, on the corner of LaTrobe and King Streets, on the fifth floor. It is close to train and tram services. Flagstaff railway station is one block away in LaTrobe St, and Southern Cross station is three blocks away in Spencer St. Trams 23, 24, 30, 34, and City Circle run along LaTrobe Street.
There are numerous accommodation options close by, to suit all budgets.
Start and Finish Times
Both events begin at 9.15am, finishing at 5.00pm. 

CLICK HERE to register for one or both of these events. 
Further Information
CLICK HERE for further information.
CLICK HERE for Civil Society Australia website.



 Civil Society Australia.

Tuesday, 17 January 2012

Saving the Murray: working with Environment Victoria to get our voices heard

Don't let them silence us. Join us today >

 

Just in from Environment Victoria:


Save The Murray
A bulletin from
Save The Murray
To: Members in Save The Murray
Woo-hoo! It looks like nearly half the submissions to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan are from Environment Victoria supporters. And that's not including the paper submissions we've received either. Gosh you're a good bunch!
If you haven't made a submission yet or spread the word to your friends / family hop here and help us get to 4,000 - one for every billion litres of water our rivers need > http://links.causes.com/s/clAkdM
Spread the word. Every invitation counts:

Wednesday, 23 November 2011

Can MicroMoney solve MacroProblems? Does Microfinance really provide widespread solutions?

As Fagin's song suggests, we should always review the situation. What is attractive in the beginning may have unforeseen consequences.  Human beings have a tendency to seek universal solutions and answers which in turn leads to one size fits all policies.  We can also be hubristic, pushing forward our solutions without reflection, without pause for review, without recognising the risks and benefits of human interconnectedness with others.

The work of Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank are well documented. In 2006, Yunus and the Grameen Bank were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Earlier this year Yunus was ousted from the bank he founded. An appeal was dismissed. Yunus's concept of microfinance has been imitated by others and operates in other countries outside Bangladesh.

Ned Breslin points out in the simple video below how microfinancing is not always the success story that is promoted.


He points out:

I am a big fan of microfinance, having started my first microfinance project for water and sanitation in rural KwaZulu, Natal, South Africa in 1993. But I learned very quickly in this project that there was often a gap between repayment rates and actual impact. The microfinance sector spends a great deal of time focused on repayment rates -- with organizations suggesting that they are successful and impactful because they can show a high repayment rate on the loans that they made. To illustrate, MFIs will often publish statistics like 95% repayment rates on loans and suggest that this means they are great at transforming poverty and changing lives. 

Repayment matters of course, but it does not in any way confirm the impact of the loan. In the case of water and sanitation, a focus on loan repayment as the key (or only) indicator of success is misleading. Repayment of loans simply show that money was used to purchase a latrine and the money was paid back by the family.

But in this example from rural Bolivia I show that the real impact question is about whether the loan actually changed the lives of loan recipients? And as I learned in South Africa and since, the answer is often no. Families take out loans because they want to change their lives with that loan. That is great! 

But if the toilet is poorly constructed, if the system does not work, or if a tap is paid for by a loan but water rarely is available at that tap, then the family took out a loan, repaid that loan and the investment had no impact on their lives. In fact, the loan might have made the family poorer in the end! 

In the example here, the loan scheme was linked to a water project that was never completed. The family in this video took out a loan to get a flush latrine that has never been used because the water project -- started 6 years ago -- was never completed. The toilet is now useless.

Microfinance success should be judged on whether loans transformed lives, 
not on whether loans were repaid.


Further reading:



Friday, 10 June 2011

The Wran Lecture by Senator John Faulkner - the annotated version

Amplify

Below is an annotated version 
of  The Wran Lecture 
delivered last night by
Senator John Faulkner.

With one exception, the annotation is done by highlighting and colour coding of text.
I leave it to Networkers to discern the reasons for the choice of colour as applied to the text.
The one exception is an insertion of text expressing my own view.
This is the one area where, so far, I am unable to agree with Faulkner.

Thursday, 12 November 2009

A PRIVATISED UTILITY SEEMS TO BE GOING BAD: TRUENERGY DOWN THE TUBES?


A couple of missives have landed in Miss Eagle's mailbox which make her wonder if there's something rotten in the state of Denmark or, to be more precise, the land of privatised utility corporations.

The first one, dear Networkers, to come across the desk was from those avid Networkers doing their best to save Solar Systems.  Here 'tis:

From: Chris Breen

To: Philip Sutton ; climateemergencynetwork@yahoogroups.com; grassroots_climate_oz@yahoogroups.com
Cc: savesolarsystems@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, 9 November, 2009 10:18:01 AM
Subject: Re: [GRCO] Plans for two new big gas fired power stations for Vic and NSW = continuation or increase of CO2 emissions
Its also worth pointing out that TRUenergy parent CLP group decided to write off its investment in Solar Systems (they had invested $53 million & decided to write that off as a loss, rather than put more money in without finding co-investors). So they can find $2 billion for a new gas fired power plant, but cant find $200 million or so to build a solar power plant in Mildura.

The gas plant is also dependent on near tripling of compensation to coal-fired generators from $3 billion to $10 billion. Regardless of the specifics of the gas proposal, this also seems to be part of a play for more compensation under the CPRS.
The government should ditch all compensation and just directly build renewables - $10 billion could build a lot of renewables.

Renewables are more expensive than gas, but on the figures below not by a whole lot
1000 megawatt gas plant costs approx $2 billion
154 megawatt solar plant costs approx $420 million

Assuming no efficiencies of scale that would make 1000 megawatt of solar cost $2.7 billion, not out of the ball park compared with gas (& solar can be modular, it doesn't have to be all in the same place or built all at once)

Next protest for Solar Systems & to build the Mildura solar power plant will be Monday November 16, 12.30pm, 280 King St, City. Protest is at Lindsay Tanner's office (he is minister for Finance & Deregulation & MP in area where Abbosttsford solar factory is), but I think we should march to TRUenergy offices, which are just around the corner in Bourke St and finish our protest there.
more info here
http://savesolarsystems.wordpress.com/

Then next came a Media Release from the Australian Conservation Foundation:

Investigation urged on blackout threat
Date: 11-Nov-2009

Environment groups have asked the national energy watchdog to investigate claims by TRUenergy that suggest the company may be about to default on electricity supply contracts.
Over the past year TRUenergy has repeatedly claimed there was a risk of blackouts if it did not receive more compensation under a national emissions trading scheme.
Environment Victoria and the Australian Conservation Foundation have today written to the Australian Energy Regulator, asking the regulator to examine the accuracy of TRUenergy’s claims that the company may be about to default on contracts.
Environment Victoria Campaigns Director Mark Wakeham said: “TRUenergy’s 1.3 million customers deserve to know whether they can rely on TRUenergy to deliver on its contracts and whether the company is crying wolf in an attempt to line its own pockets.
“Claims that the electricity supply is at risk and that the company has reduced maintenance spending at Yallourn power station should be thoroughly investigated.
TRUenergy is 100 per cent foreign owned by CLP Power International (formerly China Light and Power). ACF climate campaigner Phil Freeman said he was concerned about windfall profits going offshore with no benefit to Australian households or taxpayers.
“TRUenergy is already set to receive $738 million worth of free permits in the first five years of the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.[1] There is no case for the company to get more handouts from the public purse,” Mr Freeman said.
“The Government should reject these scare tactics because giving more handouts to big polluters will slow down the transition to a low carbon economy and lessen the environmental effectiveness of the emissions trading scheme.”
The letter has also been sent to the Australian Energy Market Operator, the Essential Services Commission, the Australian Energy Market Commission and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

[1] Innovest Research note: The impact of industry assistance measures under the CPRS White Paper update, 16/10/200
Seems to me, that TRUenergy is not a TRUE friend and that institutional reform in respect of public - not privatised - utilities is called for.
POSTSCRIPT
SOON AFTER WRITING THE ABOVE POST
Don't miss Denis Wilson's comment below.
MissEagle
racism-free
Photobucket

Wednesday, 14 October 2009

Speaking tour - Melbourne - Ampilatwatja walk-off against NT Intervention


STOP THE INTERVENTION


Click to enlarge

Some of the activities for
Richard Downs and Harry Nelson
Richard Downs is the spokesperson for the Alyawarr people,
who have walked off their community at Ampilatwatja
against the NT Intervention and
established a protest camp
outside the boundaries of the Prescribed Area.

Harry Nelson is a senior Warlpiri elder.
His community of Yuendumu has also been at the forefront
of resistance to the Intervention,
holding off the Income Management system
for many months in 2008 and now refusing to sign long-term
leases demanded by the government.

Robbie Thorpe is a local indigenous activist.

MELBOURNE SPEAKING TOUR
Wednesday, 14 October 2009, 1pm
Joe Nap B, second floor of Union House
University of Melbourne
Thursday, 15 October 2009, 1pm
Monash University Clayton
Campus Cinema, Building 10

Friday, 16 October 2009, 10am
Protest March Against Racism
MAYSAR Youth Sport and Recreation Centre
184-186 Gertrude street, Fitzroy
Friday, 16 October 2009, 6pm.
Public meeting
MAYSAR Youth Sport and Recreation Centre
184-186 Gertrude street, Fitzroy
Resistance to Invasion:
the Aboriginal walk-off and protest against the
Northern Territory Intervention.
Speakers include:
Richard Downs, Harry Nelson
 and leading Melbourne Aboriginal activist
Robbie Thorpe.
More info. please contact:
Marisol 0413597315
MissEagle
racism-free
Photobucket
Posted by Picasa

Tuesday, 29 September 2009

The Bishop of Gippsland John McIntyre: how people of faith exhibit special pleading


When my friend John McIntyre was made Bishop of Gippsland my reactions were joy and dumbfoundedness.  You can read my views here.

To-day I am once again thankful for this man's clarity and vision - and, once again, his permission giving style.  I hope The Age does not want me to withdraw this direct lift from its Opinion pages but here is vintage Johnny Mac from the pages of The Age to-day:

A betrayal of the faith
JOHN MCINTYRE
September 29, 2009



Christians should support equality and human rights laws, not seek exemptions.


I AM perplexed! On Sunday, The Age reported that Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls had, after extensive lobbying from conservative church leaders, pre-empted a parliamentary committee report on exemptions to the Equal Opportunity Act. Hulls announced a compromise that will allow church groups to continue to discriminate, albeit in a more limited way. This will, I imagine, also flow on to the national debate under way in regards to the introduction of a national Human Rights Charter.


Such a response is arguably at odds with the essence of what the founder of the Christian faith lived, taught and died for. How bizarre that the followers of Jesus Christ would oppose, and ask for exemptions from, a legal instrument that has at its heart a declaration of the dignity and value of every human life and the basic rights of every person. Jesus of all people, would champion an affirmation of fundamental human rights, which especially benefits marginalised groups in society and those least able to protect themselves.


But it is even more perplexing than that. In Victoria, the churches are arguing for the continued right to be exempted from obligations under the Equal Opportunity Act that would require them to uphold universally recognised human rights in matters of employment by church organisations.


Since it has been pointed out that this exemption is arguably in conflict with the already-established Victorian Charter of Human Rights, the churches are rushing to defend the privilege not to uphold a truth that lies at the very heart of the Christian understanding of the universal dignity of every human being. I have no concern that churches want to foster Christian caring organisations and learning communities. But why claim this can only be done if they are given exemption from a law, which like a Charter for Human Rights, is designed to affirm universal human rights?


It is good for Christians to engage in the debate about the values that characterise the society to which we belong. But we need to be clear that the grounds upon which we argue maintain the values for which we stand. Certainly, Christians living in more oppressive societies appreciate the value of a human rights charter, which, among other things, guarantees freedom of religion and freedom of speech and association. Australian Christians would do well to listen to their voices as we now discuss this matter within the life of our own nation.


But even more importantly for Christians, they should listen to the voice of Jesus. On the matter of the fundamental dignity of every human being, his story of the Good Samaritan is instructive. It is a narrative with radical implications. Told in the context of the conflicted multicultural society of Jesus' day, it is the story of a man who is beaten and left for dead on the side of the road. Two religious leaders from the same ethnic and socio-religious background as the victim pass him by and do nothing for him; perhaps out of fear, or even worse, perhaps because their religious sensibilities tell them not to touch one presumed to be dead. Eventually a Samaritan, a man belonging to the group most despised both by the victim and the ones who passed by, stops and cares for the beaten man, not counting either the risk or the cost to himself.


The shocking truth of this story is that the one considered most to be the enemy and least likely to know what is right and good proves to be the one who does what is right and good, even for a person from a group who despises him. This is a deliberately provocative and stark affirmation of the humanity of those most distant from us in every way. It tells the listeners that they only truly acknowledge the common humanity of every human being when they acknowledge that an ordinary member of the group most opposed to them is capable of doing what is right and good. This story asserts that when we see the other human being as one capable of goodness, we affirm the other person as truly human. This is even more potent than the other truth in the story: that whenever we see anyone in need, whoever they are, they deserve our help. At the heart of what Christians proclaim as the Gospel of Jesus Christ is this radical affirmation of universal human dignity as the basis of universal human rights.


How strange that today some of the heirs to the anti-slavery campaigner tradition of the church seem reluctant to support a Charter of Human Rights in Australia and seek ongoing exemption from the Equal Opportunity Act in Victoria. Those Christian social reformers who opposed slavery, such as William Wilberforce or Pope John Paul II, would surely be perplexed by this stance. If a radical statement of the full humanity of every person, simply because they are human, lies at the heart of Jesus' teaching and if he showed a particular concern for the marginalised and the most vulnerable, why then would Christians oppose a legal instrument designed to affirm these truths?


And furthermore, why would Christians defend their right to be exempt from a commitment to them when employing people to work in their church-based organisations? That is why I am perplexed.


John McIntyre is the Anglican Bishop of Gippsland
 and chairman of the Victorian Council of Christian Education.




MissEagle
racism-free
Photobucket

Monday, 28 September 2009

Questions and Answers with Rob Hulls, Attorney-General, Victoria


Further to my previous post here, this is the follow up.

Here is the question I asked Rob Hulls with his reply on the Live Q&A.

2:47
[Comment From Miss Eagle]
Rob, I am concerned about water trading and the way such a precious resource has now become a casino leading to haves and have nots. I understand it came about because of a COAG decision. How can we legally get out of this mess whereby we unbundled land from water and get land and water connected again?
  • 2:48
Rob Hulls:  Water unbundling is an important reform that has given irrigators more options to manage their way through the drought, whether by supplementing low allocations, by buying more water, or selling water they don't need, or for cash flow. The drought impacts on individual irrigators would be much more severe if they did not have this flexibility.


~~~~~~~
Now I thought this was a bit ho-hum to say the least.  The response displayed no depth of understanding of the issue and was a fob-off in tune with the party line.  Here is what some others thought.

That great Networker and Landscaper Ed said:


It's Victorian government spin again.  The purpose of unbundling water from land is to create a new economy, using our commonly owned water for their and corporate profits.  It does not solve the real issues facing farmers, who (especially the small farm enterprisers) are price takers and not price makers.

Mr Hulls' spin rides right over the issues that have put farmers in this position - He does not acknowledge
Overallocation of water by the States and especially by Victoria, much of which still is held as sleeper licences still able to be activated.

The disconnection between people who own water rights without owning or managing land, which necessarily leads to further misuse of water and water rights.

The environmental devastation which is occurring now, land and water unbundling occurs, leading away from stewardship of our natural resources.

  • Failure of Victorian government to initiate and continue upgrading of infrastructure which it was their charter to do under the Water Act since that infrastructure was created.
  • Failure by Victorian government to respond in kind and in concert with the enormous advances farmers made in response to successive industry restructures in farm enterprises dependent on irrigation water.
  • Failure by Victorian government to complement their research organisations, which had farmers striding forward with irrigation efficiency advances, so that their irrigation efficiency is just about at peak levels for the kinds of irrigation they carry out.
  • Failure of the Victorian government to do the right thing by farmers and help pay for the next stage of irrigation water use efficiency, which is to lay drip line ($20,000/ha) under pasture and many other forms of agricultural production.
  • Failure of the Victorian government to sufficiently insist on changing inefficient irrigation land use to the most efficient protein producing enterprises for irrigation. - The kind of land use most suitable and efficient depends on a range of conditions, such as soil type, water table levels, markets and so on.
  • Failure of the Victorian government to do its due diligence on the level and cost/benefit of the irrigation infrastructure upgrades that they have started (only 1% or so of which is completed).
  • Failure of the Victorian government to have independent auditing done of both financial and water efficiency targets and achievements.
  • Failure of the Victorian government to honor its commitments to restoring the Snowy River environmental flows.
  • Failure of the Victorian government to honor its responsibility to flush the Murray following the recent blue green algae outbreak.
  • Failure of the Victorian government to do due diligence on the water meter issue, which has now turned to a debacle, at great taxpayer cost, because the new electronic water meters cannot function accurately in dirty water. The new water meters giving readings of water use where there is no water use happening.
  • Failure of the Victorian government to be transparent and proactive in detailing the environment and energy costs of it big projects, e.g. North-South Sugarloaf Pipeline, Bendigo Ballarat superpipe and Waranga basin low level pumping, and water diversions from Lake Nagambie to Waranga Basin.
  • Failure of the Victorian government to even mention or admit that it has another sizeable pipeline recently put in from the Goulburn River at Trawool to take more water out of the Goulburn River to Broadford and Wallan, and thence to the water network which will end with water going all the way to the new suburbs it is creating in the Melbourne and Geelong super metropolis.
  • Failure of the Victorian government to meaningfully recognise that the Goulburn Heritage River system is in such a degraded condition that the extraction of any water out of it for use in coastal cities will kill the future of the river and place a series of nails in the Murray River system.

Ed Adamson
DipAg MEnvSc
Merrijig 3723

And from the indefatigible Maria in Mildura


That is the pat answer they all give when asked about unbundling! The same question was asked at the water information forum in Mildura on Tuesday and the same answer given. 


They do not seem to understand that it is NOT the drought that is the issue - we can deal with drought: it is the fact that the Murray-Darling Basin water system is over-allocated and with every drop being able to be sold, the market that they so praise has caused the over-allocation to be exacerbated. Previously not all water was used and it was left in the river (thought some of it might have been used elsewhere) and sleeper licenses were not an issue. When they put the cap on the MDB they capped it using a wet year as the ill-considered reference point instead of being cautious and calculating in a drought! In fact when they put the cap on the drought was already on its way! (as we now CSIRO has said the drought has been going for 15 years-or it climate change?)

He has also forgotten that with cities and urban areas getting into the market, this prevents and discourages policies and strategies and actions that encourage more environmentally sustainable options being utilized and being adopted. This is short-sighted politically motivated response instead of long-term environmentally sustainable options.

As the Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability has stated in his State of the Environment Report 2008 (December and summary attached): “Victoria is living beyond its resource means.” This includes water.

I went to the Victorian Green paper on Climate Change info session Wednesday night and basically it can be boiled down to one main consideration: population growth. Until governments and communities understand that if we don’t curb population growth (keep Australia to 17 million-some professor was talking about this exact problem on radio National this morning) consumption of resources will only increase. How can it not? More people mean that they will demand more resources.

In order to maintain a healthy natural environment we need to limit population growth world-wide as any other action such as cutting greenhouse gases etc is almost impossible if we do not consider that a glass can only be emptied and filled to a certain level before it runs out or over flows.

Those are just SOME of my thoughts.

Again if you don’t have a copy get a copy of ‘Water Resources Law’ by Alex Gardner, Richard Bartlett and Janice Gray (LexisNexis Butterworth 2009) which is fantastic as a resource book and explains it all. It might seems costly but think of the hours of research! Well worth it. I am finding it enlightening!




MissEagle
racism-free
Photobucket

Total Pageviews