Article written by

Lauredhel is an Australian woman and mother with a disability. She blogs about disability and accessibility, social and reproductive justice, gender, freedom from violence, the uses and misuses of language, medical science, otters, gardening, and cooking.

5 Responses

Page 1 of 1
  1. Chally
    Chally at |

    I hope it works out.

  2. Helen
    Helen at | *

    I really hope this goes well, I can see the Bolts and Albrechtsens circling now with their sneers and jeers and pouncing on every thing that goes wrong.

  3. rayedish
    rayedish at |

    It looks as though care is being taken though. This seems to be a really good development. I like the stance on gender equity.

  4. Ariane
    Ariane at |

    Mostly I think this looks like a lot of steps in the right direction. Although I find myself highly skeptical about the long term integrity of an Ethics Council. I think it would need water tight terms of reference and scope to avoid becoming a tool of “jobs for the boys” (and girls, since it has gender equality built in).

    Overall, an idea that is both radical and conservative – K.Rudd might like it.

    (Personally not a fan of requiring all endeavours to be self-sustaining financially, although I can understand the motivation in this case.)

  5. tigtog
    tigtog at |

    “a lot of steps in the right direction” seems to sum up the general reaction here, and it’s mine as well, with the shared apprehension about what it might mean if not well enough planned and supported, allowing the naysayers to pounce on any problems, as Helen said.

    I’m also with shonias on the problems with requiring self-sustaining funding – it’s an economic “rationalist” political trope which is really nothing more than sheer laziness in analysing the effects and outcomes of public policy across multiple departments/areas.

    Here in NSW Greiner’s big idea that public transport should be financially self-sustaining through ticket sales (so prices were raised) did nothing more than make people take cars instead to save money, with the double effect of (a) gutting PT terribly and (b) increasing the public money that had to be spent on ever-more-congested commuter road systems. A proper analysis would have taken the interaction between different areas of public spending on commuter transit into account and realised that generous funding of PT was offset by saved public money on road systems.

    So, what current (non-indigenous) advisory systems on indigenous affairs is this new body going to make redundant, and how much public money will that save? How much money will be saved by having a single body existing to point out where current bureaucratic systems run at cross-purposes or leave gaps in Indigenous Affairs (flaws that mean that Social Services, Public Health, or the Corrections system, has to pick up the pieces and the tab down the line)? These are the questions that should be asked by those who instead prefer to be smug about self-sustaining funding set-ups.

Comments are closed.