SUCCESS! On Disabled Parking “Harmonisation” Activism

accessible parking sign including bipedal/walking stick/wheelchair usersRead the background here: “CALL TO ACTIVISM – Many people with disabilities to be excluded from accessible parking under proposed scheme

I’m pleased to report that I have a piece of paper signed by Bill Shorten in my hot little hands. It reads, in part:

You can be assured that the Australian Government is working to ensure no-one with a disability currently with a permit would be worse off under an Australian Disability Parking Scheme. We are looking to improve upon the proposed minimum standards for concessions, permit design and eligibility criteria for the scheme.

The scheme will provide minimum standards for concessions for disability parking permit holders in all states and territories. This would allow jurisdictions across Australia to apply additional concessions above the minimum standard. The scheme would also be open to all current permit holders with disability who use walking sticks or with ‘invisible illness or disabilities’ that make walking difficult.”

I don’t know why the scare quotes on invisible illnesses or disabilities – but well done, everyone. It’s right here in writing, so let’s hold him to it.



Categories: Miscellaneous

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

11 replies

  1. And furthermore, Brava! and Bravi! to the hoyden troika, thanks for organising the letter campaign.

  2. Paint me as cynical, but given the fact he talks about “current permit holders” not being disadvantaged I worry that it doesn’t actually assure us that people eligible under the old scheme will still be eligible under the new scheme UNLESS they already have a permit. Will it end up like the old/new disability pension holders?

  3. Go Lauredhel! This seems like such a positive response to all the work you (and everyone else) did getting the word out about this and educating people! My inner cynic has gone into hiding for a bit I think 🙂
    Although I do share Ricky’s worries that people trying to get permits after this scheme is put in place might still be excluded.

  4. Yay! Crossing fingers it’s not doing the dodgy that Ricky points out, but this looks like good news. Heartening, too, that for all of the scare quotes, the terminology of invisibility has been taken up in a semi-official way….

  5. I think your cynicism is well-placed, Ricky – I’m just glad there was SOME sort of listening going on! Plus the fact that States can add to the scheme (but not take away from it) might be a useful point. We need to keep pushing.

  6. Could the scare quotes just be quotes? Wasn’t the phrase “invisible illness or disabilities” used in the letters of protest that were sent? Maybe they’re using the language that they’ve been given, and want to make it clear that they’re quoting?
    Or not, I suppose.
    But either way, it’s a positive outcome!

  7. Lauredhel, yes I’m glad to see evidence of at least some listening going on. I just …
    I think it may be CynicalRicky week :/

  8. That’s fantastic!
    I noticed the same thing Ricky picked up. If they do frame the legislation that way, it’s *possible* (depending on precisely how the legislation is framed, and also the circumstances of the person/people who challenge it) that there could be a discrimination claim available to someone who couldn’t get a permit out because they (1) don’t meet the new requirements and (2) don’t hold an existing permit, but where (3) they do meet the old requirements. But fingers crossed that just won’t be necessary!

  9. Ngh, I’d better go get my permit quick.

%d bloggers like this: