Dignity of Risk should be a disability right

What is "Dignity of Risk"? Look at what the web site"Furthering Inclusive Learning and Development" says:

Dignity of Risk refers to the right of all people to undertake some tasks that have a level of risk. It can be risky to go surfing as accidents can occur, but if you are a good swimmer, surf with a friend and check surfing conditions, it is a reasonable risk to take.

Is this also saying that the service providers and carers of people with disabilities have to balance the risk to the disabled person and the right of that person to pursue happiness?

People with disabilities are mainly in the best position to instruct their own support services. Dignity of Risk should mean that support services encourage the disabled to make their own informed choices.

Stereotyping and discriminatory attitudes can make it even more difficult for a person with disabilities to be a "normal person". It follows that the disabled person should decide for him or herself what their own Dignity of Risk level is

Recognition of this need will enable a better relationship between the support workers and the disabled and a consequent development of both consumer and provider.

The danger is that the principle Dignity of Risk is something that can be over-ridden - and support turned into a legalistic tug of war. Quoting The State Disability Plan:

The Principle of Dignity and Self-Determination (Choice) is about respecting and valuing the knowledge, abilities and experiences that people with a disability possess, supporting them to make choices about their lives, and enabling each person to live the life they want to live (Guiding principles).

The Victorian Government wants disability supports to focus on supporting people with a disability in flexible ways, based on their individual needs, so that each person can live the lifestyle that they want to lead (The New Approach).

Section 69 of the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act (1995)

But, is the above as stipulated by the state disability planto be legally enforced so as to ensure the upholding of disability rights? Consider Section 69 of the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act:

A person may discriminate if the discrimination is necessary to comply with, or is authorised by, a provision of an Act, other than the Equal Opportunity Act.

In other words, other legislation can override laws against discrimination and disregard Dignity of Risk for the disabled.

What are these "rights" which can be over-ridden by other legislation? Is there to be real justice - or the rhetoric of concern? The exemption clause, Section 69 of the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act, appears to place a second class status upon people with disabilities.

For example, in 2002, I contacted the Equal Opportunities Department about a dispute I was having with the Royal District Nursing Service. This issue was directly related to Occupation Health and Safety laws. But upon contacting the Equal Opportunities Department, I was confronted with Section 69 of the Victorian Equal Opportunities Act.

So, I was making my appeal in terms of Dignity of Risk - while my dignity could be over-ridden by an appeal to Section 69.

The administrators of the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act will be hard-pressed to ensure that the human rights of people with disabilities will be fully respected.