So, lawyers have difficulty understanding it ..... yet 'we' in the disability community will be 'ruled' by planners who have no training in either disability or law and it is they who make the decisions, 'on the ground'. I am with the NDIS and my experience of planners is they make it up as they go along and they are not accountable. The issue, in my opinion, is how 'we' interact with the NDIS, specifically planners. My experience is they are bullies and inconsistent, causing stress. They should have the job of facilitating, not deciding (they do not have the training to decide)
Not that complicated. The legislation is in breach of the UNHRC disability rights. And allows the Minister of the day to change the goal posts. Shorten needs to resign over this betrayal. ALSO YOU DON'T NEED TO LEGISLATE CO-DESIGN. WHAT BS!
The DSS sessions are garbage - they're only answering their own fake questions (that were too long to fit in the Q&A form), and in the session I went to were actively deleting *every* question that came in from the audience. The fact that we could compare what was happening in the chat, and by the end we were calling their behaviour out as dishonest, is why they then blocked chat for future sessions.
I don’t understand why reasonable and necessary needs to be touched in the first place. People don’t go to AAT because they purely don’t understand the terminology, they go because it enables them to fight for their rights. Theres nothing beneficial about these changes, it’s pure gaslighting. There is nothing stopping NDIA from up skilling everybody to understand reasonable and necessary. People go to AAT because what is reasonable and Necessary is denied, that’s why the majority finish with AAT in their favour. If LACs and delegates/planners just did what was right in the first place there would be less demand on AAT and services like advocacy would be much more available to people. The problems with people making mistakes with their funding is purely the lack of NDIS up-skilling participants and nominees and not holding providers registered or not to account and this is from dodgy stuff not what is actually reasonable and necessary in a flexible way. PWD and families do not fit into a box, they are not a one size fits all. Sometimes you need to be creative and find a way to make something work. Having can we fund it pages full of stuff that isn’t true is not upskilling anyone! All I see is a disempowerment of PWD and their families on a grand scale!
A good talk and excellent assessments by you both. Perhaps one approach would be to phase in plan changes in a way similar to how the NDIS was rolled out. Then the effect of changes can be observed and corrected before they become a much bigger problem for participants. Also if states are going to take on more direct responsibility for services then they need to be in place before the existing funding is removed. The other area to be addressed is the lack of availability of options for many outside the major cities. The is always a danger that interpretation by decision makers can often be in conflict with the rules intention and a participant should be able to challenge changes before they are implemented if it means they lose significant control of their daily lives and a consequent loss of quality of life as they perceive it.
re: 27:37 making submissions to politicians about the personal and intimate details of one's life, one's disability, one's supports - is hard labour, inaccessible to some, on unpaid time, not living a life of choice and control, but doing work that public servants should be doing on their paid hours, software engineers should be analysing data that has been collected over the last decade from NDIS systems, to discover this knowledge that already exists, it should not continue to land with pwd to spend their life educating, advocating and justifying. look to academic research, look to disability studies in the academy, every progressing every day, look to what has worked in the last decade, and do some meaningful work, not scaffolding what 'may' happen in the future, depending who holds power in the senate, and where the minister's political leanings land with some metaphorical idea of shading in the blanks. slack arses basically, confident in their retirement funds and private insurances, that shows the faulty design of systems from the brains of privileged ableism
re: 27:37 making submissions to politicians about the personal and intimate details of one's life, one's disability, one's supports - is hard labour, inaccessible to some, on unpaid time, not living a life of choice and control, but doing work that public servants should be doing, software engineers should be analysing data that has been collected over the last decade from NDIS systems, to discover this knowledge that already exists, it should not continue to land with pwd to spend their life educating, advocating and justifying. look to academic research, look to disability studies in the academy, every progressing every day, look to what has worked in the last decade, and do some meaningful work, not scaffolding what 'may' happen in the future, depending who holds power in the senate, and where the minister's political leanings land with some metaphorical idea of shading in the blanks. slack arses basically, confident in their retirement funds and private insurances, that shows the faulty design of systems from the brains of privileged ableism
100% we need protections! Thanks Dr George, Mitchell and Dr. Darren
Our pleasure! thanks for listening GT
So, lawyers have difficulty understanding it ..... yet 'we' in the disability community will be 'ruled' by planners who have no training in either disability or law and it is they who make the decisions, 'on the ground'.
I am with the NDIS and my experience of planners is they make it up as they go along and they are not accountable.
The issue, in my opinion, is how 'we' interact with the NDIS, specifically planners. My experience is they are bullies and inconsistent, causing stress.
They should have the job of facilitating, not deciding (they do not have the training to decide)
Not that complicated. The legislation is in breach of the UNHRC disability rights. And allows the Minister of the day to change the goal posts. Shorten needs to resign over this betrayal. ALSO YOU DON'T NEED TO LEGISLATE CO-DESIGN. WHAT BS!
The DSS sessions are garbage - they're only answering their own fake questions (that were too long to fit in the Q&A form), and in the session I went to were actively deleting *every* question that came in from the audience. The fact that we could compare what was happening in the chat, and by the end we were calling their behaviour out as dishonest, is why they then blocked chat for future sessions.
Thank you for this. Fantastic job gentlemen.
Glad you enjoyed it! Gt
I don’t understand why reasonable and necessary needs to be touched in the first place. People don’t go to AAT because they purely don’t understand the terminology, they go because it enables them to fight for their rights. Theres nothing beneficial about these changes, it’s pure gaslighting. There is nothing stopping NDIA from up skilling everybody to understand reasonable and necessary.
People go to AAT because what is reasonable and Necessary is denied, that’s why the majority finish with AAT in their favour. If LACs and delegates/planners just did what was right in the first place there would be less demand on AAT and services like advocacy would be much more available to people.
The problems with people making mistakes with their funding is purely the lack of NDIS up-skilling participants and nominees and not holding providers registered or not to account and this is from dodgy stuff not what is actually reasonable and necessary in a flexible way. PWD and families do not fit into a box, they are not a one size fits all. Sometimes you need to be creative and find a way to make something work. Having can we fund it pages full of stuff that isn’t true is not upskilling anyone!
All I see is a disempowerment of PWD and their families on a grand scale!
A great podcast. Very informative and nuanced.
Thanks for listening
First speaker: understatement of the year award.🎉
A good talk and excellent assessments by you both. Perhaps one approach would be to phase in plan changes in a way similar to how the NDIS was rolled out. Then the effect of changes can be observed and corrected before they become a much bigger problem for participants. Also if states are going to take on more direct responsibility for services then they need to be in place before the existing funding is removed. The other area to be addressed is the lack of availability of options for many outside the major cities. The is always a danger that interpretation by decision makers can often be in conflict with the rules intention and a participant should be able to challenge changes before they are implemented if it means they lose significant control of their daily lives and a consequent loss of quality of life as they perceive it.
Thanks for such great info! I have made complaints to the Quality and Safeguard Commission, who say "powerless over providers " I want to be heard😢
Glad you found it helpful GT
re: 27:37 making submissions to politicians about the personal and intimate details of one's life, one's disability, one's supports - is hard labour, inaccessible to some, on unpaid time, not living a life of choice and control, but doing work that public servants should be doing on their paid hours, software engineers should be analysing data that has been collected over the last decade from NDIS systems, to discover this knowledge that already exists, it should not continue to land with pwd to spend their life educating, advocating and justifying. look to academic research, look to disability studies in the academy, every progressing every day, look to what has worked in the last decade, and do some meaningful work, not scaffolding what 'may' happen in the future, depending who holds power in the senate, and where the minister's political leanings land with some metaphorical idea of shading in the blanks. slack arses basically, confident in their retirement funds and private insurances, that shows the faulty design of systems from the brains of privileged ableism
😢no moustache
re: 27:37 making submissions to politicians about the personal and intimate details of one's life, one's disability, one's supports - is hard labour, inaccessible to some, on unpaid time, not living a life of choice and control, but doing work that public servants should be doing, software engineers should be analysing data that has been collected over the last decade from NDIS systems, to discover this knowledge that already exists, it should not continue to land with pwd to spend their life educating, advocating and justifying. look to academic research, look to disability studies in the academy, every progressing every day, look to what has worked in the last decade, and do some meaningful work, not scaffolding what 'may' happen in the future, depending who holds power in the senate, and where the minister's political leanings land with some metaphorical idea of shading in the blanks. slack arses basically, confident in their retirement funds and private insurances, that shows the faulty design of systems from the brains of privileged ableism