Assistive Technology

Submission 37

Date: 14/9/18

Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS: Assistive Technology

About Me:

My name is Bernadette Wright. I live in Central Victoria. I have had low vision (legally blind) since 1968. I am an independent woman who has raised a family, worked for most of my life, contributed financially and in many other ways to my community. I have had minimal involvement with disability support services and only utilised programmes such as the Jobs Access programme for assistive technology for my work and occasionally over the years have accessed Vision Australia. I continue to work full time in a rich, joyful occupation, wellbeing officer at a Bendigo Primary School and have every intention of continuing to work for as long as I can.

In the last 2 to 3 years I have had marked changes in my vision, some due to my eye disease, some due to the effects of aging on my eyes so the roll out of the NDIS in my region seemed fortuitous at this stage in my life. While I am fully supportive of the ethos of the NDIS and the right of people with a disability to live rich, independent lives, my experience of the NDIS has been contrary to its philosophy.

The areas of this Inquiry I wish to address are:

a/ The transition to the NDIS and how this has impacted on the speed of equipment provision:

After an initial contact from the local Bendigo NDIS provider and a lengthy process that included 2 meetings and numerous phone calls my first plan was approved to begin on August 31 2017. This plan recommended an assistive technology assessment which was completed in October 2017. Despite many enquiries as to how the recommendations of this report were progressing I received no information other than “There’s always a backlog at VicNorth” and “There’s a huge number of NDIS plans waiting to be assessed”. In June 2018 I eventually had a meeting with my L.A.C. and her programme manager regarding a different issue related to my plan and in that meeting the programme manager focussed on Assistive Technology, commented on the lack of response and said he would “triage” my plan. He gave me the impression I would get a quick response before my next plan was due. I heard nothing. My second plan included the same request as in my first for Assistive Technology and a further extensive and expensive assessment was conducted at the request of the NDIA planner for more information.

My second plan has now been approved with only $525.00 for consumables for Assistive Technology and all the major items requested have been rejected. The total cost of these items would have been approximately $17,000. All items were trialled, deemed by the Vision Australia assessor to be reasonable and necessary and significantly enhanced my life and independence. All my current equipment is very outdated; some is broken and borrowed from Vision Australia. The timeline of my involvement with the NDIS has now been well over 12 months and I am now placed in a position of needing to spend many hours in a process of seeking a further review of the decision to deny me essential assistive technology.

d/ The role of the NDIA in approving equipment requests.

My experience having been in the NDIS system for well over 12 months is that a planner and delegate, without any specific knowledge of me, my eye disease/condition or the impact on my life of the assistive technology requested, have, seemingly blithely, struck a pen through it and rejected it out of hand. It seems incongruous that out of my funds I pay for hours of assessment by an

Assistive Technology

Submission 37

assistive technology expert from Vision Australia. Their report is submitted and without any direct contact with me the report is rejected. I would assume that a planner and delegate would not be au fait with every disability and would therefore rely on and respect assessments presented by people who are experts in the field of the disability. It would appear that the planners and delegates rely on their reading and interpretation of the act without exploring how an individual and their particular needs fit within this criterion.

It is confusing for a participant in the NDS when it becomes apparent that a planner does not understand the function of Assistive technology and refers it on for further assessment by somebody else within the NDIS and I or my assessor are not consulted in this process.

This has been the case with my request for an Orcam. My request for a Clearview CCTV (a magnifying and speaking device) was completely overlooked by the planner although it was included in my plan and Assistive Technology Assessment.

g/ Any other related matters.

In my dealings with the NDIS I have noted what I believe are many inconsistencies with the philosophy of the scheme. I have encountered many workers in this system that do not have an integrated understanding of disability, appear to have a paternalistic approach, don’t have the specific knowledge of different disabilities and don’t source the information required to make the decisions which so greatly affect peoples’ lives. This, in my opinion, hampers the appropriate decision making and negates and diminishes a participants’ real life experience and needs.

As a result of my experience I would query the recruitment, engagement, and professional development of NDIS employees across the board. For example I was dismayed to see a comment from a planner that queried my need for a keyboard as I “don’t touch type.” This is a clear example of ignorance and bias in decision making. There is a common practice of visiting people in their own home for assessment. My environment is familiar and ordered to suit my needs and over the years I have adapted my home to best accommodate my eye condition so I can function as best I can. For a L.A.C. to observe a person with vision impairment in their own totally familiar environment and base decisions on this demonstrates ignorance, naiveté and value judgements on their part.

I have become aware through my research and discussions with other participants that there are huge discrepancies between how regions and states approach their funding of NDS plans, particularly in the area of Assistive Technology.

As a person living with low vision for 50 years who has never exploited the system but contributed to my community in so many ways it has been demeaning and disheartening to have to, time and again, prove my disability and justify my need for items such as Assistive Technology which are entirely consistent with the vision of the NDIS and would enhance my life.

Thank you.

Bernadette Wright.