Assistive Technology

Submission 37 - Supplementary Submission

Joint Parliamentary Standing Committee N.D.I.S./ Assistive Technology

My name is Bernadette Wright and I appeared before the Committee, as a participant of the N.D.I.S on 22/11/2018.

I wish to again thank the Committee for the opportunity to appear and to tell my experience of participating in the scheme, which in theory is wonderful, but in practice has been a demoralising and stultifying process. Participating has diminished my world beyond my disability where I am feeling unable to access the world and participate as I would choose to (not as an uneducated, ill- informed planner may perceive are my wants and rights).

Additional Points I Wish to Make.

e. N.D.I.S. Planners and Delegates make decisions that are directly opposed to the expert advice that is given from agencies/organisations whose specific purpose and operations are around particular disabilities. One would assume the logical approach would be to comply with the recommendations offered by these agencies. This would have a beneficial impact on the costings of the N.D.I.S. as there would be many, many savings on supplementary assessments , time, efficiency, reviews and delays and participants happily living , participating and being change agents in the world. Wouldn’t that be the core business?

e. The N.D.I.S. quotes ad nauseum the 91per cent population that have everyday items such as IPhones and IPads. For many people these items go far beyond the “every day, every household” use. They offer many applications that will enhance our (my) lives that allow independence, mobility and richer participation in our communities if we so desire. This 91 per cent rule is an unfair and illogical comparison to use in refusing assistive technology.

e. To observe me functioning and participating in work/social/community environments it is very easy to judge me as having more vision than I do. I, like many low vision and blind people or indeed any disability, use all our senses, memory, and many strategies to be mobile, to mask any mishaps as in tripping, falling, walking into glass doors/walls, falling down steps, going to the wrong gender toilet (I do this all the time!!). We have many strategies for seeking assistance and navigating our worlds. These fabulous skills are so often judged by LAC’s, Planners and Delegates and their biases come and ignorance comes to the fore. More credit needs to be given to those who have a disability. I, for one, would rejoice in having my sight, the world would be my oyster!

e. I spoke about the lack of specific training and comprehension of the lived experience of those who access the N.D.I.S, and I wish to in the most forceful way emphasise that the training is key to rectifying many of the unnecessary and diminishing decisions made by these uneducated , sufficiently trained employees. The resistance in asking the participant for further information also needs to be changed. We need to be consulted first for it is us who are most often the experts on our lived experience of our disability.

Again, I thank all the members of the Committee, Secretary and Brooke and Apo lline for the respectful interactions and I hope your trust in mine and participants recommendations that I KNOW would make huge changes to this fundamental scheme that in principle creates a more equitable and level playing field for people with a disability.