Submission to the Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012

From: To: Community Affairs, Committee (SEN); Subject: Submission to the Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012 Date: Friday, 25 January 2013 4:58:46 PM

Please consider this email a formal submission by me to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012.

The current disability system has many problems that need to be addressed.

The ‘system’ as it currently stands is not satisfactorily functional. To illustrate I’ll give you two examples. They both occurred following the two separate times I have had to have shoulder reconstructions (on both shoulders that is) which, as a wheelchair using paraplegic, are vital to my ability and mobility.

After the first, I applied for funding for an electric wheelchair and a lightweight wheelchair for use during rehab. and ongoing as a shoulder conservation measure to take some of the load off and conserve what I had left so that I could continue to play an active role in the community and the workforce. Being a self employed lawyer having these chairs was essential to my being able to continue working.

The ‘electric chair’ was going to cost about $12,000 and the lightweight about $6,000 (in 2005 money). The relevant body/scheme (then PADP in NSW) were happy to approve the electric but when I advised them that I had run out of time waiting for them to make a decision and had bought a used chair out of my own pocket and asked if they would fund the lightweight instead, at half the cost, I was told they would have to reconsider. Over 6 months later, way past the time at which I had the most need, they said they would fund half if I paid the other half. So, instead of paying out the $12,000 and despite my asking them to pay out half that, they would only come up with $3,000 (1/4 of what they had said they would pay). With initial delays included (due to their wanting extensive paperwork from doctors, physios and OTs etc.) the chair arrived about 12 months after the need arose.

At that same time I had to do extensive renovations to the en-suite at home to convert it to a full ‘wet room’ and purchase a commode chair (which PADP refused to fund!) I was forced to draw all but about $4,000 of my superannuation. So, not only was I forced to extend my stay in hospital due to their delays, I was forced to use almost all my accrued superannuation and so will be forced to rely on the aged pension when I retire.

The second incident followed surgery to my other shoulder which required me to have a hoist at home before I could be discharged from hospital. All the paperwork was submitted early in the piece and the hoist appeared 12 months later. I was forced to hire one, at considerable cost, in order to get out of hospital and for the next 10 months. With what I paid out on the hire I could have bought one, except that I had to borrow the money from a family member and still have not been able to repay it.

They “system” as it currently stands is broken.

Please fix it. Support the NDIS.

The main features of the NDIS that will make a difference to the community are:

Ensure support and equipment is available when needed

More employment of people with disability and less reliance on social welfare, The ability to receive services when needed and in the way that suits the person, Less red tape, with planning done locally by people who know their community, People with disability/family will influence the types of support and services offered

The most important services for the NDS to provide are:

• Equipment and home/vehicle modifications
• Employment support
• Support for families and carers
• Case management, planning and coordination
• Crisis and emergency support

I support the introduction of the NDIS.

I choose to support the NDIS as it should provide the help, equipment and support needed by all people with disabilities to live a life from cradle to grave in which they are able to achieve the welfare, education, career and general life goals to which they are entitled without the extant obstructive and dysfunctional “systems” we are currently forced to use. This should allow for the provision of equipment and services in a timely manner and which the individuals, their families, carers and helpers choose as most appropriate.

I choose to support the NDIS as it should, at least, deliver us, the people with disabilities, the two steps forward in the above to leave at least a better system than that which we are currently forced to navigate following the inevitable one step back we have come to expect as a given.

I agree for my submission to be made public

Regards, Mr Peter Andersen