NDIS submission 2 Please publish but withhold name.
This is my second submission saying that I am absolutely and vehemently opposed to this horrific Bill. Previously with only two weeks I did my best to put in a submission. I stated the submission that it was not extensive because the timeframe had not allowed me to totally think through my idea or evaluate legislation that was over 100 pages in under two weeks with a severe debilitating condition.
My condition has been compared to trying to thing with a concussion. So putting these words together is extremely taxing for me.
Listened to the tribunal in horror as a person after person and organisation. After organisation stated how horrific this bill is and how it will cause extreme suffering and death for those who are most vulnerable.
The committee seemed largely unmoved Asking questions about budget and how things can be done better. While not taking into account the fact that no tinkering at the edges will help such a bill that is undoubtedly harmful to the community it claims to serve.
The Testimonies alone should be enough to quash this Bill forever! Never mind, be over 2 1/2 thousand submissions delivered in the small two weeks period. After all my effort causing great personal cost to put the previous submission in I have yet any Written indication that my submission has been received. I telephoned to get someone who was not in that department who answered the phone. SHe said that they had received my submission but no written correspondence has come to to evidence that being the case and it has not been uploaded to the site for the public to view.
Surely this is not a fair process if the public doesn’t get to see all the submissions. And it’s highly doubtful that the committee members have read all 2,500 of them. After such extensive effort from our most vulnerable screaming to be heard- it appears they might have got a superficial AI scan at most. I am also so sceptical of a process in which the agency in question constantly skirted questions and frustrated the process of getting clear answers- even after tireless efforts by Senator Steel John to call them to account. What kind of a process is this whereby the agency deemed with providing care for vulnerable people spend their time in front of the committee obfuscating responsibility and muddying the waters rather than assisting the committee with clear impartial information.
The chair did not challenge or call the agency on their deplorable behaviour yet reprimanded Senator SJ when his frustration became apparent. Shouldn’t the chair have a duty to ensure the agency’s time with the committee was productive and professional? In contrast the repeatedly parroted the ndis rules rather than answer questions and when asked for clarification they just repeated what they had already said like some ridiculous Orwellian nightmare. It made it very clear the agencies goal was to protect their own backsides rather than the people they are charged with serving. To say the trust the disablity community has in the agency is at an all time low is understating the situation.
I would also like to draw attention to something that hasn’t been given much airtime. Disabled people want to be able to choose who comes into their homes. Independent workers (unregistered) provide this choice. In all the arguments I’ve heard (mostly driven by large agencies who have a vested interest) have framed registration as a highly positive thing. The Community knows that big companies do not mean better care. Particularly for people in regional areas the choice to employ someone within the local area with an ABN means they can choose the best person for the job. A person who resonates and has a ‘can do’ attitude and common sense often out performs those who have simply ticked the boxes of credentials. Especially when
there is limited people available to work in regional areas. Every disabled person has different needs. Most needs are not rocket science. They include cleaning organising shopping personal care providing transport helping with life administration the very basics of life . But it is imperative that the participants get to choose who they have in their homes and control of who they choose to work for them. Paradoxically some needs are highly specific and may surpass what a registered worker is capable of. Before my disability i worked in a highly specialised area. Assistance needed for me to capacity build to working back in the industry is beyond a registered worker no matter how much goodwill they have. The choice to engage the right person for the specific needs of the participant is crucial. I implore you to reject this devastatingly harmful bill.
Please find original submission attached also.