NDIA Accountability Project

Speech pathology services for NDIS participants at risk

‹ PrevPage 1 of 8 · Source p. 1Next ›

I am a Speech Pathologist with 30 years’ experience.

  • Sole trader
  • Expert in 2 fields (ASD and Deafness/hard of hearing)
  • Bilingual across signed and spoken language
  • Have worked in 3 states, currently consult across 5
  • Have worked within the NDIS framework since 2014.
  • SeeONLY NDIS participants across the lifespan.
  • One of my specialties is an at-birth diagnosis.

I have documented my thoughts in the NDIS both generally, and specifically regarding the proposed changes in the bill before Parliament. Given the extremely short time period allowed for submissions, coupled with running a full NDIS caseload with all that this

Entails, the following does not conform to the formal submission style. However, nor did I wish to use a template from any of the Advocacy organisations or Senator Steele- john, as I want my own words to be heard - ironically a privilege not afforded my clients, most of whom do not have time amongst their caring duties to propose submissions, lack insight into their own condition and needs, or are simply not consulted or listened to by decision makers. The onus should be on the government to ENSURE voices are heard, not simply call for submissive in a reduced timeframe from a vulnerable, traumatized,, scared, disadvantaged cohort of the population.

Treat those on the NDIS as a whole with consistently functional impact criteria. There are children AND adults, with autism AND other disabilities, mild AND moderate AND severe AND profound, who are being funded

not according to their functors need. Some overfunded, some underfunded, all inconsistent, and almost all having to fight the NDIS the whole way. No one assessment or decision will capture everyone.

Providers are leaving the field. Service delivery is getting worse, not better, because of constant changes to the Scheme. What is the point of a sustainable Scheme if it not delivering quality supports?

Get back to basics. DO

  • get alternative systems in place before announcing changes
  • give people alternatives
  • stick to the original aims
  • accept professional recommendations
  • treat people as individuals
  • train staff
  • eliminate shorter funding periods - people

and their needs are rarely predictive and changes are rarely known about in advance

  • accept peoples lived experience
  • rigorously pursuit providers who rort the scheme
  • allow people to chose all there support
  • have disibility specialist complete assessment so that nuances and indiviual needs is capture
  • work with participant to establishe and review plan, not dictateto them wat you think they nee, contrary to profession recommendatioin
  • demonstrte transparancy of consultion, processe, rationales anf decison makinig at alll levels

  • DON’T:

  • arbitrarily cut funding

  • try to find ways to deny recommended supports, only to have recommendations upheld at the Tribunal. If a professional recommends something as necessary, it is necessary.

  • try to reduce costs at the back end with legal fees by forcing people to appeal multiple times. It costs way more than the original recommended support

  • limit the appeals process - appeals are upheld in the majority (70%) which indicates the AGENCY is making planning errors most of the time.

  • *insist that people try every possible treatment option before accessing NDIS - this completely overrides choice and control. A deaf person should not have to get a cochlear implant if they don’t want one - and

  • even if they do, it does not eliminate their support needs
    • cut ANY Auslan funding - it has taken so long for people to be able to access interpreters and instructors and the whole education system and early childhood area is opening up to Auslan.
    • return to the old model of block funding, centralised programs, non-individualised support
    • minimise the importance of Community and Social Participation - engage a specialist disability professional to do an in depth study in the benefits of this funding, specifically
    • Introduce Thriving Kids without serious and rigorous theoretical groundwork and consultation with early childhood professional specialists - almost all of whom have massive concerns about it
    • use incorrect language to describe diagnoses or conditions - there is no MILD Autism.
  • require allied health professionals to register if they are already registered with their national peak body - it will force out specialists and smaller agencies and you will lose a massively important cohort of providers (many have already left)
  • punish participants for Agency errors and previous decisions
  • make decisions based on inaccurate information - Hearing Australia does NOT provide hearing aids for everyone, but this seems to be the standard line
  • announce anything without detail - it just scares people
  • re-traumatise people with disabilities and their families by either threatening their funding, or making them prove repeatedly their permanent disability or stable support needs
  • give one Minister the level of power he/she will have under the new laws. One malicious or incompetent player and the entire system

Page Heading

Final Message:

is threatened

Finally - view disability NOT as a burden on the country, but as an opportunity to be world leaders in inclusion, support, dignity, utilisation of disabled people’s strengths and capacities, and public understanding of social capital.

What Finland is to education, Australia COULD be to Disability.