Submission 65
My Name is Tiffany. I am a part of a strong disability community online and the parent of a disabled child. I am writing this submission today representing humans with disabilities across all walks of life.
The Harmful Reframing Of Support
This political framing of disabled people that has carried on relentlessly through the last three years, has made it very clear where the government stands in supporting their vulnerable. The Government professionals and politicians have blatantly spread misinformation about disabled people, their families and the NDIS system that they access. This has caused the public to turn their back on disabled people and deem them invaluable and a waste of life resources.
The disability community has been a political scapegoat through history, its an easy target to put blame on people who are disabled, two outcomes can come about this recent political framing of the NDIS, affected humans are too disabled to stand up for themselves so the news can continue the political framing.Second they get exposed as the frauds you are accusing them off being and people are not as disabled as they say. Either way you have monopolised the outcome.
Undisclosed Research Interests And Policy Influence
I would like to bring attention to the lack of transparency this political NDIS campaign has had. It has not been disclosed to the public or workforces that are affected, the safeguards that will have to be in place to replace the support NDIS gave to young children.
The NDIS ministers Jenny Mcallister and Mark Butler, have publicly insinuated that the new model they are planning to implement is one they will be building as we go. The new model and the details behind the implantation plan going forward, is one that has not been allowed any scrutiny from the public but specifically the affected workforces that they have volunteered as replacements.
Failure To Consult Frontline Care and Education Professionals
The new model to replace the support and care that NDIS provided has a huge focus on Nurses, teachers, Daycare staff and pediatricians. These workforces have not been given the due diligence of asking what these roles include and what this would mean for the already strained staff and work capacity. It is undemocratic for these pillars in our community to not get a say or have space to ask questions about their new volunteer roles.
Withholding Key Details From The Public
The excuse that an official model is still being worked out is a lie. When the NDIS ministers Jenny Mcallister and Mark Butler had an advisory board of professionals, on the advisory board for Thriving Kids. There was a range of respected professionals that I assume had disabled children’s best intentions at heart.
Submission 65
I want to know why Frank Oberkliad’s life’s work was not something the ministers were upfront about. Should we as the affected, and the public as a democracy not know that Frank Oberklaid the co-chair to these new implementations, is in fact the person who created this model in 2010. “The Goshen Model” is Frank Oberklaids, the model reflects Franks research disproving autism, referring to autism as a “new morbidity“ and something that is produced from trauma, lack of parental relationship and environmental disadvantages, such as low socio economic status, parental education, parental mental health, single parent homes and low income neighborhoods.
Democratic Integrity Concerns
As an Australian I think the public should be aware of plans that are country wide, especially when you do have frameworks and models to use as an example. It is the federal government’s job to keep transparency, it brings extreme concern that Frank Oberklaids life research wasn’t disclosed as his involvement does bring questions about conflict of interest.
When individuals involved in shaping policy or practice are also promoting their own theoretical model, it can create legitimate concerns about transparency and unbiased decision making. It is extremely alarming that the entire inquiry process from opening submissions to the final report, is being conducted within roughly a month, with the public given 15 days to make submissions.
When Transparency And Due Process Are Compromised
Taking these factors into consideration, I have significant and valid concerns regarding the integrity, transparency and democratic fairness in this process. The extremely limited consultation period, combined with the rapid turnaround from submissions to final reporting, has created substantial distrust and doubt within the community. I do not believe this reflects an appropriate democratic standard for reforms that may have long term consequences for disabled Australians and their families.
I strongly believe an independent body should oversee or review these processes. The apparent lack of due process, the accelerated nature of the inquiry, and the insufficient inclusion of disabled voices and lived experience perspective ces are deeply concerning.
This political framing of disabled people that has carried on relentlessly through the last three years, has made it very clear where the government stands in supporting their vulnerable. The Government professionals and politicians have blatantly spread misinformation about disabled people, their families and the NDIS system that they access.
The public dogpile on disabled people’s character, authenticity and worth in our society has done irreparable damage. Our already vulnerable community is now the scapegoat for the mass stresses that this economy and in hand, our federal government has created. Families cannot afford groceries, petrol, outings, rent, or to raise kids at home if they wanted to, and people are fearful of every week that comes at them.
Submission 65
I hope someone sees this and makes the right decision, we need people to stand up for what is fair and what is Australian. Thank you for your time