SUB.100.02270_01_0001
Hi all
Thanks for the time to share Synapse experiences yesterday. These are all such critical issues that often stem from or compound the impact of disability as well as heightening vulnerability of people with disability to discrimination and criminalisation of disability, not to mention systemic discrimination that fails to address the experience of disability in a cultural and community context.
While I’m sure I’ve talked your ear off yesterday, I really appreciate Synapse being invited to share our experiences and the opportunity to support our teams to contribute their knowledge and experiences to critical conversations that represent their communities, culture and families. We care very deeply about our work and the families and communities that place their trust in us to do things proper, and preference the part we can play in surfacing knowledge and stories that are grounded in culture, Indigenous identity and meaningful impact.
As discussed, here is the link to the released documents for ADNIP, all recommendations of which
Another thing I failed to reference today (there is always so much to talk about!) …. Is Synapse’s involvement and support for the Justice Reform Initiative. If the commission has not already connected with Dr Mindi Sotiri then this may certainly be of interest
As mentioned, Synapse is passionately committed to seeing change in these areas for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. We recognise also that many of the same issues and systemic barriers exist for Non-Indigenous people due to lack of understanding and response to disability and the diverse ways that disability and cognitive impairment may present, regardless of diagnosis. The Tier 2 NOIA investment can and should be much more targeted to systemically address these types of capacity building needs over a long term as many of those caught in these systems will either not engage with individual funding packages component of the scheme, may not have any interest or benefit from services purchasable with individual packages or merely not require their identity to be defined by disability in order to have their cultural needs acknowledged and met.
We hope the review of the ILC framework undertaken will adequately consider these issues in the actual context of long-term social impact at community and population levels, not merely traditional understandings of disability specific outcomes which require a Non-Indigenous lens to
SUB.100.02270_01_0002
be applied to what is measured as a meaningful outcome.
As long as we continue to fund systems to operate in ways that do not preference or ignore cultural outcomes, systems will continue to deliver services and outcomes the disrespect and make culture invisible all together, if not a secondary consideration. This in turn continues evolution of systems (including NDIS) that are built upon a Non-Indigenous idea of what life should be and what human rights are valued enough to invest in or be preferenced. This in turn amplifies the lack of appropriate services, lack of culturally informed workforce development and ultimately lack of individuals that experience value in engaging with systems such as the NDIS or services that result. Of course this perpetuates the issue of not building an improved evidence base about what actually works better, because we continue to measure the wrong things and reference an evidence base that is inaccurate, misleading and often harmful.
In a broader NDIS context, there is risk in my view that so many consider the NDIS in terms of its function in individualised funding packages and not the broader scheme intent that includes capacity building at a community and system level - not limited to those that qualify for individualised funding allocations. This cannot occur by considering disability first, and culture being secondary if considered at all. The experience of disability and culture are not separable. They are one and the same. As a result we often understand abuse, neglect and exploitation to be an individual experience linked to some sort of transactional exchange of service. This often shifts the focus from the sustained systemic change that is needed to safeguard individual’s experiencing the result. The significant underinvestment in advocacy nationally only services to ensure that those not linked to the service system lack the resources to have a voice at an individual level.
Acknowledging the responsibility of systems, government of all levels, communities, organisations etc is critical to addressing complex disadvantage that often (in relation to brain injury specifically) causes, compounds or increases vulnerability of people with disability, particularly for First Nations communities. Capture in the criminal justice system is a stark example of this.
In fact to not address these issues one may argue is tantamount to abuse, neglect and exploitation on a much greater scale due to action or inaction.
As a Non-Indigenous person, I offer Synapse’s position on these issues with the consent and support of my teams and Elders. I’m grateful to have opportunity to bring voice to these on behalf of Synapse but I feel it always important to highlight that these are viewpoints informed by community and by those that provide cultural stewardship to Synapse in our work.
As always, we are pleased to contribute in any way to the work of the commission moving forward. Particularly those that advance the opportunities and recognition of the complexity of brain injury and cognitive impairment and its intersection with systems that continue to criminalise and disadvantage people impacted by disability both at an individual and population level.
Adam Schickerling
National Director Strategy & Engagement
07 3137 7400 I Level 1, 262 Montague Rd, Brisbane, QLD 4101