NDIS Review: Big Changes Revealed with Co-Chairs Bruce and Lisa
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 08. 2024
- On this episode of Reasonable and Necessary, Professor Bruce Bonyhady and Lisa Paul give their final interview and reveal major changes that will be recommended in the NDIS Review final report. This is a must see episode for anyone interested in the NDIS.
This episode was recorded on 12 October 2023 and is part of the Reasonable & Necessary podcast series.
For more episodes visit:
www.summerfoun...
Good discussion, I am optimistic for the future and excited to see more accessibility for all Australians.
Speaking as a psychosocial participant, I don't think that either of the co-chairs fully "get it" about the depth of issues around "independent assessments"; including the differences they propose here. For people with psychosocial what they are proposing is likely to be further traumatising. It is *essential* for us to have choice and control over supports including whoever is doing any assessment.
A critical issue with "foundational" supports will need to be that we have choice and control of those too - it will not be ok for govts to block fund 1 or 2 providers in each location to provide those. Many of the big providers have terrible reputations, and for good reason - they often behave badly with relative impunity (just check out the DRC). We don't feel safe engaging with them. If I had to use registered or block funded supports in my rural area I would literally only have a support coordinator - I would lose all my other supports including my capacity building. And I cannot engage with the local services, they have already harmed me enough.
Thank you Dr George and Panel.
This is going o be an interesting journey. I am worried, but I am also hopeful. 😊
How will the changes impact people with mental and psychosocial disabilities?
Just a suggestion - when people get their reviews signed off, can we get our funding in the form of a debit card, that can only be used for services/equipment in their plan? It might make it a whole lot easier
great idea!
I don’t believe in independent assessments because they are more about ticking boxes than really knowing a person. Each person should be allowed to choose their own professionals to comment on their needs, as they really know the person fully and are not contracted by the government for cost cutting.
Why are NDIA disregarding the Rules and redefining the ACT. The Rules were based on the Commonwealth Agreement and abbreviated in the ACT to make it more manageable. Both Rules and ACT are legislated.
My son did 13 years of “foundational supports” in the public mental health system. Never, ever again. We’ll stick with the NDIS thanks.
Losing my physical disability four times has led to me having a diagnosis of osteoporosis. I’m devastated 😢I’m too young. This could have been prevented with Physio, exercise physiologist.
My new goal is to strengthen my bones, increase bone density, prevent more wastage. I am quite broken hearted about it. I have declined in such a short time and my physical disability is worse.
😢😢
How young are you ?
I'm sorry what do you mean??
we will see i am autistic but have adhd as well as other things and they only added asd and pychosocial for access refused to add fibro saiod go take meds which reports reflected do not work for me as i get much sicker on on maybe changes will work we will see
How are we to trust the NDIA when the CEO and Chief Counsel stubbornly refuse to correct the Operational Guideline to be in line with the legislation.
This one in particular Rebecca - pick up your pen and show us you are listening.
Other impairments DO NOT have to meet access criteria to be funded
That IS NOT in the Act or Rules. Stop the OGs making it up.
And don’t say wait for the Review - wrong OGs should not exist. Change it now, today.
I will raise this GT
Old Bill Shorten....probs getting ready to leave parliament with all the perks and then bounce to some equalky high paying gig.....politicians are a disgrace...
But will we get the empowerment that we must agree with the plan. That foundation needs to be codified.
We'll see
The dismissive attitude Bruce takes to very real concerns annoys me. For example it has been clearly demonstrated that it is unlikely that a Participant will get an assessment of their support that reflects their circumstances from an employee of the NDIA without influence of other agendas driving the NDIA. We have seen the internal processes within the Agency erode the integrity of determining reasonable and necessary support and we would be naive to believe that these forces will not be in play in any new system. To simply dismiss these concerns by saying the NDIA has to be transparent denies the concrete reality that the NDIA is a Government Agency and therefore will always default to the Government Agenda at the expense of the Participant. This was not a convincing, thoughtful or realistic response to your question.
The "Navigator" role was never intended to just focus on supporting people to implement their plan. It was primarily seen as a role that challenged the status quo and walked alongside the Participant and their supporters to explore, design, negotiate and implement very personalised and individualised supports tailored to the person. The objective here was to support people to explore alternatives to the historical models that have been discredited so they can lay out a plan for their future, identify the contribution they were seeking from the NDIs to achieve that vision, negotiate a suitable level of funding and then proceed to implementation. It is unrealistic to believe that this deep exploration and challenging of the status quo will be done by NDIA Planners or the vast majority of Service providers. Therefore the "Navigators" need to have a much broader brief than described here and they need to be independent of the NDIA and Service provider corporate interests.
I am also frustrated to hear the perpetuation of SIL as a separate funding category. SIL has moved from being a funding approach to a model of support most closely aligned with group homes. We need to challenge and fracture this narrative. The NDIA now uses SIL as a way of predetermining a level of funding. In doing so the presumption of shared support as the default model of support has become deeply embedded in their decisions about reasonable and necessary support. This therefore means that when arguing against a shared support decision the Participant is forced into arguing why shared support is not reasonable and necessary. While there is abundant evidence to show that shared support in group homes leads to poor outcomes, the NDIA is adopting an approaches that entrench group homes as the default option unless the Participant. This is the moral equivalent of having to prove you are innocent where there is a presumption of guilt. To challenge this narrative we should abolish SIL and make determinations about support in exactly the same way for each Participant, using more sophisticated assessment and evaluation tools.
We have to be alert to the unconscious ableism that permeates many of these recommendations and how they are likely to be enacted. We must challenge the assumptions that underpin them. It is foolhardy indeed to believe that 5 decades of policy and service failure will be eradicated by simply hoping that there will be transparency and co-design where none has existed previously despite promises to the contrary.
This is independent assessments all over again seems like they've spent the last year trying to rebrand the approach they've been attempting to put in place all along
No sound
The grift that keeps grifting.