Anonymous – 07/10/2021
I’ve put them in an easy-watch format for you.
But just in case you’re not able to accept such a submission, here’s the text:
This is my submission to the draft legislation to the proposed changes to the NDIS. I almost can’t believe I’m engaging with this. You guys have all the answers you need; Bruce has written an analysis, twenty groups have gotten together to write another, Emma’s almost exploded over it, Graham’s been writing to everyone he can, Carl quit his job in protest, Rob said flat-out it was a plan to kick people off of the scheme.
The changes were proposed by a guy who awarded his company thirty seven million dollars in government contacts, which is a breach of the constitution, and when questioned about it said the media lied and then his mother had a heart attack so his dad might have been to busy being her carer to not remember not running a company for a number of years, despite not receiving a cent from it. Among other things.
They’re now being overseen by a woman who’d ask the question of “How are we going to pay for it?” of the expectations of Australians, particularly in relation to welfare and entitlements, from their own taxes set aside for that purpose, but not for the purpose of building rockets for a US military contractor, communicating with deep space and playing Henry Kissinger in countries who don’t seem to have become more democratic since.
The review was conducted by a guy with thirty-eight years as a public servant, but not in disability advocacy or legislature, in finance and deregulation, and has proven they’ll sign off on something that’ll likely harm people who their government has a responsibility over because they were just following orders. Where I come from, we have a term for that.
And now, despite acknowledging that people feel the NDIS is too complex and difficult to navigate, have asked for submissions on amended legislation within a four-week window in the form of questions like this.
>Does the particular Schedule clearly set out the key changes being made to improve participant experiences with the NDIS?
>Could the proposed amendments in the Schedule lead to any unintended
Where I come from, we have a term for this too. It’s Sealioning.
And it’s so sad to see people like Sara, who has chronic fatigue syndrome, being forced to take it seriously, wading through pages and pages of this stuff. So, as far as I’m concerned, you have all the answers you need, and sangasd made a very good point; you should really be paying people for these kinds of high-level contributions.
We don’t need you to release more three-hundred page documents to help participants better understand why you make certain decisions, like dragging a cancer survivor through a three year battle over an assistance dog, or appealing a decision upheld but the AAT based on the minister’s personal views, or cutting off people and leaving them to starve, then putting off the inquest until 2023.
In my opinion, the only thing David can recommend that could fix this is to take the entire bottom half of the scheme out of the hands of outsourced providers beholden to private interests and run it as a fully public welfare service alongside an independent auditing body, maybe then we’d stop this trend of having the ABC being the institution that takes our reports seriously and investigates the failings of this scheme.
For the record, I have personal experience with this. My partner has what you’ve now termed a psychosocial condition. She’s had a majority of her funding soaked up by administration fees from a service provider that advertised active case management and isn’t providing it, that promised personalised recommendations and gives google results, that has been told a number of times through multiple avenues to provide information in email form because she is sick of being told one thing and having another delivered, yet they keep trying to call her.
So today, my message to the good people of Australia is this: if you or someone you know has been frustrated or confused by this complicated system and you don’t have the words or the time to express your hesitations around these proposed changes, I’d love it if you could reflect my message by downloading a picture of a sea lion and sending it to
Because they don’t need more answers, they need people to know that the public is watching them.
To the NDIA:
I have read the privacy statement regarding this consultation.
I consent to the publication of my feedback anonymously.
I understand that you may redact parts of my feedback before publication, as appropriate as it could be potentially defame others, and I think it’s equally insulting and hilarious that I’ve read your privacy statement with a greater eye for detail than you yourselves have.