Chris did a great job discussing Mr. W's federal court case but something he left out is that Mr. W's initial case brought to the Federal Courts did not include a legal challenge against Day to Day living costs. Mr. W's court challenge was because the AAT Member stated (words to the effect) that changing houses was "solely and directly a disability support need" but because Mr. W moved closer to his daughter as part of relocating, this provided an emotional family benefit to him that was not _not_ "solely and directly" linked to his disability. The moving costs Mr. W was seeking to be funded weren't significantly impacted by the specific house he had chosen. So the AAT had created this complicated situation where a disabled person could require a support that would qualify to be fully funded by the scheme, but when the support was provided, if the NDIA could point to _ANY_ (non-disability) related benefit (no matter how slight) in exercising choice and control, the funding was no longer lawful. Drawing this to an exaggerated but logical conclusion, this could be used to deny wheelchair funding to a person if they chose a feature in their favorite color for the same cost as a neutral color. The NDIA could then say "yes, a wheelchair is solely and directly related to your disability, but when you exercised choice and control to ask for blue cushions, you were happier than you would be with black cushions and happiness isn't a disability support need so now the whole wheelchair isn't funded." That is what Mr. W went to the federal court to challenge. I find this worrying, because if the AAT had started applying that standard to other decisions, it would have been a nightmare for participants. This AAT decision was made by Prudence Goward who was a political appointee who had a pattern of making decisions without a legal basis to support them. It was the judge who decided to consider the "day to day living costs" part of the legal question because he said it was obvious to him that this had been overlooked by both Mr. W and the AAT.
I have read the list twice and this is a worry. I am very independent however there are certain supports that I do need. I have been to the AAT to get the kitchen modifications that I needed to be able to cook myself. The savings to the NDIS were huge by having the kitchen modifications rather than paying a support worker to ensure my safety while I cook.
Smart watch preventing Sam’s son from ending up in quite a traumatic experience at emergency has a huge Knock on effect. Leading Sam’s son to never want to return to another ER visit.
The smart watch example is brilliant! My autistic young adults also struggle with communicating their injuries and trusting medical staff they don’t know.
thank you so much for this discussion. I haven't heard any analysis yet on the replacement of support coordination with navigators. This is more complex than saying "coordinators or navigators or what ever you call this system". Navigators and specialised navigators will be (indirectly) paid by the Agency to the Partners In The Community. That means that navigators are controlled by the Agency and caseloads are massive. There will be no choice as to who participants want to work with or the intensity of their workload. Coordinators are chosen and paid for by the participants themselves. This is a huge difference and will have a big impact on plans, funding and the understanding how to navigate a system that is so complex. A good coordinator finds the right supports for the specific needs of their client and will make sure that everyone works together to achieve the goals in the plan. I am really concerned that this will create more gaps in the supports provided and creates a class system where participants who are able to advocate for themselves and have an understanding how to get the best out of a plan reassessment meeting are advantaged over the people who need more support to achieve this than a specialised navigator has to offer.
Very worthwhile to listen all the way through, for example: Doesn’t reduce costs and doesn’t increase participation. Funding things that exclude people from the community which was not the intention of the scheme. I see discrimination and injustice, people with intellectual disability ending up with a debt and we know where that leads. A simpler definition, anything you wouldn’t have to buy if you weren’t disabled. People will turn out in big ways to give their feedback.
where can I get a copy of the at least?? I totally agree with what Sam has been saying in this conversation Sam if you see this Sam, I want to know are you coming to the ABI conference in Adelaide in September as I would like to hear more of what, your thoughts are regarding the new Ndis
When John Howard was Prime Minister at around Y2K, there was a fatality among the workers on Melbourne CBD construction sites about every ten days. Australia's industrial safety laws had become risk-based instead of prescriptive in all jurisdictions ten years earlier Howard went after the disability pensioners and sent the Cole Royal Commision to Melbourne on a witch hunt. When the Royal Commission was in Melbourne, they found three construction unions cooperating to perform job safety analyses, prior to work. The fatalities had ceased. It was an unfunded productivity gain. However Justice Cole was not there to find out good things about unions. Labor's misinformation bill might mark the beginning of the end for manipulative media deceit. Our media should report the news - NOT create it! Rupert Murdoch is a danger to democracy - no one person other than the Governor General should have that much power.
We have already been labelled as taking advantage, why can we as participants have more control over our own daily expenses and if you blow it you blow it are indemnified and given help to manage their funds. 8mnths to sort out a line item number to get othotics is absolutely disgraceful with a degenerative disability. Have to pay 600 for a usb charger we could get off ebay for 15bucks n installed by a local tradespeople. So much assessments for bit of AT that able people can get without the actual need turning them into "fashion" even the fact glasses frames are a fashion accessory, the lenses medical even if your visual impairment is part related to degenerative disability. The last thing is why do we need a full plan review just to change wording ndia have stuffed up.
I'm curious how participants were even able to get gambling, guns, and alcohol approved in the first place. I'd like to know who at the NDIA looks at the INVOICES submitted for things like gambling, guns or alcohol and says to themselves "Yeah, this gun/bottle of vodka/gambling spree is both resonable and neccessary for this participant to manage their disability. I approve of this." That is more of an issue with administration staff within the NDIA - not the participant.
One issue is that if someone is self managed they don't review what has been spent unless something really jumps out at them. There was a family that spoke out about their daughter being changed to self managed and became unwell and so spent on things that she thought she could but it turns out for a lot of it she didn't understand well enough what the money could be spent on. At the end of her plan they did an audit and then told her that she owed $27,000 back, She is no longer with us due to the stress of that debt. The part that was really concerning to me was that SANE Australia said that everyone who wanted to be should have the opportunity to be self managed and there should just be better supports in place for them to do so. Personally I can't help thinking that is what a Support Coordinator and Plan Manager were designed for. If you have good ones they help you get the things you want from your plan and make sure it is things that will be funded. The list of codes is as big as an old phone book and I really feel for parents that have to navigate that to make sure they are compliant for their children's funding because from my understanding they usually make children self funded and the parents have to manage the plan.
![GUILTY GEAR -STRIVE- Season Pass 4 Playable Character #1 [Queen Dizzy] Trailer](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nXDsAgYXXv4/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you Sam, intro having our backs thank you
Chris did a great job discussing Mr. W's federal court case but something he left out is that Mr. W's initial case brought to the Federal Courts did not include a legal challenge against Day to Day living costs.
Mr. W's court challenge was because the AAT Member stated (words to the effect) that changing houses was "solely and directly a disability support need" but because Mr. W moved closer to his daughter as part of relocating, this provided an emotional family benefit to him that was not _not_ "solely and directly" linked to his disability. The moving costs Mr. W was seeking to be funded weren't significantly impacted by the specific house he had chosen.
So the AAT had created this complicated situation where a disabled person could require a support that would qualify to be fully funded by the scheme, but when the support was provided, if the NDIA could point to _ANY_ (non-disability) related benefit (no matter how slight) in exercising choice and control, the funding was no longer lawful.
Drawing this to an exaggerated but logical conclusion, this could be used to deny wheelchair funding to a person if they chose a feature in their favorite color for the same cost as a neutral color. The NDIA could then say "yes, a wheelchair is solely and directly related to your disability, but when you exercised choice and control to ask for blue cushions, you were happier than you would be with black cushions and happiness isn't a disability support need so now the whole wheelchair isn't funded."
That is what Mr. W went to the federal court to challenge. I find this worrying, because if the AAT had started applying that standard to other decisions, it would have been a nightmare for participants. This AAT decision was made by Prudence Goward who was a political appointee who had a pattern of making decisions without a legal basis to support them.
It was the judge who decided to consider the "day to day living costs" part of the legal question because he said it was obvious to him that this had been overlooked by both Mr. W and the AAT.
Thanks so much for your deep inisghts, it's very helpful.
I have read the list twice and this is a worry. I am very independent however there are certain supports that I do need. I have been to the AAT to get the kitchen modifications that I needed to be able to cook myself. The savings to the NDIS were huge by having the kitchen modifications rather than paying a support worker to ensure my safety while I cook.
Smart watch preventing Sam’s son from ending up in quite a traumatic experience at emergency has a huge Knock on effect. Leading Sam’s son to never want to return to another ER visit.
Thank you George, Sam and Chris; that makes it a lot clearer
The smart watch example is brilliant! My autistic young adults also struggle with communicating their injuries and trusting medical staff they don’t know.
thank you so much for this discussion. I haven't heard any analysis yet on the replacement of support coordination with navigators. This is more complex than saying "coordinators or navigators or what ever you call this system". Navigators and specialised navigators will be (indirectly) paid by the Agency to the Partners In The Community. That means that navigators are controlled by the Agency and caseloads are massive. There will be no choice as to who participants want to work with or the intensity of their workload. Coordinators are chosen and paid for by the participants themselves. This is a huge difference and will have a big impact on plans, funding and the understanding how to navigate a system that is so complex. A good coordinator finds the right supports for the specific needs of their client and will make sure that everyone works together to achieve the goals in the plan. I am really concerned that this will create more gaps in the supports provided and creates a class system where participants who are able to advocate for themselves and have an understanding how to get the best out of a plan reassessment meeting are advantaged over the people who need more support to achieve this than a specialised navigator has to offer.
Very worthwhile to listen all the way through, for example: Doesn’t reduce costs and doesn’t increase participation. Funding things that exclude people from the community which was not the intention of the scheme. I see discrimination and injustice, people with intellectual disability ending up with a debt and we know where that leads. A simpler definition, anything you wouldn’t have to buy if you weren’t disabled. People will turn out in big ways to give their feedback.
Thank you so much George, Sam and Chris, most grateful
Thank you too!
Empowerment through technology.
Great example of why smart watches should not be in the out list.
where can I get a copy of the at least?? I totally agree with what Sam has been saying in this conversation Sam if you see this Sam, I want to know are you coming to the ABI conference in Adelaide in September as I would like to hear more of what, your thoughts are regarding the new Ndis
When John Howard was Prime Minister at around Y2K, there was a fatality among the workers on Melbourne CBD construction sites about every ten days. Australia's industrial safety laws had become risk-based instead of prescriptive in all jurisdictions ten years earlier Howard went after the disability pensioners and sent the Cole Royal Commision to Melbourne on a witch hunt. When the Royal Commission was in Melbourne, they found three construction unions cooperating to perform job safety analyses, prior to work. The fatalities had ceased. It was an unfunded productivity gain. However Justice Cole was not there to find out good things about unions. Labor's misinformation bill might mark the beginning of the end for manipulative media deceit. Our media should report the news - NOT create it! Rupert Murdoch is a danger to democracy - no one person other than the Governor General should have that much power.
We have already been labelled as taking advantage, why can we as participants have more control over our own daily expenses and if you blow it you blow it are indemnified and given help to manage their funds. 8mnths to sort out a line item number to get othotics is absolutely disgraceful with a degenerative disability. Have to pay 600 for a usb charger we could get off ebay for 15bucks n installed by a local tradespeople. So much assessments for bit of AT that able people can get without the actual need turning them into "fashion" even the fact glasses frames are a fashion accessory, the lenses medical even if your visual impairment is part related to degenerative disability. The last thing is why do we need a full plan review just to change wording ndia have stuffed up.
I'm curious how participants were even able to get gambling, guns, and alcohol approved in the first place. I'd like to know who at the NDIA looks at the INVOICES submitted for things like gambling, guns or alcohol and says to themselves "Yeah, this gun/bottle of vodka/gambling spree is both resonable and neccessary for this participant to manage their disability. I approve of this." That is more of an issue with administration staff within the NDIA - not the participant.
One issue is that if someone is self managed they don't review what has been spent unless something really jumps out at them. There was a family that spoke out about their daughter being changed to self managed and became unwell and so spent on things that she thought she could but it turns out for a lot of it she didn't understand well enough what the money could be spent on. At the end of her plan they did an audit and then told her that she owed $27,000 back, She is no longer with us due to the stress of that debt.
The part that was really concerning to me was that SANE Australia said that everyone who wanted to be should have the opportunity to be self managed and there should just be better supports in place for them to do so. Personally I can't help thinking that is what a Support Coordinator and Plan Manager were designed for. If you have good ones they help you get the things you want from your plan and make sure it is things that will be funded. The list of codes is as big as an old phone book and I really feel for parents that have to navigate that to make sure they are compliant for their children's funding because from my understanding they usually make children self funded and the parents have to manage the plan.
Scammers are very innovative.