gimpled

The National Disability Insurance Scheme was meant to be revolutionary, liberating people with disability from rigid systems that treated us as problems rather than human beings with rights. It promised individualised support and the chance to live on equal footing with other Australians. But the draft lists of "approved" and "not approved" supports represent a betrayal of these principles, regressing to a cookie-cutter approach that ignores our diverse needs. These lists aren't mere administrative tweaks. They fundamentally reimagine the NDIS, stripping away individual choice in favour of a top-down model that has failed us for generations. The NDIS was built on the notion that we are experts in our own lives. These lists discard that wisdom, allowing faceless bureaucrats to dictate "appropriate" supports based on crude categories. The potential consequences are dire. For ventilator-dependent individuals, while some respiratory supports remain, the

I n the quiet corners of our society, a profound injustice simmers. It's not one that usually makes headlines, except when it's wielded as shock clickbait to justify cuts to vital support services like the NDIS.  I'm talking about the systematic denial of sexual expression and intimacy for people with disability. The recent move to ban sex work funding under Australia's National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) throws this issue into sharp relief. The discussion - citing the 'pub test', no less, to justify why we shouldn't have the same rights as others - reveals a deep misunderstanding of disability, sexuality, and human rights. More than that, it's a decision that actively harms some of our most marginalised citizens. Let's be clear: this isn't about special treatment. This is about equal access to a fundamental human experience. For many people with disability, professional sex work services are not a luxury – they're a lifeline, a rar

More amendments have dropped. These ones are poorly written and seem to deliberately obfuscate rather than clarifying. You can read it here . Here is a quick and dirty analysis of the Amendments. Please let me know if you see anything that is of concern or which is a change which addresses the issues raised. The proposed amendments to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 in light of the serious concerns raised by people with disability and our supporters, do not go far enough. Whilst the amendments do address some specific issues, they fail to fundamentally resolve the core rights violations and risks to people with disability that the Bill presents. Here is a detailed critique of the amendments: Amendment (1) allowing First Ministers to agree to NDIS rules is a procedural change that does not substantively impact participant rights or address the serious issues identified. The concentration of rule-making power rema

There are a series of games government likes to play when you disagree with them. This one is called 'drop another amendment to the legislation and say that it fixes everything.' News flash. It doesn't.  The newest Amendment, dropped yesterday, does not go far enough to address any of the problems that people with disability and our families have with the NDIS Amendment Bill.  My analysis is below.  I will add this. To drop this many amendments to a piece of legislation within a few days is extraordinary behaviour. Today they will try to coerce Disabled Persons Organisations to support this Bill with these amendments.  They must not. Experts have spoken loud and clear, and more importantly, so have people with disability and our families.  We must defeat this Bill at all costs. It is not safe for people with disability.  Strength and power to the arm of those fighting against these cuts - for that is what they are. And please watch carefully to see who is truly on the side

Here's my take on the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee's report on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024. As always, this is my personal view, based on my significant years of experience in this area, and doesn't reflect any organisations I may be working for or contracted to.  Sadly, the report is deeply flawed and fails to address the serious concerns raised by the disability community. The report does not provide the rigorous analysis and critical recommendations required for legislation that will have such profound impacts on the lives of disabled people. Lack of Genuine Co-Design One of the most glaring shortcomings of the report is its failure to adequately address the lack of authentic co-design in the development of this bill. The Bill was created without proper collaboration with those it will impact most - the disability community.  Disabled People's  Organisations were asked to sign n

 I had a rare and wonderful thought.  What if the three areas that are currently under review for legislative change were being harmonised, to the detriment of one or maybe more policy areas? Turns out that's the case. I've pulled out the changes in common for the NDIS, Aged Care and Veterans.  These are the similarities in the structural and legislative adjustments across the NDIS Amendment Bill, Aged Care Bill, and Veterans’ Entitlements Bill, focusing on compliance, monitoring, delegation of powers, civil penalties, needs assessments, flexible funding, regulatory powers, adverse action, information management, recoverable amounts, and registers of banning orders. Secrets are bad. If they are keeping them, you know something is amiss.  Can anyone say Robodebt? Or what about 'non-disclosure agreement?' The terrifying thing is - it's pretty apparent that not everyone in the Labor government understands what the fuck they are doing. Because these are not benign chang