Read on Twitter
I'm seeing a whole lot of comments and discussion about the recent terrible deaths of disabled people that frame us as the problem.
Apparently, we are too disabled, too 'hard to reach', too vulnerable.
We are not the problem.
Apparently, we are too disabled, too 'hard to reach', too vulnerable.
We are not the problem.
Systems and structures make us vulnerable, not our impairments.
Complexity makes supports difficult to access, instead of us being 'hard to reach.'
Our disability is not the problem, but an ableist world that has no room for who and how we are.
Complexity makes supports difficult to access, instead of us being 'hard to reach.'
Our disability is not the problem, but an ableist world that has no room for who and how we are.
We have talked about the issues with the NDIS for years, and we know what's needed to fix the system.
We fought and argued for a Disability Royal Commission, because we know the scale of violence against us.
We continue to agitate and advocate for change.
We fought and argued for a Disability Royal Commission, because we know the scale of violence against us.
We continue to agitate and advocate for change.
I wrote earlier this year that the complexity in the NDIS "is leading to a two-tier system where access, the quality of the plan and the supports they can access are directly tied to how much disadvantage they experience and whether they have access to advocacy."
This isn't a new idea - far from it. From the beginnings of the NDIS, this was known, and policy makers urged to structure the NDIS around those with the least, those who need the best support, and those who have multiple levels of disadvantage. https://cid.org.au/resource/ndis-and-people-with-intellectual-disability-who-live-on-societys-fringe/
Instead, we have a system that is so complex, and has so many gaps, that disabled people are falling through them and dying. Dying. Dying in terrible circumstances. In such horrifying pain.
The recent Tune Review into the NDIS found that "Consultation feedback suggests that some people with disability have found it difficult to navigate through ‘the bureaucracy of the NDIS’ and that the NDIA is not delivering what the NDIS promised them.”
You don't say.
You don't say.
And yet, the onus rests on us to change. To 'build capacity' to deal with this complexity. To be managed, to have less choice, to be not so disabled.
Why isn't this on the NDIS, and all the other systems we use to change? Why isn't this seen as a failure of them, not us?
Why isn't this on the NDIS, and all the other systems we use to change? Why isn't this seen as a failure of them, not us?
Enough. This has to change. Change that centres us. Change that centres those of us with the least, and that change has to mean that these chasms have to close. That disabled people no longer die like this, ever again.
Can we even dare to imagine what the NDIS could be if it didn't see disabled people firmly as the problem, rather than as equal citizens with a right to the supports we need.
http://elgibbs.com.au/whats-next-for-the-ndis/
http://elgibbs.com.au/whats-next-for-the-ndis/
Here's my big essay for @CroakeyNews about all this earlier this year. The response to the Tune Review is still yet to come out, but surely that would be a time to start these changes. https://croakey.org/what-will-it-take-for-the-ndis-to-put-disabled-people-first/
