NDIS: Not Disabled? Invent Something.

You can't make this stuff up. $50 billion a year. That's 50 million thousands in the hands of anyone willing to sell a sibling, son or mate, while the genuinely needy miss out.

A conversation with Peter Richardson.

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:14

You're listening to the Cheryl Lacey show where Curiosity Meets Courage, and we just had quite a courageous conversation from Sam Belfield talking about the human condition and how we are moving away from responsible citizenship. And it's interesting because John Anderson, former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia under the Liberal Party, is driving conversations around the need to be more responsible. And it leads to all manner of issues that we are facing in society. And Sam mentioned the NDIS, and he his understanding is that I think he said 40 per cent of people on NDIS are under the age of 18. Now we know it's a major cost blowout, but a social blowout and also a, as we say, as Sam was talking about, responsible citizenship and its decline, there's a major blowout everywhere. So we've got Peter Richardson, our resident, former police officer and advocate for men's health, on the show to discuss this very issue, the NDIS. Peter, welcome to the show.

SPEAKER_00 1:22

Hello, Cheryl, and hello the listeners.

SPEAKER_01 1:25

Peter, it's an extraordinary situation we're facing the NDIS, and it seems to be growing by the day without this responsible component. And uh there is a history to this, but we'll get to that shortly. What do you think Australians need to be fully aware of right now?

SPEAKER_00 1:45

Well, the first thing is that uh we're running out of money. Um that's that's the that's the uh the big thing, and um in the end, when you uh run out of money, the people that really need to be looked after won't be.

SPEAKER_01 2:00

So why are governments and consecutive governments spending, spending, spending, spending without giving due consideration to the future?

SPEAKER_00 2:13

Um I think really it's uh they're buying votes um and the socialist agenda. But uh that's we probably don't need to go down that path today, but uh certainly um handing out money obviously by votes.

SPEAKER_01 2:29

Look, I I couldn't agree more. We don't want to go down that path of socialism versus capitalism, but at the end of the day, if we have greedy capitalism, it's pretty much one in the same as socialism where we've got the big boys controlling things. Uh so you're right, we won't go down that path. But it is something to consider and have in back of mind. And uh I've been recently listening to a podcast, I won won't mention the lady's name, but uh Promethean is the the podcast uh name title, and she talks about this whole binary situation, socialism versus communism, uh you know, uh Islam versus Western civilization, etc. And she talks about the uh bottom line essentially being the American economy versus the British economy. So we're very tied to this uh conversation, and if we were to have that conversation, the NDIS is very much part of that whole uh economic burden that we're facing and perhaps the the the disparities that are going on with those two uh economic powerhouses. It doesn't help us through the day though, does it? How do we get out of this mess and what is the NDIS doing to Australia?

SPEAKER_00 3:49

Um I don't know how we get out of this mess because it's once you've gone down this path it's very hard to withdraw, but uh ultimately um it's necessary, as I say, because otherwise we're gonna run out of money. Um one of the things that I would like to say though is that I have a um a disabled son and a disabled stepdaughter, and I'm talking about uh one with uh cerebral palsy and one that's um uh paraplegic. So uh I know a little about this subject. Um certainly they were when they were young this uh sort of funding was not available to them. There was funding available to them, but it certainly wasn't at this level. Um and uh the stepdaughter is on the NDIS uh and and um she is certainly one of the worthy uh recipients. Having said that, um it's not uh contri controlled responsibly, and I do believe that she gets more than more help than what she needs. And the the big problem with that is that it's um it makes people if they get more help than what they need, then they become less capable than what they could be.

SPEAKER_01 5:10

Well, that's very true, and I'm always of the view that as a first principle everybody has value and has something to contribute and they have the right to make that contribution and more importantly to make that contribution responsibly. So uh when I say it doesn't matter what it is that you offer, I I don't mean that lightly. What I'm saying is that uh whatever your contributions can be to self and others needs to be encouraged and supported so that in your own capacities you can flourish. The NDAS is doing the opposite. It's created uh not only codependency, but as you said, people are getting far more than they actually need and wants are being met. And those wants aren't necessarily from the people like your uh stepdaughter and stepson, I believe you said. Oh, your son, sorry, your stepdaughter and your son. It's not coming directly from them saying give me, give me, give me, it's the system that is providing it, particularly with the layers in which the funding is distributed. Is that sort of how I've got it?

SPEAKER_00 6:25

Yeah. Um the situation with the stepdaughter is that she is getting she gets a um uh uh an allocation per year. And uh it's that same old system where, you know, let's say with the councils, for instance, uh they get um or or departments they get a certain amount of money and if they don't spend it they get less the the following year, which is a crazy system. Uh and it's the same with this this system. Um so they're encouraged to spend more, find ways of spending the money, otherwise they lose the money for the next year. Um and what's what ends up happening is that uh uh then they became become used to that sort of funding. As I say, uh uh my stepdaughter, uh she was actually really quite capable before this came along. She's she's n she's an adult, so she's nearly uh forty years old now. And um and she was doing really well. Uh but her her disability is quite severe. And uh but she was very capable. Her her mum had really tried to uh make her as independent as possible and she'd done a very good job of it. Uh but now she is quite dependent. And um and that's not that's not uh we all need to challenge ourselves and now she's not she's not being challenged because she's got too much help.

SPEAKER_01 8:01

Yes, that's right. And y look, I could tell personal stories too, b uh, but I'll get carried away if I do. Uh suffice to say that there are people who are on NDIS and family members take full advantage of that, including making sure that they employ friends, neighbours, girlfriends of sons, all sorts of people to basically benefit off the person who is on the program. And things like international holidays, things like uh hugging specialists, everyone needs physical contact, but that then goes into other personal needs, etcetera. Uh i look, it is beyond beyond ridiculous what is available on the NDOS. And it's essentially government. I've got a comment here from one of our listeners has written in and said that basically what we're talking about is that hang on, let me just find it here. Uh that the government corporation being a company, the government corporation has created a nation of people who expect the government to keep spending to solve their problems. So this co it comes back to that codependency and learned helplessness that the government is really pushing hard for Australians to be. Learned h learned helplessness.

SPEAKER_00 9:21

They're actually genuinely encouraging helplessness, hopelessness.

SPEAKER_01 9:26

Yes.

SPEAKER_00 9:26

And uh and some of us are paying for that. And it it just can't continue. I mean, we are becoming a welfare state. In reality the NDIS is just a form of well welfare. And again, uh I mean th in theory it's not a terrible system if the people that were on it were only the people that needed to be on it and they were only funded to the level that they needed to be. Um but I've got to tell you, you know, I I knew from the moment that it came in it had stuff up written all over it.

SPEAKER_01 10:04

I think many would have who've lived uh with family members with disability as you have, Peter, and this is one of the issues, isn't it, is that you've got those who are knowing and understanding from personal experience and the challenges, but also the successes without the NDIS in the first instance, to this sudden pot of gold at the end of the rainbow that forever being filled up and overflowing. So it's a nonsense. Let me take you back, if I could, back to pre-2010, sort of that early 2000s. And it seems that this is where the NDIS began. And my understanding is a lot of it has to do with what was going on here in Victoria, where the Department of Education was pushing hard to stop funding for children with learning needs, such as dyslexia, etc. And they were throwing the cost of that to the schools, and the schools jumped up and down and said, we can't afford to have support staff for all of the children with the difficulties we are facing. This is this whole equity and nonsense that goes on in schools. And so the Disability Discrimination Legal Service did all things possible writing to Julia Gillard, Bill Shorten, the then Federal Attorney Rob Hulls, talking about the discriminatory practices of the Department of Education here in Victoria, and lo and behold, the NDIS was born supported by both political parties. So was you know, was that to stop uh the exposure of other things that were going on? And uh, you know, another bubble of of deceit has has, you know, keeps on growing.

SPEAKER_00 12:02

I think even even pre-NDIS there was this tendency to give more help than what was actually needed, um, and I experienced that with my son. Um so uh the education department might have been uh part of the problem way back then. Um and and the reality is that uh schools get funding, uh extra funding to be d according to the number of students they have with disabilities. So um and I I think it was back the same back then. So there was a a um an advantage to a school to take on more kids with disabilities or even create that disability within the school.

SPEAKER_01 12:47

Well that would have been prior to the NDIS uh that that the problems existed where they were screaming for help and they weren't getting help. And as you say with the NDIS, it's a it's a an invitation to actually have more people with a problem because there's more value in it for the school when it goes into consolidated revenue quite often. So you're right, absolutely. The NDIS is just one big ticket to a lot of money for schools to play with. Having said that, as I said, it seems as though it was established as a result of the opposite at a state level. So who's ultimately responsible, the feds or the states in this?

SPEAKER_00 13:34

Uh I suppose I uh the I would say the Feds cr for creating a flawed system, really. Uh but I think also we go back to personal responsibility, um, where uh people are too willing to stick their hand out these days, and um sadly uh you know, the the uh taxpayer has to be prepared to say, no, we're not putting money in that hand anymore. Um or at least uh drawing back on how much. Uh one thing I would like to say, I'm sure your listeners have heard heard all the stories about um uh products etc. that get charged more uh if they're being funded through the NDIS. I can tell you uh without uh uh as in first hand I can tell you that that is the case that uh anything uh funded through the NDI NDIS is charged at much higher rate, much higher rate. So we've got companies uh out there that are uh quite frankly taking the piss.

SPEAKER_01 14:47

Oh, absolutely. I've got a another message here from Sarah, and Sarah's saying that she is aware of families who are reaping in the benefits with multiple family members who are uh r recipients of the NDIS and it is not fair, is what she says.

SPEAKER_00 15:10

Well, I don't know whether she means recipients of the NDIS through funding for their their disability or whether it's through the staff for a disabled person. Uh and uh I know that to be the case that there is a family uh that is benefiting from uh my stepdaughter. Uh it's a number of people in from the same family.

SPEAKER_01 15:36

Yes, I'm familiar with that sort of thing too. Yes, indeed. It's and and this is the thing is that the spotlight is on the disabled person often. And I don't like that word disabled anyway. I prefer to say that we all have diverse abilities and uh looking at it from that context, we we have a more level playing field as to what is required for support for a hand out so that we stop these uh sorry, hand up, sorry, so that we stop these handouts. Just to to segue a little bit from that, Peter, it seems to me that what we really are dealing with here as well is the United Nations and the human rights agenda. Because if you dig into that, obviously there are certain charters that talk about non-discrimination. And discrimination seems to have a financial tag to it all the time. What do you think about that and its impact on the NDIS?

SPEAKER_00 16:37

Uh I don't want to go too deep into that other than to say that um uh discrimination as a word um can be used as a weapon, can't it? Um and um by saying I I think this equity thing, I mean the fact is that uh a lot of people like my uh stepdaughter and um son uh they cannot achieve some of the things that you and I have been able to do over the years. The fact is that I can't achieve what I used to be able to achieve because I'm now sixty-two years old. Um we can't make an even playing field for everyone. Um and I think the uh discrimination, the equity, all those sort of words make out that we can um somehow uh find that even playing playing field. Uh going back to what I was saying earlier, we need to um uh we need to help people achieve what they can achieve and in actual fact what we're doing now is quite the opposite. Um and it's just like uh so my stepdaughter um does drive, so does my son, um and um stepdaughter needs some extra equipment in the car and and that was funded, and that's great, that's that's fine. But one of the things that happens with disabilities is things are made easier. Um my stepdaughter uh her license test was compromised, if you like, to ensure that she got uh her license and that shouldn't happen. That sort of thing shouldn't happen. Um so that's the sort of thing that we do. We do things that are nonsense uh to try and uh give people equity and um in this case with licenses that can create danger.

SPEAKER_01 18:37

So so we're constantly moving the goalposts to suit some other agenda by the sounds of things, and uh that's I know that's something that Australians are not happy with. We're pretty much into having a fair go, but when the goalpost keeps moving, that's when we arc up a little bit. So what do you think might happen moving forward with elections and so forth? Because uh we've got a cost of living crisis as we keep hearing, yet we're not hearing of sufficient cutbacks in spending. And we're certainly not hearing of alternatives to the way in which we're going to be able to manage as a society when we're stuck with the politics that we have. And I'm not getting into politics with you, Peter. I'm talking about how citizens start thinking deeply about who they're voting for and on what conditions uh they are prepared to continue living.

SPEAKER_00 19:32

And um I don't really think that's changing unless we really hammer home the fact that it can't last. Um one of the one of the things that I I like to say to people, just as a um uh an example, and and keep in mind I'll I'll stress again my stepdaughter really needs help. Uh so um she is she is a valid recipient of the NDIS. But the amount of money that she receives four to five people on the average wage have to work a year to fund just her on the NDIS. And that cannot that's not sustainable because she wouldn't even be at the higher level of of uh uh uh of recipients. There'd be people that would require ten, twelve people on the average wage to pay tax to fund them for a year.

SPEAKER_01 20:33

Okay, so just as we wrap that up, that's an i oh my gosh, I'm not quite sure where to start. So I'll have to go right to the very finish here. Can she go off the NDIS or can she say no to that money?

SPEAKER_00 20:47

Oh, I'm I'm sure she could say no, um, but she shouldn't be saying no. Uh she should be um the one one of the things that happen uh happens is that people that uh so m my stepdaughter is is very intelligent, uh, but she's naive. She's never worked herself because in reality she's incapable of working a full full time job. Uh so she hasn't got a grasp on uh the reality of working, uh what it requires uh and how much money uh she has been funded is not um registering in her head and as I say the the fact that four or five people have to work to fund her. So and the money has been put in her hands to manage without that real world experience.

SPEAKER_01 21:45

Right, okay.

SPEAKER_00 21:46

Yes, so there's all she is given a certain amount of money, she manages it the way she she does, she's got um staff and uh and she doles that money out and a way that's uh that really uh again is not sustainable. Um so she's not going to change anything because she's not uh she's not grasping the situation. It should be a situation where um there is people in place but again um are we going to trust government or um or companies funded by government to responsibly dish out money to the right level. I don't know what the answer to this is but uh we certainly what what I can absolutely see happening when they talk about cuts to this system is that um it's going to be the wrong people that uh that lose their funding. And um that's that's always going to happen.

SPEAKER_01 22:48

Indeed. Peter this has been an insightful conversation. The NDAIS is problematic you've just finished off by saying that it essentially recipients become employers of employees who are benefiting more than the recipient in many cases and that's one hell of a conversation that needs to continue. So thank you for sharing that and all not credit to you but all good wishes to you who you've spent your parenting life dealing with this and the many changes that take place when you are uh trying to support and uh work your life around people uh family members with disabilities. So it's uh quite an important conversation for you too so I'm I'm really quite uh respectful of of the position that you're in as well and just your candor on discussing the issues that we are facing. So thank you for being on the show.

SPEAKER_00 23:42

Just one thing can I make it real quick yep thirty seconds. With all the people that are on the NDIS with ADHD etc if these people are all worthy recipro recipients we need to ask the question why there are so so many people with AD ADHD and autism these days. It is an epidemic and we need to know why.

SPEAKER_01 24:07

Well done excellent that might be something that I'll see if I can get someone on the show to discuss that from the government departments. Good luck with that but anyway thanks again Peter for being on the show. Have a great great day stay safe God bless. Peter Richardson and he is our resident uh men's health advocate and a former police officer dealing with issues on disability in his household as a parent from the word go and the impact that has on society by and large