im not an academic i just have questions... Autistic | ADHD | INFJ | Aries/Taurus cusp | Wood Ox | Life Path 11 | Soul Urge 11 | Personality 11 | Expression 22 | Maturity 33
How delightful! We've got a #NDIS commission that seems more interested in lining its pockets with registration fees & penalties than actually helping the very people it's supposed to protect. Isn't that just precious? Revenue Through Compliance: The irony is thick here. #Commission claims to be the knight in shining armor for NDIS participants, yet it's more interested in squeezing providers for cash through a tiered registration system. Who needs actual participant outcomes when you can have a robust bank account right? Ah, control—because nothing says "we care" like expanding your grip on an entire sector. The Commission seems to be treating NDIS like a chessboard, where the goal is less about protecting participants & more about checkmating providers into submission. But who’s protecting the pawns? Misallocation of Resources. Classic case of the tail wagging the dog. Resources are being poured into compliance & enforcement, rather than directly into services that participants actually need. It's like building a mansion on quicksand—great structure, wrong foundation. Participant Empowerment. Proposed model is a bit like giving someone a shiny new car but taking away the keys. Sure, participants might get more rules & regulations, but where’s the real power to enforce their rights or seek redress? It’s #empowerment with the brakes on. Imagine that—a regulatory body that actually focuses on ensuring quality & safety without burying providers in red tape. Oversight should be about protecting participants, not just about creating a bureaucratic empire. Enhanced Participant Rights. What a radical idea—actually giving participants the tools & resources to enforce their rights! Instead of funneling money into the Commission's coffers, why not invest in systems that allow participants to hold providers accountable directly? Audits shouldn’t be a game of "gotcha!" They should be about ensuring quality care, not just checking boxes. If audits were more transparent and focused on outcomes, we might actually see some real improvements in participant care. Redirecting Penalties—A Novel Concept! Restitution Over Revenue: How about we stop using penalties as a slush fund for the Commission & start directing them to the participants who were actually harmed? Imagine the shockwaves that would send through the system—providers would actually be motivated to avoid harming participants, rather than just budgeting for fines. Support for Civil Actions. Instead of the Commission being the star of the punitive show, how about we arm participants with the resources they need to take matters into their own hands? Empowering participants to seek civil redress would be a game-changer. Providers would think twice before cutting corners if they knew they could be taken to court by the very people they serve. Mark Sweeney Graham Taylor Samantha Connor Marie J. Byron Stol Belinda Kochanowska Peter Gregory Tara Hannon Jarrod Sandell-Hay Uli Cartwright
The NDIS Provider Registration and Worker Taskforce has made its recommendations on the design and implementation of a new graduated risk-proportionate regulatory model. Jess tackles your key questions about the changes the Taskforce has recommended to the Minister and how it could impact providers and participants. https://lnkd.in/gTfk3zv9
Jakueline R.
4mo
They are adopting the same technique of centerlink when you apply for disability pension. You bring all the paperwork from this and that specialist, gp, etc. They decide if you are eligible or not based on, most likely, an entitled OT that has never seen you.
im not an academic i just have questions... Autistic | ADHD | INFJ | Aries/Taurus cusp | Wood Ox | Life Path 11 | Soul Urge 11 | Personality 11 | Expression 22 | Maturity 33
4moTransparency & Accountability: If penalties must exist, their use should be as clear as day. Every dollar collected should be accounted for, and it should be abundantly clear how it’s being used to benefit participants. Transparency isn’t just a buzzword; it’s the foundation of trust. The current model seems more like a money-making scheme for the Commission than a genuine effort to protect and empower NDIS participants. It’s a bit like setting up a lifeguard station at a kiddie pool—lots of show, but missing the point. How about we focus on real participant-centered reforms, rather than just bolstering the bureaucracy? Because, at the end of the day, NDIS should be about empowering the people it serves, not just fattening the wallets of those who oversee it. Now, the real question is: Are we ready to demand these changes, or are we just going to let the Commission keep playing its game?