links.mimuki.net

The Albanese government had a turbulent week with tussles over data centres and division within the Labor party over its humanitarian intake.

So the minister "must have regard for the safety of participants" when kneecapping their funding arbitrarily and applying a percentage modifier to an entire group of people...

...but if that change means someone is being funded less than the cost of the supports they need (which are both reasonable and necessary), it's all above board and explicitly OK. So that first part only exists to save face. Categories effected by that are "assistance with social, economic, and community participation" and "improved daily living skills". Which are the majority of my funding, so when old mate decides he's cutting those by 50% on a whim, my entire plan shrinks as much.

Potential loophole: if the minister makes a carveout for "supports in employment" (which is a 'may' carveout), request a plan review because I'm working towards independent employment and forgot to mention it. Which is not untrue.

Note: 200 pages into the explanatory notes is a tidbit that they will reduce these from the getgo:

Under this option SCCP budgets in old framework plans would be reduced by 50 per cent and CBDA budgets would be reduced by 10 per cent

Seems in general "reasonable and necessary" has become "reasonable and necessary, so far is consistent with the current government's whims the financial sustainability of the scheme".

Also the whole "only support needs caused by a disability that in itself qualifies the participant for the NDIS" thing? (i.e. I can't get funding for anything that isn't related to autism)

Yeah, that's been quietly changed from "arising from an impairment [that qualifies for the NDIS]" to "arising directly from an impairment". This is going to suck for me in particular, because many of my needs are inherently intersectional with my other issues, and not intrinsic to autism alone (even when they often coexist in that neurotype).

And there's a section about how supports are evaluated as "effective and beneficial to the participant": peer reviewed generalizable studies hold more weight than my own lived experience with a support being effective and beneficial. So if there's no or inconsistent studies about it... sucks to suck, my own life can still be determined to be insufficient evidence.

Also, if it is geographically or financially impossible for me to prove I've tried all 'appropriate treatments' to no success (i.e. my disability is permanent)? Sucks to suck. And if "a law of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory provides for compensation or other benefits for or in respect of the impairment"? Excluded from the NDIS entirely even if it otherwise qualifies. So if Thriving Kids expands to young adults, or a similar scheme appears... bad news. I think this even includes interstate supports only for residents of that state, thanks to the geographical access to appropriate treatments bit.

My current plan "ends" [not "is reassessed"] on the plan reassessment date (TODO: when?), or the minister can decide to do so sooner. I think this means I'll get a new one entirely unrelated to my current supports (or get booted) then?

Whee.

For two years, he says he completely lost his sense of smell.

Dr Gillogley says it is common for people with DID to have an overwhelming fear of going outside.

“They’re frightened that they’ll switch to a more vulnerable self who might be younger and might not be oriented to time and place, and often it’s not something that can be controlled,” he says.

“It can be tricky to go around in the community and function in everyday life when whoever heads out the door may not be the person exploring in the community.”

Treasury modelling tabled in the Senate shows that, of the $38.1 billion predicted to be saved from the cuts over the next four years, just $0.9 billion (2 .4 per cent) was expected to come from "making the minister the decision maker on pricing and related fraud measures".