Who says a NDIS will lead to drastic change anyway? In my opinion this scheme will see a steep climblin the disabled population in Australia, I say this because of the overseas models exhibited in NZ, who introduced a similar scheme and their rate of disabled is significant increased due to a No Fault system like the NDIS and it will be the same here. But here we have a sector that has been continuously been deprived of funds, who are blinded by the desperation and naivety that $5bn will actually need the funds of a few NBNs to start to see a system just making the forever rising statuesque and such reform should not be spearheaded by the Australian Malpractice Association (AMA)

 

I am not one for totally disregarding  the $5,000,000,000 that the government is proposing is a good start but let's all be realistic the very level of funding will be unsustainable given the current ABS statistics especially if the AMA and abhorrently neglectful medical professionals who are partially responsible for the disablement or worsening of conditions of a considerable number of your clients and have caused me personally a life where the majority I have spent just learning the basic skills necessary for an independent life, i do not ask you to completely abandon this system but to put the onus on the medical sector to take a degree of moral responsibility for their neglectful way, let the victims of their neglect face their disabler in a court of law at any age so our families won't be condemned to a life of never-ending carer and help give us, the victim closure to qwell this never-ending burning rage that no amount of time or councillor can mend.

 

I implore you as one of Austalia's largest voice for cerebral palsy and indeed disability to stop this futile campaign and start looking beyond funding, look as a whole sector at the real reason why we haven't got proportional funds compared to the large proportion of Australia we support. We all know that the government, state/federal, labour/liberal will give us the funding with one hand and the instant an economic crisis hits we will be the first on the Treasury chopping block

 

I implore you that the only way forward is a unified resolution to the government to get sustainable disability funds in place and to do it now without the endless indecision of Study after Commission after Review

A Father's Plea from Reuben Shar

As a parent of a disabled child with Cerebral Palsy I would like to raise some doubt about the real benefits of a No Fault Disability Insurance scheme.

It is so naïve to believe that such a 'no fault compensation' scheme will provide greater funding for disabled people and the NGO's. The overall amount of funding is mainly a function of the economic situation ('how much can the government afford') and the lobbying efforts of the disability related community.

If a 'no fault compensation', is automatically linked to removal of litigation against negligent doctors (remember that this is the only real reason for the push for this scheme), then the direct outcome will be even greater impunity among the doctors, hence more cases of negligence and disability. So the same funding 'cake' will need to be shared among more victims.

What the 'bean counters' forget that the 'problem' is not cost of litigation, but the cost to the public and individual families of every case of disability. This applies especially to 'avoidable' disability due to medical negligence. A person that could have been an able-bodied 'tax payer' has become a 'tax burden'. I am not suggesting that we should spend less on the disabled, to the contrary. But certainly we should try to reduce the number of avoidable disability incidents.

New Zealand had the 'no fault compensation' scheme for a while, it is interesting to see what the trend in number of CP cases in that country. According to http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mor_inf_cer_pal_percap-infantile-cerebral-palsy-per-capita , New Zealand current ranking in per capita mortality attributed to infantile Cerebral Palsy is no. 17 in the world with 4.95663 deaths per 1 million (Australia is ranked no. 24 with 3.98208 deaths per 1 million people), so it does not appear that having a 'no fault' scheme has improved the level of medical care in New Zealand, where the incidence of mortality due to CP is about 24% higher than in Australia.

It is in the public interest to reduce and eliminate malpractice. This is not just on financial grounds, but at the core of our right for safety and fair go.

There is an argument of 'equality' associated with a 'no fault compensation' scheme, where all disabled persons are provided in the same manner, regardless of the circumstances that caused their disability. While this sounds 'nice', in other accidents and mishaps, some people have insurance and some don't, some people have recourse to litigation and some have undesirable situations that cannot be litigated. It is unfair and against the accepted basic human rights to deny access to justice when a person was harmed and is entitled to that recourse. Realistically, this 'equality' simply reduces the amount of funding available to disabled people whose disability is not due to negligence.

Note that level of promised support is missing from the statements supporting the 'no fault disability insurance' does it specify the. We already have a disability pension scheme, so unless the level of support is significantly higher, having this scheme will have no real benefit to the disabled or their carers. Is it possible to prescribe a uniform compensation when the support needs vary significantly over a wide range of disability severity spectrum? In order to be effective such a scheme has to include the flexibility and logic to match the support to the need – there is no hint of that in the proposals.

This scheme should not be linked at all to removal of litigation against negligent parties that have caused the disability. Such a link is contrary to basic natural justice. As shown in the New Zealand case it would remove the only deterrent to negligence and therefore increase the occurrences of disability cases due to malpractice. It would also reduce the pool of available monetary resources for the individual disabled persons, as even those who are currently entitled to malpractice compensation would join the public scheme.

No insurance scheme can be a 'solution' to a problem. No sane person suggests that the only necessary protection against fire is to buy insurance, the same applies to disability. Our priority first as a society has to be a more reliable health care systems, to eliminate all cases of unnecessary disability. The second priority is to provide the best care and support to our disabled citizens to ensure their dignity and equality in society and the best possible chance to maximize their participation and contribution to society and their own personal achievement.

As it stands, it looks like a recipe for an 'official' poverty and misery for the disabled while ensuring that the who perpetrators are off the hook. It will increase the ranks of the disabled and further erode the public coffers, with no real benefit. It is merely a 'code' for endorsement of malpractice that the public at large and the disabled will pay for dearly on the long term.

 

Unite Against Inaction

 

Sincerely,

 

Jonathan Shar and 296 Supporters of ADNCentral