Commenting on the opinion piece: Why group disability homes can’t be ‘fixed’

The NDIS has failed to rigorously support Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities with regard to choice and control over where people with intellectual disability live. I  specifically say people with intellectual disability because people with other disabilities are not shovelled into institutional accommodation arrangements.
There is a dichotomy between the rhetoric and the reality of choice and control. The experiences and wishes of people with intellectual disability who DO NOT want to live in congregate arrangements, as found in the Shut Out Report, are very clear.

There is an ongoing failure to honour the requirement of the separation of the different sorts of assistance. The NDIA has encouraged the separation of housing and disability services. Under the NDIS, it is envisaged that support providers will not own or provide the home that residents live in, thus ensuring that not one agency has full control over a person’s life. This also enables an oversight over each other of the various support services a person might require.

People with intellectual disability are the only citizens of Australia who are expected to live in institutional arrangements for all of their lives. We all may “choose” to live in shared arrangements at some time of our lives, (as students/young home leavers and some of us might decide to live in aged/retirement arrangements)… but not for all of our lives! – Delphine (Dell) K Stagg OAM, Chair, South Australian Council on Intellectual Disability

I read the article “why disability homes can’t be ‘fixed’ ” with a great deal of interest. A recent entrant into the disability sector, I have been working in group homes since November 2021.

Firstly, I have seen no indications whatsoever of any abuse towards any of the five clients who live together in any of the five houses in which I have worked (naturally, I will not be stating either location or name). Secondly, it seems to me that our clients have few choices concerning where they can live. Many of them are unable or unwilling to live with their families and – as your mention in the article – lack the necessary financial independence to maintain a lifestyle to which more able-bodied people aspire. Your article did not seem to offer any kind of solution to the problems that you outlined: it merely stated that there are issues which are not able to be fixed.

Perhaps I am lucky in that my employer – again, I prefer not to say who – is a considerate and compassionate one, not only to its clients, but to its staff, too. All my colleagues give exemplary care and are extremely conscientious in noting and reporting the few incidents that occur in the house. Yes, our five clients do not have a great deal in common (two use wheelchairs and three have conditions which affect their cognitive behaviour), but the ratio of carers to staff is such that we are generally able to ensure that all wants and needs are satisfied.

If we are indeed to “fix” these accommodations, then at least you could start by recognising what a difficult job Disability Support Worker/Practitioners is, and at least make some effort to provide some suggestions regarding more effective alternatives. – Simon Harris

I have worked in Supported Independent Living (SIL) homes since 2002. As suggested in this article, SIL homes are a mess.

The NDIS SIL model is inherently restrictive when so-called not-for-profits attempt to make maximum profit from the people they are supposed to be supporting. The system is broken. More time and effort is prioritised to satisfy the bureaucratic demands than the actual needs of the residents.

This combined with low wages, inexperienced staff and managers has produced toxic work environments with staff burnout, dangerous staff ratios and unreasonable expectations being imposed on staff to present the outward image of stability.

The system is deeply flawed. The NDIS did not work in Canada or the UK – why did they think it could work here? – Mark Johnson

Commenting on the story: ‘Voter fatigue’: Call to reform local government election timing

Voter fatigue? Really? With only about 30 per cent voting in council elections, I doubt changing the timing will change this. If it’s three elections in one year, so be it. The Electoral Commission should be able to manage this with temps or a seasonal increase to their workforce. The Electoral Commission needs to do more to encourage voters in vote in local government elections. – David Waylen

Why not vote for your local council at the same time as the state election? That might even see a greater voter participation. – John Bannister