Geoff Neal

The Community Affairs Legislation Committee has just published the joint submission I have co-authored with my friend and NDIA co-design colleague, Uli Cartwright, on the NDIS Bill. Our submission addresses: - The lack of co-design for major changes to the primary legislation according to Article 4(3) of the UNCRPD - Destruction of the golden thread between funding, goals and aspirations for a life worth living on an equal basis with others - Parallels with Robodebt culture in the participant experience and the further risks this Bill imposes - Legislating NDIA accountability to participants - Legislating NDIA, DSS and Government accountability in co-design - Our vision for the co-design commitment we need This submission was made independently of our roles as NDIA Participant Reference Group members. However, in light of the following statement published on the DSS website last night regarding NDIA co-design, we wish to set the record straight: “Since the Government introduced proposed changes to the NDIS Act, the NDIA has been working closely with Disability Representative and Carer Organisations (DRCOs), our Independent Advisory Council (IAC) and Participant Reference Group (PRG) to improve their approach and confirm the next set of priority topics for co-design.” We do not know who drafted this FAQ, but we do not believe “working closely” with the PRG is a fair or accurate representation of a one hour briefing the day after the Bill was tabled, a two hour Q&A for us to give our feedback on the proposed legislative changes, and a two hour meeting on the NDIA’s already-formed, already-drafted co-design approach and proposed topics. At this meeting, we asked the NDIA to ask us what we can contribute and how much work we can take on, not to assume we are not up to the task. We go much further in our submission: We ask the Government, DSS and the NDIA to “assume that we can” contribute much more, and to invite people with disability to lead these reforms, including drafting of amendments (or indeed, re-drafting) of this Bill.

25

9 Comments

A new poll has found majority support for the “Fair Access to Bathrooms Bill” which has been introduced as a private members bill to Parliament by NZ First. 56% of respondents support a requirement for all new public buildings to have male, female and unisex toilets. Only 26% (1 in 4) were opposed, and 18% were unsure. #familyfirst #familyfirstnz #media #mediarelease #poll #survey #marketresearch https://lnkd.in/dUZBAD2P

6

2 Comments

Terminology is relevant. Understanding the lingo of community development is both a point of access to information and a timesaver that helps you sift the wheat (future forward good ideas) from the chaff (backward looking worn out ideas).

9

The missing middle. Currently the only form of housing support for those in the ‘missing middle’ of the housing continuum is the Accommodation Supplement (AS). While useful in supplementing the household incomes for the more 360,000 households that receive it. The subsidy is both inadequate and ineffective in addressing the actual problem of housing affordability. The annual cost to the Government of this subsidy is now close to $2.5 billion. While the evidence is mixed as to whether the AS puts upward pressure on rents. In an environment of constrained supply (like we currently have in New Zealand), any demand side subsidy (like the AS) is likely to have the effect of pushing up prices. However, regardless of its inflationary effect (or not), the Accomodation Supplement has four significant flaws: 1. Firstly, the AS fails to offer relief that matches rising market rents. While rents have gone up, the supplement has remained unchanged. So in real terms it is becoming a less helpful or effective subsidy. 2. Secondly, the means and asset testing disqualifies couples from receiving the supplement if their cash assets exceed $16,200 (the limit for singles is $8,100). This amount represents approximately 1.5% of the current median house price, limiting couples’ ability to save for a mortgage deposit while relying on the supplement. When the limit was last updated in 1988, it accounted for about 18% of the median house price. This means that the AS discourages and disincentivizes progression toward homeownership. 3. Thirdly, the AS has a mixed effect on recipients. Existing homeowners (who ironically can receive the AS) benefit from the AS as it enables them to build housing equity, whereas renters struggle to save enough for a home deposit, exacerbating housing and wealth inequalities. 4. Finally, It does absolutely nothing to address the core problem of housing affordability, and has a slight risk of actually making the problem worse. It fails to address supply side factors, and while a useful income supplement, does not specifically address the problem it is intending to supplement. For context the nearly $2.5 billion paid annually could enable approximately 4,500 homes to be built every year. Over ten years that is 45,000 homes. However, with just a few tweaks to the scheme it could become a very powerful tool to enable tens of thousands of households to progress towards homeownership and/or off Government housing subsidies entirely, as well as incentivize new housing supply and improve housing affordability. This would be good for both the households themselves and the under pressure Government fiscal position. This would then enable more funds to be spent on the close to 100,000 households who need greater levels of housing support but are not currently receiving it. This would have the effect of reducing costs elsewhere, such as unemployment, health, and crime, and at the same time boost our overall economic productivity and wellbeing.

109

13 Comments

🍻 Pub Testing the NDIS Bill Part 5 of 6: When the Government says they consulted, show them this (a.k.a. “A brief tangent to rant about inaccessible consultation timeframes for things that could cost lives”) 🍻 ⚠️🚨Content Warning🚨 This video series discusses scenarios potentially leading to the preventable deaths of people with disabilities, including by suicide. Viewer discretion is advised. The Government is encouraged to respond meaningfully to our concerns.⚠️ This unscripted discussion addresses some of the things keeping disability advocates Uli Cartwright and Cat Walker up at night, and some of the concerns we covered in our submissions to the two Senate inquiries on the NDIS Bill which have not yet been addressed at the time of publication. After a very long day, we started from the difficulty government officials seem to have understanding that debts against NDIS participants cannot exist unless somebody makes a subjective judgement that they have misspent their funds. Previous clips questioned the double standards around integrity and the impact on participants; review rights and why they matter in the context of compliance; changes to the definition of funded supports; and compliance without harm. All topics must be considered in the context of the potentially devastating consequences of vulnerable individuals receiving debt notices (as our submission co-author Kath Madgwick knows all too well), and the huge duty of care on government agencies even when someone has done the wrong thing or made a mistake. But when it comes to WHAT we can access with our funds and how NDIS support is defined, there are also risks of other adverse outcomes – including death – if we cannot access supports we genuinely need, when we need them. And don't forget: Debts can still be raised on the 'in' list items. This short tangent is a rant about how unfair the timeframes for consultation have been. While the timeframe for DSS consultation on the draft supports list has been extended by a week, that's still only 13 days after the delay in publication of the Easy Read versions, which do not include the full lists. Let's call it what it is: Systemic ableism. And potentially deadly, if it denies critical supports (I think our alternative take on Section 10 is WAY safer). And like the NDIS Bill, I don't think it stacks up against Article 4(3) of the UNCRPD. Natalie Wade's Rego Taskforce was the exception. Be like Natalie, everybody! We hope Bill Shorten is listening. We hope the wider community is, too. Anthony Albanese Australian Labor Party Department of Social Services (DSS) Daniel White Uli Cartwright Ellen Gould Naomi Colville Kath Madgwick David Pocock Jacqui Lambie Dr George Taleporos (GAICD, PhD) Rosemary Kayess Sam Paior JP, MAICD Corri McKenzie Chris Coombes Annie Crowe ♿️♾️ ⭐️ Marayke Jonkers PLY (MAICD ) William Ward-Boas Helen Dickinson Jess Harper Samantha Connor Mark Pietsch El Gibbs Jenny Karavolos Sophie Cusworth AFDO Admin

9

1 Comment

NDIS Independent Advisory Council Home and Living Reference Group meeting bulletin – 30 October 2024 The Independent Advisory Council (IAC) Home and Living Reference Group (Reference Group) met online on 30 October 2024. They discussed: - what they have heard in their communities - the proposed refresh of the NDIA Home and Living Framework - the Agency’s co-design work related to home and living. Ms Leah van Poppel, IAC Principal Member led the meeting. Dr Leighton Jay was Co-chair. What members have heard in their communities: Members were encouraged that the Agency has been holding public information sessions about NDIS legislation changes, which have been well attended. Members reported the community still feel unease and confusion about how changes will be implemented. Members called for more information sessions, and improved change management and communications from the Agency. They want more information about the legislation in Easy Read and video formats. The Agency noted that there is a dedicated FAQs page about legislative changes which is regularly updated, based on questions participants and supporters are raising. Members encouraged the Agency to educate the community about their home and living options. They called for clearer communications and information that is ideally developed through co-design. The Agency agreed that consistent information and messaging is important, including from the National Contact Centre. Members noted that recent misinformation from some service providers, particularly plan managers, has not been helpful. This has added to participants’ uncertainty about which supports can be claimed. Members are concerned that group homes and congregate care arrangements appear to still dominate home and living supports in participant plans. They highlighted that the community needs more than available housing, and that additional supports are as important. The Agency noted Member concerns and stated it does not favour one type of home and living support over another. Members noted general concerns in the community related to home and living supports. They shared community reports of cuts in plan funding and over reliance on traditional housing options. There are concerns the Agency encourages 12-month plans over longer term plans, which create more work for planners and stress for participants. They also reported with recent changes some people are worried about making a mistake in how they are using their plan. More info here: https://lnkd.in/gTgjipD3

14

1 Comment

I share a panel at The Labour Party conference, hosted by Policy Exchange. Our topic: The Building Beautiful Agenda – is less beauty the price we have to pay for more homes? I argue we must have both more, and more beautiful homes, adding the need for some clarity in the semantics about this dabate: ‘Beauty’. Many, if not most of us applauded the recommendations of ‘Living with Beauty’, the report of the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission. I think the key is right there – Building Better as well as Beautifully. In my own practice, we subscribe to four key principles, Order, Humanity, Sustainability and, yes Beauty. And of course Vitruvius prescribed firmitas, utilitas, and venustas (beauty) as the three indispensable virtues of architecture. Beauty, on its own, was never enough to convey all we need for human wellbeing and it is quite right that it should have been dropped from the highest level of desired outcomes in the National Planning Policy Framework. Other than that, there was a pretty good level of agreement between panellists Ike Ijeh, Nicholas Boys Smith, Margaret Mullane MP, Jack Shaw. Many thanks to Georgie Krone for convening.

97

16 Comments

This one just bamboozles me… “Cold damp houses contributing to significant health problems for New Zealand was undeniable”, he said, “but increasing the amount of housing stock available and getting more people housed was crucial and was about trade-offs.” - Chris Peck, Building and Construction Minister. There are many perks to being born in NZ, but our housing quality is NOT one of them. It’s a topic that leaves everyone grappling for the words sufficient to describe how crap they are. Most other countries I’ve lived in and travelled to - it is not.normal. to be cold inside. Ever. **That’s the point of a house** I don’t see how it’s worth giving more kids asthma? How does that not just transfer the cost to our struggling health system, impacting the (precious) economy, quality of life, etc etc…? Speechless. (Almost ;-)) Dismay at plan to revert to less strict insulation standards

42

27 Comments

The Power of Social Licence Building a positive reputation and engaging with the local community can significantly enhance your business's attractiveness to government agencies. Social licence to operate (SLO) refers to the level of community acceptance or approval maintained by a business. By fostering strong community ties and demonstrating a commitment to local development, businesses can stand out to government agencies as partners who not only deliver quality services but also contribute to societal well-being. Earning your social licence through community engagement is more than just a checkbox – it's a strategic advantage. Actively participating in local causes, collaborating with community organisations, and aligning your business practices with community values show that your business is an integral part of the community. This approach not only helps in securing government contracts but also builds long-term trust and loyalty among community members, creating a sustainable and positive impact. #Smallbusiness #GovernmentContract #Tenders #Community #SocialLicence #Contract #SMEs

2

1 Comment

I don’t know about the detailed legal position on this claim. But it exposes some critical faults in our health funding system. Like many parts of what used to be a genuine public service recent decades have seen many services subjected to invented corporate structures and transactional relationships which are awkward and inappropriate. In this instance Te Whatu Ora “negotiates” with GP organisations. But they have no flexibility (other than downwards) to negotiate because they are not the funder. It is genuinely take it or leave it. Which does not match the corporate structures and relationships which apply in theory. This is frustrating. It is inefficient. It reinforces inequities. Maybe it’s even illegal. Shining light on it will not do any harm.

76

18 Comments

"Business cases have become increasingly costly and time consuming for the sector without necessarily leading to better investment choices and more efficient and timely infrastructure delivery." An inspiring speech from Chris Bishop at the recent Building Nations Conference has mapped our six priorities the Crown expects from the infrastructure system. Developing a 30-year National Infrastructure Plan Establishing a National Infrastructure Agency (NIA) Improving infrastructure funding and financing Improving the consenting framework Improving education and health infrastructure and Strengthening asset management and resilience The government is committed to doing better. How can we as a sector get onboard and support the conversation towards a better pipeline of long term capital planning and delivery and asset management.

7

The government's second RMA Amendment Bill, introduced last week, will allow Councils to de-list heritage buildings identified in their district plans using a faster Streamlined Planning Process (SPP). At present if Councils wish to remove a building from the heritage list, they use a standard plan making process. This process is complicated and convoluted. It has many steps, takes a long time to progress, and has broad rights of appeal meaning even if a Council goes through the process the outcome is far from certain. Under the changes introduced by this Bill, Councils will be able to apply to the Minister for the Environment for an SPP that is of an appropriate scale to the issue being addressed. For example, an SPP plan change to de-list one specific building will be much smaller in scale and will have narrower rights of appeal, meaning it can be progressed more quickly and with more certainty than the status quo.

37

4 Comments

Victoria's public sector grew by 59% in the 15 years from 2008-2023, while population grew by just 29%. In every state, public sector growth outstripped population growth, regardless of Liberal or Labor Governments. To stop the trend, and bring the #publicsector back into balance with other sectors in a traditional #mixedeconomy, we will need a new political movement to win government. Our #Agenda for State Government 1. Require politicians to have had a #realjob Require MPs to have worked for 10 years in a real job (not employed by a politician, party or union) as a condition of eligibility to nominate for parliament. 2. Ban #careerpoliticians – Limit MPs to three terms in the lower house, two in the upper house, then back to their day job. 3. Require #publicservants to have worked outside government for 10 years, with a limit on tenure of 10 years service. By ‘public servants’, we don’t mean teachers, nurses, or police. We mean people who devise policy and execute/ communicate/ monitor/ evaluate/ and report it. 4. Make Ministers personally #liable for cost-blowouts Make Ministers personally liable for cost-blowouts and over-runs in spending in programs and contracts where these are due to negligence and incompetence. 5. Reduce the overblown #coststructure in construction projects by 30%. – Require a renegotiation of terms in all current and new construction projects to reduce costs by 30%. – Remove ‘commercial-in-confidence clauses from all contracts involving taxpayers money. If a business wants confidentiality, it should find investors other than government. 6. #Deregister the CFMEU as a rogue union. Just as the Hawke-Keating government deregistered the Builders Labourers Federation, we will deregister the CFMEU as a union that uses illegality in behaviour to fleece taxpayers of value for money. 7. Transfer #education and #health to the Commonwealth – Streamline the Federation by transferring responsibility for education and health to the Commonwealth. – Make local government a lean mechanism of local voice, transferring its service delivery functions to state government. – Reduce planning and building approval processes to a mandated maximum of 30 days. 8. Direct #childcare and #schools funding to parents not institutions. Funding for child care and schools should be directed to parents in the form of a voucher that families can use as leverage to get the options that best suit each family. 9. #Scrap taxpayer funding for political parties – Force parties to rely on their members and community support, not taxpayers’ money. – Ban donations from corporates to parties (inc companies and trade unions). – Permit only individual citizens to donate to parties, up to a max of $10,000 pa. 10. #Defund 100 public sector agencies that are purely political. Defund 100 public sector agencies that are purely ideological entities that deliver political outcomes not front-line services. Join #DemocracyFirst. https://lnkd.in/giZFB9ej

71

33 Comments

How do we improve independent scrutiny during policy reform? Independent scrutiny is critical to sound public policy governance, but how do we get the most out of it? 1️⃣ Who commissions the review matters! 2️⃣ Choose truly independent consultants. 3️⃣ Ensure a direct line to decision-makers. 4️⃣ Protect confidentiality. ➡️ Learn how to fix your reviews for better policy-making in my latest article: https://lnkd.in/gGzy-4Xm #PublicPolicy #Governance #PolicyReview

1

𝐀𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐚 𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐚 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫-𝟏𝟔𝐬!!! [Hot off the press] I know that this is most likely inspired by Jonathan Haidt's "Anxious Generation" proposals - : "four foundational reforms are: No smartphones before high school; No social media before 16; Phone-free schools; Far more unsupervised play and childhood independence. (p 261.)" "The ban - which will not take effect for at least 12 months - could see tech companies fined up to A$50m ($32.5m; £25.7m) if they don't comply". "Gaming and messaging platforms are exempt, as are sites that can be accessed without an account, meaning YouTube, for instance, is likely to be spared." Thoughts? This is hot off the press, details are scant at the moment, so here are my initial impressions, in no particular order of importance, but love to hear your thoughts: - This feels equivalent to banning the TV in the 1940s, banning the internet in the 1990s. - Have governments thought of increasing funding to equip parents on parenting t(w)eens? We as parents are accountable for our children and often we feel ill-equipped. - Have governments thought of implementing penalties on parents who do not implement digital protection / wellbeing software on their children's devices? Or perhaps funding the purchase of this software? These software filter much of the inappropriate content on social media and you can enforce the reasonable use of social media apps. - What is the Australian Govt going to provide for teens under-16 to do as alternatives? Will there be more funding for non-screen use activities? - Given (allegedly) gaming and messaging apps are exempt, do we think the usage on those platforms will increase, resulting in greater digital addiction? - A lot of risky/predatory behaviour happens through messaging apps. If those aren't in scope, then it may increase the risk on those platforms. - Will this be retrospectively applied to under-16s who already have access to social media? - "The brain finishes developing and maturing in the mid-to-late 20s". - NIMH (US National Institute of Mental Health). So, should the ban be eventually extended to young adults well into their mid-late 20s? What is the actual root cause of the concerns around Teens + Social Media? How can we help parents be able to equip their teens to grow and make wiser decisions as they grow into adults? What are your thoughts on this? #Genz #ParentingTeens #Aotearoa #NewZealand

1

Shitty City? Like, I suspect, many of us I am no expert on urban development. Planners and councils try hard to explain and consult but mostly we simply know what we think we like, or more often what we do not like. Currently there is an proposal to “flood our cities” with housing. I guess this makes a change from sewage and storm water overflows but the idea that opening urban development floodgates will improve urban life seems dodgy to me. I have travelled a bit and watched TV more and what I see of unplanned cities does not enthuse me. To my simplistic mind the ideal would be to protect the best of what we have, ensure that transport and services infrastructure is robust and environmentally sound, build to best current quality and the needs of modern life and whanau, ensure that the least wealthy have affordable access to safe and healthy housing. Mr Market can do many things but is a very weak candidate for that role. Anyway while these ideas (if I may use that term so loosely) are being tossed around I got given a new book called “Urban Aotearoa. The Future For Our Cities”. It is not a heavy book in kilos so should be accessible to politicians though it lacks pictures and has some heavy thinking in it. I strongly recommend it to anyone who cares what our cities might be like if we approached them like an important part of how we live and not just an investment option. Well done Bridget Williams Books yet again.

248

28 Comments

The Federal housing debate is heating up ahead of next years election. This one out today from the Opposition will be popular with local government, developers, contractors, and housing providers for good reason. Infrastructure is vital to unlock new housing supply. But we need this to be targeted at infill development as much as greenfield, and it should be used to leverage affordable housing outcomes as well. Statement from National Shelter below. #Federal #HousingPolicy #HousingSupply #HousingAffordability #Infrastructure

11

Tonight free online working with owners corps 6:00 - 7:30pm Getting to yes! Navigating good decision-making in owners corporationn https://lnkd.in/gybkcuXg Navigating and making good decisions with your owners corporation can be one of the biggest challenges of apartment living. So how can we do it better? In this session, you’ll get an overview of the legislated decision-making process, as demanded by the Victorian Owners Corporation Act. But perhaps more importantly, we’ll explore what else could be done to smooth the path for a decision. What can help owners engage with the matter, understand and address different perspectives, and feel like they are moving forward together rather than breaking into factions.

4