Josue, Maxie and Emiliano
Content Warning: These stories are about violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation and may include references to suicide or self-harming behaviours. They may contain graphic descriptions and strong language and may be distressing. Some narratives may be about First Nations people who have passed away. If you need support, please see Contact & support.
Josue, in his mid-20s, is autistic and has dyspraxia. He receives NDIS funding that allows him to live in specialist disability accommodation (SDA).
His brother Maxie, who has the same conditions, also gets SDA funding from the NDIS.
Their father Emiliano applied for the brothers’ funding at the same time, but it has taken several years longer for Josue’s to be approved.
Emiliano explained that eligibility for SDA funding depends on a report from an occupational therapist (OT), who assesses the level of support that is needed. The OT reports for the two young men differed slightly, allowing Maxie to be approved but not Josue. Emiliano applied for Josue the following year and was turned down again. He then requested a review of the decision.
‘So that was put forward … earlier on this year, only to come back with once again an answer of no,’ said Emiliano.
He decided to appeal the decision in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
‘Right from the word go, I was determined to go through to the end.’
Emiliano has numerous concerns about the process that followed. Chief among these, the NDIA failed to tell him it had reviewed its own decision and overturned it.
‘Positive result – I knew nothing about it.’
This information didn’t emerge until several months later when the appeal was underway.
‘It’s incompetence or manipulation. It’s one of those two things,’ Emiliano told the Royal Commission.
In preparation for the appeal, Emiliano had filed several Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. The documents he received from the NDIA showed forms incompletely filled out and outdated information copied from one place to another.
‘So therefore, I call that incompetence,’ he said.
But he suspects something more.
‘You know, they’ll say they’re there to help. But then, the reality is, “I’m going to force you to go through this arduous process right till the end, right till [the appeals tribunal] so that if you want to get justice, I’m going to make it as hard as possible for you.”’
Emiliano had to make the FOI requests because it was the only way to access the information he needed.
‘The plan review rejection letters from SDA, specialist disability, are not sent to participants. They’re not. So they never know what’s actually happened without lodging a Freedom of Information request. And how many lay people would have the wherewithal to – to even know what to do or even know that there’s such a process in place?’
The case was ultimately dropped, but Emiliano ‘tried to force the issue of getting that information’. The NIDA still did not want to hand it over.
’Why can’t I still have the information that’s really important to me for the future, having gone through all this pain?’ Emiliano asks.
Emiliano said the resolution process seems designed to ‘batter’ the ‘opponent’.
‘They’ve designed it to make it as hard as possible so people give up. Now fortunately, with myself, I’m never going to give up … But what about the others? That’s who I’m here to represent. It’s the other people that are not so fortunate.’
Disclaimer: This is the story of a person who shared their personal experience with the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability through a submission or private session. The names in this story are pseudonyms. The person who shared this experience was not a witness and their account is not evidence. They did not take an oath or affirmation before providing the story. Nothing in this story constitutes a finding of the Royal Commission. Any views expressed are those of the person who shared their experience, not of the Royal Commission.