Raf
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.
‘My right to communicate using facilitated communication has been targeted.’
Raf, late 20s, is autistic, non-verbal and has a number of neurological conditions affecting his behaviour.
Sometimes he will vocalise loudly and move uncontrollably. Other times he can appear withdrawn or flat.
Raf said that because of his behaviours people assume he has intellectual disability instead of being cognitively different.
‘They really don’t seem to acknowledge that non-verbal people are intelligent,’ he told the Royal Commission.
In school, teachers put Raf in with the ‘kids with intellectual disability’ and his education was ‘understimulating’. His parents had to pay for private tutors and other supports. He said it would be ‘wonderful’ to go to university or TAFE, but it is ‘really unusual for people like [him] to study’ because there isn’t enough support.
Raf uses facilitated communication and needs specialised equipment and an experienced, trusted facilitator to help him communicate.
In recent years the NDIA has withdrawn support for facilitated communication. Raf is concerned the agency doesn’t understand the importance of facilitated communication, which makes it hard for him to have a voice and speak up.
‘It’s important to realise that facilitated communication is not accepted by many including the NDIS … I want to keep silent so my funding is not compromised. It is always a risk with each review – got to be very careful.’
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.