Anger over PM’s ‘blessed’ comment misses the point

Tensions have been running high this week after the PM said he was ‘blessed’ to have children without disabilities. But your anger is misplaced, and unhelpful.

During Wednesday night’s leaders’ debate, the mother of a disabled child fronted the Prime Minister in search of an answer.

Catherine Yeoman told Scott Morrison her four-year-old autistic son had lost about 30 per cent of his NDIS funding – an issue that has affected many Australian families in recent months, and wanted to know what the Coalition’s plans for the program were going forward.

An important question, impacting some 500,000 recipients of NDIS funding across the country.

In response, Mr Morrison said he was “blessed” to have two children who did not have any disability, and could only “try to understand” the plight of parents seeking care for their children.

Social media lit up – people were furious. Grace Tame, who has autism, called Mr Morrison a fake, Dylan Alcott said he felt blessed to be disabled, and the news articles were endless.

But they all missed the point.

The Prime Minister did not answer the question. He still hasn’t.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison was lashed for his response to a mother asking about NDIS funding at Wednesday night’s leader’s debate. Picture: Toby Zerna

The anger did not come from his inability to answer the question to the room though, with only one word of his answer sparking the powerful reaction. Photo Steve Pohlner

My younger brother Zac recently had a similar issue. After years of back and forth, he secured funding for his care in an apartment designed for occupants with special needs.

Weeks before his move-in date, his support provider resigned due to illness, and a new one was provided automatically.

Less than two weeks before his move-in date, his funding – intended to pay for his care in disability accommodation, something we had spent years trying to find – was slashed by 50 per cent.

There was no meeting we were aware of, no warning, and no explanation. His plan had suddenly been significantly altered, and the money we relied on for his care while living out of home was no longer available.

Our garage was full of furniture. He was due to move within weeks.

Mum tried desperately to get answers. She rang everyone she could think of, filed an appeal, and even contacted the Prime Minister, who happens to be our local member.

At one point she turned to me and said: “I could move him out after a year, and I think he would understand, but I cannot tell him he can’t move at all. It would destroy him.”

And it would have. This funding is no small thing. It has the ability to completely change a person’s life – or place hurdles where there shouldn’t have to be any.

Zac is autistic, legally blind, and has cerebral palsy. He works part time, has a better social life than me but will never be able to independently care for himself.

My younger brother Zac nearly had his dream of living independently stripped from him after 50 per cent of his NDIS funding was cut without notice.

Ms Yeoman later said she was not bothered by the use of the term blessed, and was angrier the PM could not provide an answer to the room. Photo: Steve Pohlner

His funding has since been replaced as a result of two appeals, but it begs the question, how does this happen? And what does it mean for the future of the program that my little brother, by proxy my family, and so many other Australians depend on so heavily?

Recent research from the University of NSW found the average plan size of an NDIS participant fell by four per cent between 2020 and 2021, with 34 per cent of participants experiencing a cut of more than 5 per cent in the last six months of 2021 – a 10 per cent jump on the number of cuts in 2019-20.

There are major issues with the NDIS in its current form. There are problems with transparency, equitability, and, I would argue, basic human decency.

I could rant for hours about the length of time it takes to get a decision on an appeal, especially in comparison to the length of time it takes to cut funding, about the impossibility of knowing who to contact if something goes wrong, and the anecdotal evidence that suggests who you have putting your case together makes a hell of a bigger difference than what your actual basic needs are.

Weeks out from an election, the Prime Minister should be able to acknowledge this, and have a plan to do better.

He didn’t, and nobody noticed. I guess there’s no Twitter clout in that.