Growing Together

Copy and Paste all the Following text into ChatGPT:

*

STEP 1: MY VALUES (answer these questions)

1. If disabled people are full citizens of New Zealand, should they have to justify and pre-plan every aspect of how they access support, in a way non-disabled citizens do not?
   (Consider whether linking flexible funding to a plan reinforces inequality and restricts full participation in society.)
   ➡️

2. How does requiring an "agreed plan" impact the ability of disabled people to respond to unexpected changes or evolving needs?
   (Think about whether life circumstances can always be neatly planned in advance.)
   ➡️

STEP 2: MY EXPERIENCE (answer this question)

3. Have I ever faced a situation where a rigid plan or the requirement to prove a "specific need" prevented me or someone I know from using support in a way that truly enabled a good life?
   What happened?
4. Do you have any other insights or experiences that could help shape a better solution?
   ➡️

STEP 3: GENERATE MY RESPONSE (press enter) 

"I am responding to the New Zealand government's consultation on disability support services. The question I am answering is: ‘Do you agree or disagree that the use of flexible funding should be part of an agreed plan and linked to a specific need? Why or why not?’ Make sure you answer this question.

Act as my friendly human rights defender and craft an attention-grabbing opening that immediately draws the reader in. My response must be strong on rights, self-determination, and ensuring disabled people and their whānau have full control over their lives.

Push back against restricting funding to only contracted providers, as this limits autonomy, creates power imbalances, and risks repeating past failures seen in institutional care. Reference the Royal Commission findings on how system-driven models failed to protect disabled people and emphasize that self-directed, community-based supports provide stronger safeguards.

Demand a Rights-Based Approach

• Flexible funding is not a privilege—it is a right.
• The UNCRPD, EGL, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi all affirm that disabled people should have control over their own lives.
• Rigid funding structures create harm, exclusion, and crisis-driven decision-making. 

Key Principles to Embed:

✅ Ground my response in the Enabling Good Lives (EGL) principles, UNCRPD, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and Whānau Ora.
✅ Frame flexible funding as a matter of citizenship, where disabled people should have the same rights to make choices about their lives as non-disabled citizens.
✅ Critique the requirement to link flexible funding to a predefined plan and "specific need" if it creates unnecessary bureaucracy or limits self-determination.
✅ Explain how a truly flexible funding model should enable disabled people to use their support as life unfolds, rather than being tied to rigid planning structures.
✅ Highlight that a strengths-based, self-directed funding model aligns with EGL’s core principles, including:

• Self-determination: Disabled people and their whānau should control their own funding, using it in ways that reflect their vision for a good life.
• Beginning early: Funding should be proactive and adaptable, supporting people to plan long-term rather than reacting to crises.
• Person-centered: Plans should be living documents that reflect changing circumstances rather than static, compliance-driven templates.
• Ordinary life outcomes: Flexible funding should allow disabled people to participate fully in their communities, just like any other citizen.
• Mainstream first: Funding should support access to ordinary services and opportunities, rather than forcing people into rigid, disability-specific models.
• Mana enhancing: Decision-making should uphold dignity, not force disabled people to justify their lives in ways non-disabled people never have to.
• Easy to use: Disabled people and whānau should not face excessive paperwork or bureaucratic hurdles just to access what they need.
• Relationship building: The system should be based on partnership and trust, not control.
  ✅ Call for trust in disabled people and their whānau to make responsible financial decisions, in alignment with EGL, the UNCRPD, and Te Tiriti.
  ✅ Challenge the idea that disabled people must justify every expense in a way non-disabled people do not have to, reinforcing inequality.
  ✅ Propose a strengths-based alternative where disabled people have the freedom to use their funding in ways that align with their vision for a good life.
  ✅ Provide clear, actionable recommendations on how to ensure accountability without restricting autonomy or creating unnecessary administrative burdens.

Now, based on my answers, create a strong and persuasive response that:

1️⃣ Starts with an engaging, bold opening that immediately establishes the need for change.
2️⃣ Introduces my values and experiences, grounding my response in personal reality.
3️⃣ Makes a persuasive argument that the requirement to pre-plan and justify every use of flexible funding contradicts the UNCRPD, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and EGL principles.
4️⃣ Explains that true flexibility means support should follow the person, rather than people having to fit into rigid funding categories.
5️⃣ Describes how past restrictions on flexible funding have led to inequities, exclusion, and crisis-driven decision-making, preventing disabled people from fully participating in their communities.
6️⃣ Aligns with EGL core principles, ensuring that:

• Self-determination is central, allowing disabled people to decide how to use their funding without excessive oversight.
• Plans should be guiding documents, not strict rulebooks, allowing for adaptability as needs change.
• Funding should be based on the vision for a good life, not just "specific needs" that fit bureaucratic categories.
• Accountability should focus on long-term outcomes, rather than requiring disabled people to justify every expenditure in ways non-disabled people do not have to.
  7️⃣ Pushes for an alternative, strengths-based approach, ensuring that flexible funding:
• Remains fully person-directed, adapting to changing needs over time.
• Supports self-determination and long-term planning, rather than forcing people to reapply, prove their ‘deficit,’ or meet arbitrary thresholds.
• Is supported by capacity-building initiatives, ensuring that disabled people and whānau have the tools to self-manage their supports effectively.
  8️⃣ Challenges any approach that adds unnecessary layers of control, explaining that trusting disabled people to direct their own funding is key to achieving true inclusion.
  9️⃣ Ends with a compelling summary that reinforces the key message and calls for urgent reform.

Use clear, direct, and persuasive language to make this response as strong as possible, ensuring that it highlights the need for a funding model that upholds choice, dignity, and self-determination rather than reinforcing restrictive bureaucracy.*