Growing Together

Copy and Paste all the Following text into ChatGPT:

*

STEP 1: MY VALUES (answer these questions)

1. If the government gets to decide what is "suitable," what happens to individual choice?
   • Would this lead to disabled people being steered into services that meet bureaucratic definitions rather than personal goals?
   • How can we ensure flexible funding remains a tool for empowerment rather than just a backup for system failures? 
   • ➡️ 
2. EGL is about innovating beyond traditional service models and supporting people to create solutions that work for them...
3. Does this restriction prioritize existing services over personal choice?
4. How does this approach align with the vision of disabled people leading good lives in their communities, with full participation and contribution?
   • ➡️

STEP 2: MY EXPERIENCE (answer this question) 

3. Have I ever experienced or worried about a situation where the right service simply didn’t exist, and I needed flexible funding to create a solution?
   What happened, or what would the impact be?
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 flexible funding should be used to address a service gap, where the service is not otherwise available or suitable for the individual? 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.

Key Principles to Embed:

✅ Ground my response in the Enabling Good Lives (EGL) principles, UNCRPD, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and Whānau Ora.
✅ Challenge the assumption that service gaps are inevitable, questioning why DSS is not responsible for ensuring that essential supports exist.
✅ Argue that flexible funding should be a tool for self-determination, not just a workaround for a broken system.
✅ Strongly explain that true flexibility means disabled people should be able to use their funding however they see fit—including for independent, community-based, and culturally appropriate services outside of DSS contracts.
✅ Call for DSS to be held accountable for ensuring that services are person-centered, rather than forcing people to accept whatever is available.
✅ Push for a funding system that is built around the needs of disabled people, rather than fitting people into pre-existing services that may not work for them.
✅ Highlight the importance of EGL-aligned service innovation, ensuring that disabled people and whānau have the ability to develop and access services that truly meet their needs, rather than being locked into rigid, pre-determined options.
✅ Propose solutions such as:

• Expanding funding to allow for self-directed service design, where disabled people and whānau have the option to create and develop services that work for them.
• Allowing disabled people to use flexible funding for independent, community-led services without unnecessary restrictions.
• Developing a funding approach that enables people to direct their own support teams in ways that align with their vision for a good life.
  ✅ Provide clear, actionable recommendations on how to ensure flexible funding remains genuinely flexible, supporting true self-determination rather than acting as a stopgap for systemic failures.

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 Challenges the assumption that service gaps are inevitable, questioning why DSS is not responsible for ensuring that essential, person-centered supports exist.
4️⃣ Argues that flexible funding should be a tool for self-determination, not just a temporary fix for a system that fails to meet disabled people’s needs.
5️⃣ Pushes for a funding system that is built around the actual needs of disabled people, rather than requiring them to fit into pre-existing services that may not work for them.
6️⃣ Explains how restrictive service lists undermine the EGL principle of self-determination, forcing disabled people into supports that are neither effective nor aligned with their goals.
7️⃣ Aligns with EGL core principles, ensuring that:

• Self-determination is respected, allowing disabled people to choose how, where, and from whom they access services.
• Capacity-building is prioritized, ensuring that disabled people and whānau can develop their own service solutions where gaps exist.
• Person-centered approaches drive decision-making, so supports reflect actual individual needs rather than what the system is willing to offer.
• Mana is enhanced, meaning disabled people are empowered rather than being treated as passive recipients of inadequate services.
  8️⃣ Proposes practical, evidence-based solutions, such as:
• Expanding flexible funding options to allow for self-directed service design, ensuring that disabled people can create supports that work for them.
• Enabling access to independent providers and community-led services, removing unnecessary DSS restrictions.
• Developing an EGL-aligned innovation fund, where disabled people and whānau can co-design and implement services that better reflect their actual needs.
  9️⃣ Challenges any suggestion that DSS should continue to dictate service models, emphasizing that support should be built around disabled people’s needs, not limited by government contracts.
  🔟 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 system where disabled people are not forced into unsuitable services due to government limitations, but instead have the freedom and support to create the life they choose.*