Growing Together

Copy and Paste all the Following text into ChatGPT:

*

STEP 1: MY VALUES (answer these questions)

1. Should the purpose of flexible funding be to reduce costs, or to ensure disabled people can live a good life with the support they need?
   (Consider whether this question frames disability support as a financial burden rather than a right. Does it assume that all disabled people’s support needs can or should be minimized?)
   ➡️

2. How does the idea that flexible funding should only be used for services that ‘reduce future support needs’ affect people with lifelong disabilities who will always require some level of support?
   (Think about whether this approach could lead to people being denied necessary supports if they are not seen as ‘improving’ enough.)
   ➡️

STEP 2: MY EXPERIENCE (answer this question)

3. Have I or someone I know ever faced pressure to justify support based on whether it would ‘reduce future needs,’ rather than whether it would improve quality of life?
   What happened, and what was the impact?
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 purchase or access a service that is expected to reduce a person’s future support needs? 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 idea that the primary goal of disability support should be cost reduction rather than enabling self-determination and full participation in society.
✅ Highlight that some disabled people will always require support, and that funding should be based on ensuring a good life, not proving that needs can be minimized.
✅ Push for a funding model that prioritizes:

• Individual wellbeing over cost-saving measures.
• Self-determination, autonomy, and social inclusion as the true outcomes of flexible funding.
• Capacity-building approaches that enhance disabled people’s independence without penalizing those with lifelong support needs.
  ✅ Critique any policy that might result in disabled people being denied the supports they need simply because they are unlikely to become ‘less expensive’ over time.
  ✅ Call for transparency in how funding decisions are made, ensuring that:
• People with lifelong disabilities are not disadvantaged by policies that assume support should decrease.
• The impact of support is measured by quality of life and self-determined success, not just financial savings.
  ✅ Provide clear, actionable recommendations on how flexible funding can be used to enhance opportunities, personal development, and independence—without forcing disabled people to justify their worth in financial terms.

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 reducing costs should be the primary objective of flexible funding, reinforcing that support exists to ensure disabled people can live meaningful lives, not just become cheaper to fund.
4️⃣ Pushes for a funding system that prioritizes:

• Individual choice and self-determination over financial savings.
• Investment in long-term supports that promote independence and wellbeing, not just cost reductions.
• Recognition that not all disabilities will become ‘less expensive’ over time, but all disabled people deserve high-quality, individualized support.
  5️⃣ Explains how policies focused on cost-cutting could:
• Exclude people with lifelong support needs.
• Lead to denial of necessary supports if they are not seen as ‘reducing dependency.’
• Force people into crisis-driven interventions instead of proactive, person-led supports.
  6️⃣ Aligns with EGL core principles, ensuring that:
• Self-determination is upheld, allowing disabled people to access supports that meet their needs rather than having to justify reductions in funding.
• Ordinary life outcomes are prioritized, ensuring that funding decisions allow disabled people to participate fully in their communities.
• Mana is enhanced, ensuring disabled people do not feel pressured to prove their worth in financial terms.
• Flexible funding remains truly flexible, rather than being contingent on proving ‘cost-effectiveness’ at the expense of individual needs.
  7️⃣ Proposes practical, evidence-based solutions, such as:
• Shifting funding decisions from ‘cost-reduction’ models to ‘quality of life’ models, where the focus is on people thriving, not just needing less.
• Ensuring that investments in skills development, technology, and independence-building supports are available without disadvantaging those who need ongoing assistance.
• Creating an evaluation system that measures success in personal and social wellbeing, not just in financial savings.
  8️⃣ Challenges any assumption that disabled people must prove they will ‘need less’ to justify their support, reinforcing that a good life is the goal, not just cost-cutting.
  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 system that supports disabled people’s right to a full life, rather than treating them as financial liabilities who must ‘prove’ they will require less support in the future.*