Growing Together

Copy and Paste all the Following text into ChatGPT:

*

Step 1: My Values (answer these questions)

1. What does true choice and control over funding look like to you? How would a good funding system allow disabled people and families to make decisions that genuinely improve their lives?
   • What barriers currently stop this from happening?
   • ➡️
   
   

2. EGL emphasizes trusting disabled people and their families to make the best decisions for their lives...Does requiring external oversight (Option 1) or limiting funding choices to a set list (Option 2) reflect that trust—or does it reinforce a paternalistic, deficit-based model?➡️

Step 2: My Experience (answer this question)

3.  Have you ever had an unmet need because the funding rules didn’t recognize something essential to your situation?

   • How did that affect your ability to participate fully in your community?
   • Did it feel like the system was supporting an ordinary life, or just meeting minimum service obligations?
   • ➡️

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 prefer Option 1 (link flexible funding to the person’s plan, with oversight of how it is used) or Option 2 (adjust current lists of what can and can’t be funded using flexible funding)? Why?’ 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.

Write a strong response opposing any requirement for disabled people to ‘achieve outcomes’ to maintain support. Emphasize that disability is not a condition to be ‘fixed’ and funding should support an ordinary life, not enforce progress measures. Push back against medicalized models and highlight that true flexibility means funding follows the person’s fundamental human needs, not predefined goals. Argue that accountability should ensure support enables a good life, not force disabled people to prove their worthiness.

Key Principles to Embed:

✅ Ground my response in the Enabling Good Lives (EGL) principles, UNCRPD, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and Whānau Ora.
✅ Highlight that neither Option 1 nor Option 2 fully aligns with the UNCRPD or EGL, as both retain government control over personal funding rather than enabling true self-determination.
✅ Explain that before the March 18th budget changes, EGL in Mid Central provided a true model of flexibility, where:

• Personal budgets were adaptable to changing life demands while still heading in the direction of the person’s overall vision.
• People could self-direct their funding with confidence rather than having to justify each decision.
• Capacity-building was prioritized over compliance, ensuring people were supported to manage their funds effectively rather than being subjected to rigid oversight.
  ✅ Explain that Option 1, while seeming flexible, still places disabled people under government scrutiny, limiting autonomy and creating barriers to innovation in support arrangements.
  ✅ Explain that Option 2 reinforces a rigid system that dictates what disabled people can and cannot spend funding on, which goes against the EGL principle of trusting disabled people and their whānau to know what’s best for their lives.
  ✅ Call for a third way: a true EGL approach where personal budgets are fully flexible and directed by disabled people, with accountability designed in a way that does not create barriers.
  ✅ Explain that a developmental EGL personal budget (as opposed to a deficit-based support plan) ensures funding flexes with changing life demands, recognizing that:
• People’s lives do not fit into prescriptive government lists.
• Rigid funding systems can force people into crisis before adjustments are made.
• True flexibility allows disabled people to proactively shape their lives, rather than constantly seeking approval for necessary adaptations.
  ✅ Demand that any funding model be co-designed with disabled people to ensure it aligns with Te Tiriti, UNCRPD, and Whānau Ora, ensuring that accountability is fair and respects dignity and autonomy.
  ✅ Advocate for retaining and strengthening the existing EGL funding model, which already enables real choice, control, and innovation, while ensuring accountability remains fair, proportionate, and free from unnecessary bureaucracy.

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 for why neither Option 1 nor Option 2 fully respects the rights and self-determination of disabled people.
4️⃣ Describes what true flexibility looked like in the EGL Mid Central region before the March 18th budget changes, demonstrating how a person-directed funding model worked in practice.
5️⃣ Explains that capacity-building is the antidote to compliance, helping reduce the power imbalance and avoiding any tendency toward ableism in funding oversight.
6️⃣ Calls for a third way: a fully flexible, developmental EGL personal budget model, explaining why this approach is:

• More effective in supporting life goals.
• More adaptive to real-life changes.
• More aligned with the principles of UNCRPD, Te Tiriti, and Whānau Ora.
  7️⃣ 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 truly reflects EGL, UNCRPD, and Whānau Ora—one that trusts disabled people and their whānau to determine their own needs without unnecessary government interference.*