Read on Twitter
“I do not believe Ray, that the federal government using taxpayers’ money to pay for prostitutes meets [community] standard[s].” Stuart Robert MP has repeatedly stated his view on allowing PwD access to sex workers or even sex therapy under NDIS, based on what consultation? 1/
He goes on to say that due to the States’ & Territory’s refusal to agree to change the NDIS rules to exclude these services, then they should pay for it themselves. Um, Minister? Hate to break it to you, but various States have done this prior to NDIS. 2/
The States & Territories agreed to transition their constituents to a Commonwealth run Scheme based on the principle of no disadvantage. That means that PwD who could use their funds to access sex workers and/or therapy would be able to do so in the new NDIS. 3/
Something that was blocked by hardline conservatives as “not in line with community values...”. It took a years long appeal by the brave Scheme participant, a woman identified as WRMF took her appeal through the internal appeals, the AAT & then the Federal Court of Australia 4/
And she won. The AAT & Fed Court threw out the spurious claims from the NDIA and agreed that based on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), PwD have the right to use NDIS funds to access sex related services. 5/
Sex workers advocacy organisation Touching Base welcomed the decision.
“People with disability, just like everyone else, want to enjoy consensual intimate experiences, as part of exploring their physical, social and emotional needs for sexual intimacy and sexual expression,”. 6/
“People with disability, just like everyone else, want to enjoy consensual intimate experiences, as part of exploring their physical, social and emotional needs for sexual intimacy and sexual expression,”. 6/
From @TouchingBaseInc Saul Isbister
“It is important that paid sexual services are recognised as a legitimate option for people with disability, if they so choose.” 7/
“It is important that paid sexual services are recognised as a legitimate option for people with disability, if they so choose.” 7/
Lawyers for the woman had argued that the CRPD, which underpinned the NDIS, stated governments had an obligation to ensure PwD were supported to live ordinary lives equal to the rest of the community & are entitled to supports to enable this. 8/
Based on the principe of “No Disadvantage” and the CRPD, the NDIS should have been funding sex related supports & Assistive Tech all along. The former COAG required a consensus to make major changes to the NDIS, but now LNP are going to push through regardless. 9/
