Dear Sir/Madam,

I am a participant in the NDIS and I am writing to put forward my submission

Access

Assistance Animals

Disability Discrimination

Planner availability and experience

Access

1. When I applied for the NDIS I submitted approximately 7 Psychiatrist reports mainly independent forensic psychiatrists and my treating psychologist and GP. When I was contacted by the NDIS officer he was of Indian descent and could hardly speak English. He kept repeating after I spoke, “isn’t it”. He challenged my access requirements as I was suitable to work 8 hours per week.

I challenged his comment. I asked him what qualifications he had to dispute the views of 7 psychiatrists and a clinical psychologist. He said that he was trained to read medical reports. I asked him how many years he had trained and whether he held the qualifications of a medical professional. He repeated he was trained to read medical reports. This was insulting to both me and the medical professionals who have trained for a minimum of 10 years. What qualifications do these individuals have to challenge 7 consistent psychiatrist reports? Clearly, the individual lacks empathy, and skill and has no bedside manner whatsoever. What are the basic requirements for a person to be able to communicate in the English language fluently, clearly from my experience NIL.

It is important that applicants are treated with respect and dignity when applying for the NDIS. It is the agency’s responsibility to ensure that staff are appropriately trained in basic English and have enough bedside manner to respect the opinion of highly skilled medical professionals who are experienced in psychiatry and are trained to write litigation reports and some appointed by the Commission and Court to give evidence under the export witness code. It is appalling the way the agency handled my access and this should be investigated to ensure that this does not happen again. Clearly, the staff member has no regard whatsoever for the barriers a person with psychological disabilities faces.

2. The agency relies on outdated studies namely the La Trobe study about the benefits of assistance animals for people with disabilities. This report is outdated and the access requirements and processes are in breach of the Disability Discrimination Act, 1992. I lodged a complaint about the agency to the Australian Human Rights Commission. The Commission believed that my complaint referred to 7 sections of the DDA. The matter went before the Commission and the parties could not agree on an outcome.

Several medical reports were submitted to NDIS confirming that I was in continual relapse and had multiple admissions to mental health facilities for the management of my PTSD, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder and risk of suicide. There were several times I had planned to end my life during these extremely difficult times. I was unwell and non-respondent to medication ECT

(Electro Compulsive Therapy) seemed like the only suitable treatment. Since having Hugo in my life I have not been hospitalised and was able to live alone without the fear of my family finding me dead. The distress I experienced with NDIS was unacceptable and unnecessary. The forms and the requirements to access funding for an assistance animal are flawed. There is a Facebook group set up for participants with assistance animals and the reasons for refusal of funding are consistently irrelevant people with disabilities are forced to fight in the AAT to get their basic needs and rights of an assistance animal. A person with an assistance animal under the DDA, 1992 has full public access rights as sight impaired and hearing impaired individuals, however, they are not discriminated against like people with psychological disabilities. What gives NDIS the right to discriminate or follow a different process and treatment for assessing the funding of a person with an assistance animal over a person who has a sight or hearing impairment? What qualifications do the NDIS staff have to dispute the professional opinions of medical professionals and organisations accredited under the GHAD, “the QLD Law”.

It is unfair, it does not keep people with control of say in their needs. There is plenty of evidence and my situation is evidence of how successful an assistance animal is and how it improved dignity and control of one’s life. The process is outdated, flawed, redundant and does not work for participants. It’s evident with over 10,000 members of a group that all experience the same discrimination who are applying for funding for an assistance animal. The $2,600 is insufficient for the funding of an assistance animal. The NDIS-accredited charity I am with charges more than this as an annual membership.

3. I believe that this has been addressed above under Assistance Animals.

4. Inexperienced planners seem to be throughout of the agency. People make decisions and refuse services that have been deemed reasonable and necessary. My assistance animal was in my goals noted throughout my funding howeverunding was refused. After fighting through the AHRC process I finally was given a planner who was experienced and had some logic. Hugo met the requirements of reasonable and necessary however the planner was not convinced Hugo met the requirements of value for money. This did not make sense. I was given funding for support workers that far exceeded the costs of funding for Hugo. If I did not have Hugo I would be either in and out of mental health facilities, dead and require a support worker for at least 12 hours a day at a minimum of $40/hr. This was confirmed in an OT report provided to NDIS. We are unsure why a simple calculation was beyond capabilities. On the last two reviews, we requested well in advance of the meetings (many months). The second person I got was fair and reasonable and has since left the NDIS as many other public servants have within the agency. My next review is due in December via my support coordinator was requested to facilitate the meeting and she said she would if she was available. How many months in advance (6 in this instance) could not confirm or make herself available?

It is far more practical for participants to be familiar with a planner especially those with a psychological disability. The participant would be familiar with the planner and the planner would be able to reference their previous notes to familiarise themselves with the participant at the time of a review. I have not been given an acceptable reason why cannot attend this planning

• meeting. We have since learnt that because Steven the previous planner (after ) has left the agency.

It is essential that the disability sector be consulted and that the NDIS and NDIA hold far more accountability for the damage and distress they cause to applicants and participants with their lack of experience, lack of empathy or understanding of a complex medical diagnosis. The system is broken, and certainly not sustainable with the billions the NDIA is spending on external top- tier law firms to fight the disabled in the AAT. The stress is enormous for a person living with a disability without this unnecessary bullying of participants and applicants.

In finalising I say that there are a number of providers who take advantage of people with disabilities by financially exhausting their plans. This contributes significantly to the burden on sustainability. This is outside of the fraud we read about in the media. I have read about several negative experiences that the disability community have faced by providers and there needs to be an anonymous reporting structure in place. Personally, I would have not problems exposing a dishonest provider but there are many in the community who fear doing so as in some cases they are threatened by the providers. NDIA need to get better at monitoring this and have a seamless process for reporting. I personally have had 2 experiences where I have questioned the charges of two providers for the time they claimed working on my file. The charges were absorbent and a burden on the system.

Lastly, the process and red tape required for those wanting to access disability accommodation are broken. I know several owners one being a relative that builds accommodations specifically for NDIS participants. It is taking 3-6 months for applications to be processed. My relative had a participant move in rent-free because of the processes that were unnecessary for her to follow. I have concerns that developers like my relative will cease building this style of accommodation as they see dealing with the NDIA as far too problematic for them which cuts into their costs. The quality of the accommodation my relative builds exceeds standards as he builds to meet the specifications of a reasonable home for the community. With his other development outside Council processes, it is seamless and no other redtape to cut through. He is not the only developer that I know who continually faces delays which puts a financial burden on the developer with holding costs. I am concerned this will deter developers from building this style of accommodation and people with high needs will be stuck in nursing homes with no dignity or respect.

Your sincerely

Paul Mulligan