Inquiry into the Culture and Capability of the National Disability Insurance Agency

ACT Council of Social Service (ACTCOSS) Social Service actcoss.org.au

Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme

PO Box 6100 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 ndis.joint@aph.gov.au

23 December 2022

To the Committee INQUIRY INTO THE CULTURE AND CAPABILITY OF THE NDIA

The ACT Council of Social Service (ACTCOSS) would like to extend thanks to the committee for the opportunity to respond to the Inquiry into the Culture and Capability of the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA).

ACTCOSS advocates for social justice in the ACT and represents not-for-profit community organisations. Our vision is that Canberra is a just, safe and sustainable community in which everyone has the opportunity for self-determination and a fair share of resources and services.

ACTCOSS represents a variety of community organisations who work with National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) participants, their carers and families. We advocate for equitable treatment and necessary support provision for people with disabilities alongside Disabled People’s Organisations (DPO) such as Advocacy for Inclusion (AFI). ACTCOSS supports and endorses the content of AFI’s submission to the inquiry.

In consideration of the broad scope of this inquiry, we consulted with member organisation representatives who work with NDIS participants to inform this submission. These consultations brought up repeated issues with:

• The administrative burden on applicants,
• The inflexibility of planning processes,
• Overly complex and arduous appeal requirements,
• Access and eligibility issues for people with psychosocial disabilities, culturally and linguistically diverse people and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

It must also be acknowledged that, as mentioned in AFI’s submission to the inquiry, NDIA employees can and do work collaboratively with community organisations and facilitate positive outcomes for participants. We urge the committee to examine avenues to foster further collaboration in this vein, particularly alongside DPOs staffed by people with lived experience of disability and/or NDIS access experience. In addition, the capability of the NDIA will see improvement through co-design and collaboration with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander controlled community organisations.

Reports from member representatives working in the individual advocacy space confirm NDIS Minister Bill Shorten’s assertion that NDIS participants endure “adversarial” relationships with NDIA staff during appeals. We have been informed that this contention is not only applicable during appeals. NDIS applicants often experience apprehension from the beginning of the process, having heard reports from others who have worked hard on applications only to be rejected or had insufficient funding provided.

Council of Social Service

explanations for these outcomes are inaccessible or overly complex. Participants also report experiencing extreme stress and hopelessness. Regardless of their personal resources or any external support provided, they find the processes confusing and the reasons behind decisions making to be opaque. In an inherently unbalanced power relationship, participants report that it is very difficult not to feel like they must try to prove that they are not lying and that their support needs are real, rather than being able to participate in a person-centred and neutral process of information gathering. The ACT Disability, Aged and Carer Advocacy Service (ADACAS) reports that their individual advocacy service is currently overrun by NDIS applicants who require assistance with their application and have no other avenue to find it. Their waitlist is now at twenty individuals.

The NDIS was originally designed to provide choice, control and agency to people with disabilities who require support to live full lives in their communities. The capability of staff, policies and oversight of procedures must be addressed to prevent the cycle of emotional and mental harm being perpetuated against people who are making a request for support.

Recommendations:

e Easy-read and accessible outcome information for applications and internal reviews to ensure applicants are *« Accessible pre-application support provided through the NDIA to assist with access request forms and documentation requirements

The AAT Australia decision in favour of the appellant in the case of NDIA and Davis [2022] required the NDIA to clarify the meaning of terms used to make decisions about funding participants’ plans. The outcome illustrates how highly interpretable language and a lack of clear, fair and collaborative procedures can have severe negative impacts on participants as well as on the reputation of the NDIA’s decision making capabilities. It was reported by advocates representing NDIS participants that it is a frequent occurrence that participants are handed an inappropriate or unfair funding decision and then must begin the arduous appeals process. Many participants find that by the time they receive a date for their AAT hearing, which takes many months and large amounts of evidence gathering, that they are brought an offer for an early resolution that finds in favour of their original requests. While this may sound like a positive outcome, it adds to questions regarding the process, oversight and capability of the NDIA. Participants have reported through advocates that they feel as if they have gone through a bureaucratic rollercoaster for nothing, as it is often unclear why their request is initially refused and then accepted without additional evidence.

While going through the process of evidence gathering and waiting for the appeal, many participants’ plans lapse and they are therefore going without any NDIS funded supports during that period. The government are aware of the negative impacts of these needlessly complex processes.

Recommendation:

« For the government to begin an investigation into the NDIS application and review processes with the goal to reduce the administrative burden on applicants and make the NDIS more accessible to those who need it most

Council of Social Service

We have been told that when they get their plan, many of the most vulnerable NDS participants do not have the support or Knowledge to use it. Linguistically diverse participants experience difficulties using their plans as although interpreter services are technically available for meetings or calls, the NDIA do not offer translation services for hardcopy plans. This means that many people are handed a plan written in English and little formal support in how to access services. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants also find that there are few if any culturally safe and supportive NDIS registered support providers. For participants with complex support needs or psychosocial disabilities, services are often not appropriate or available.

This issue impacting both the demographic that the NDIS was designed for as well as the newest eligibility group demonstrates the breadth of the problem for participants in accessing support services. People with complex support needs also find that they are rejected from services or put on long waitlists due to service providers who do not have capacity to meet demanding registration and reporting requirements. This results in participants turning to non-NDIS registered providers who have no regulatory oversight from the NDIA particularly regarding restrictive practices, incident reporting and setting service fees.

Recommendation:

• Increase resourcing to Local Area Coordinators to decrease caseloads or implement support coordination funding as a mandatory element of plans to ensure that participants with complex needs or additional support requirements are not left unable to access their plans

Advocacy representatives expressed concern to us over future sustainability of the NDS being placed on the shoulders of participants in terms of how their plans are funded. A major gap in the scheme that is influencing this problem is the non-implementation of Information, Linkages and Capacity Building (ILC). The lack of expansion for ILC as a legitimate alternative to an NDIS plan has left many individuals with no choice but to apply for NDIS supports. A representative from Mental Health Community Coalition ACT (MHCC ACT) described to us that people with psychosocial disabilities are particularly liable to suffering from this gap in supports due to a lack of effective outreach for eligible individuals and a lack of non-NDIS, appropriate and funded support services for those are not eligible. The number of people with disabilities who are ineligible for the NDIS is growing. Support services must be appropriately funded to meet their needs. Value for money in planning decisions should be a secondary consideration to human rights, inclusion and reducing the burden of bureaucracy on people with disabilities.

Recommendation:

e Implement a legitimate alternative funding model to the NDIS for ineligible participants to access support services in their communities

ABN 81 818 839 988 3

**COsS

Council of Social Service

Yours sincerely

Dr Emma Campbell CEO ACT Council of Social Service

ABN 81 818 839 988**