Submission for Consideration by the Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) General Issues Enquiry
I provide the below submission for consideration by the standing committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) General Issues Enquiry.
I have been an NDIS participant since 2019 and am currently accessing my 3rd package. Throughout that time, I have experienced ongoing and increasing challenges to my physical and mental health which have resulted in increases to the scope and financial value of my packages. The NDIS has been of great benefit to me during this time, enhancing my access to key supports and providing short-term measures to address my disability needs.
However, I hold significant concerns about the manner in which NDIS funding is allocated by the NDIA and the underlying philosophical position of the scheme. Furthermore, an increasing number of participants continue to utilise funding in a way which remains largely unmonitored, represents a needless and detrimental use of public money and restricts access to genuine cases of need within the disability community.
Firstly, I am dismayed and concerned to note the disparity in the financial value of the core supports budget and the capacity building budget at this time. Specifically, of a total 3-year package worth $361578.27, my core supports budget totals $320090.96, while by comparison, my capacity building budget is worth only $23074.60.
By its very definition, the capacity building budget is designed to “build my independence and reduce my need for the same level of support into the future”. In other words, it is this budget, primarily targeting allied health services, that has the greatest likelihood of leading to overall improvement in the health and functioning of the participant. This appears to reflect a disturbing lack of priority given to the provision of supports which are actually designed to increase a participant’s independence and wellbeing, rather than to maintain existing levels or indeed encourage a greater reliance on funded supports. Furthermore, the comparative lack of flexibility in the capacity building budget which can only be used to purchase existing services funded at the time of the plan’s development, provides no capacity for the participant to grow and develop their support needs throughout the plan period of often up to 3 years. The underlying assertion that a participant will not change and develop their functional capacity over an extended period of time reflects a misguided and outdated perspective on the potential of people with disabilities. In all cases and notwithstanding administrative convenience for the NDIA, participants in consultation with their reviewing officer should have the right to determine the length of their plan, with respect to their individual circumstances.
In my own case, I have had to advocate strongly for the meagre capacity building budget I have received, thus somewhat limiting my access to vital psychology support, for example, which is crucial to my safety and recovery. An approved psychology budget of $6003.48 over a 3-year period reflects a disturbing lack of understanding of the importance of continuity and consistency in therapeutic support and places both myself and my service provider in the untenable position of having to limit and forego support in order for the budget to be met. Inn addition, by defining the need for psychology services as to “develop an individual emotional/anxiety management plan”, a discouraging lack of understanding of the purpose and nature of psychological therapy is revealed. In a further bizarre addition to my capacity building budget, $3491.82 of funding for podiatry services was allocated, a service which I neither requested nor required, but was instead told was “standard” and “necessary”.
In neglecting and misdirecting critical capacity building funding, substantial priority has instead apparently been paid to the provision of core supports which increase my reliance on others and largely do not encourage my return to independent living and self sufficiency.
Page Content
deterioration of my sense of self worth and personal competence and a greater reliance on the capacity building services I am insufficiently funded to access. If the NDIS was able to take a more considered and individualised approach to the allocation of funding, such that a package met and supported current needs whilst guiding the participant towards greater independence, the NDIS would hold greater appeal and less detriment to those who would like to see their reliance on others diminish over time.
Secondly, I am appalled to have observed among my fellow participants a frequent reliance on the NDIS to fund holidays and other so-called “community participation” and “respite” activities which often come at extreme expense and in no way mitigate the disability of the participant. The well-intended purpose of such expense, that being to fund periodic carers’ respite, is now being grossly misused by participants who now seek to fund their own recreational activities, calling fraudulently upon the supporting documentation of health professionals in order to do so. It seems to me that a much more sustainable and efficient use of available funding would be in greater capacity building support to assist the participant to improve their health, expand their functional skills and decrease future reliance on the NDIS. In so doing, the scheme would become accessible for more future participants who would benefit from its support and would remain sustainable for the ongoing needs of participants in genuinely beneficial ways.
I have referenced my own experiences above for the purpose of highlighting what I believe are ongoing and systemic concerns with the philosophy and function of the NDIS. Without genuine and motivated change across all levels of implementation, I feel that the evidence supports a lack of ongoing viability and sustainability of the scheme.
I welcome further discussion of any of the above points and can be contacted via the details below.
Julie Acton