PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE ON THE NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME.

SUBMISSION FOR INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT INQUIRY

CONSISTENCY

Contrary to the stated purpose of the introduction of these reforms, it is felt the implementation of this

scheme will in fact have a detrimental effect on recipients of NDIS benefits. Particularly those in receipt of

mental health supports, who tend to have very unique and somewhat “invisible” needs, and in my experience

tend to be neglected by the Agency as they already do not fit into the already arbitrary narrow categories of

disability, which seem to unnecessarily focus on obvious physical disability, and neglect the large portion of

our population suffering from the insidious invisible disability of mental illnesses, which can be often just as

taxing, if not more so, and just as draining on resources.

Several NDIS clients are arbitrarily denied resources they clearly need, because they fail to fit into the

definitions assigned on the basis of physical need only. Imposing a more General system, rather than a more

individual, tailored, nuanced system, where the reviewer has had lengthy experience with the individual in

question and their unique diagnosis, will actually defeat the purpose of this Scheme, when it comes to mental

disabilities. The latter are an increasing proportion of the disability network, placing a significant burden on

the community, desperately in need of support, and largely (discriminately) being ignored by the population

and governmental treatment providers at large.

Due to the nature of the disability, and the interpersonal difficulties involved, inabilities to seek/access

assistance and stigmas surrounding the diagnosis (much of which has been perpetuated by this organisation

and its lack lustre treatment of invisible mental disabilities, in comparison to demonstrable physical

disabilities, is quite appalling. It is reflected in the high suicide rates amongst mental health patients, due to

the lack of support.

The Terms refer to “introducing an assessment process that recognises that a particular condition or disability

do not necessarily have the same impact on everyone“ - this clearly demonstrates a desire to eliminate

participants from the scheme, rather than be inclusive. The scheme should be designed with inclusivity in

mind, rather than exclusivity. It is clear these terms are aimed at removing more participants from the scheme

• this is distressing, upsetting, and overall is reason enough alone for this proposal to be abandoned.

It has not been adequately demonstrated, that without multiple divergent views being provided to the assessors, why an independent review is required. This appears to be a waste of time and resources, which could be clearly applied elsewhere.

It is our submission that a diametrically opposed approach is required - a local, intimate, and nuanced approach to cases that necessities an inmate personal knowledge of each individual case, so as to avoid generalisation, and most importantly, nuanced cases slipping through the cracks, as it were. This is already happened far too frequently, and a proposed reform such as this will only exacerbate these circumstances.

To provide you with a specific example - Short term Accommodation.. We have sought it on several occasions for mental disability clients, who for various reasons, cannot endure personal stressors in their home environments. Anyone with a basic knowledge of mental disabilities, particularly those with interpersonal triggers, would understand the necessity of time away from triggers. We have had mental disability clients who have suffered trauma in the home area, and have needed to escape said environment for periods of time, yet are consistently excluded from accessing STA funding, as apparently it is only available to carers, or those seeking medical treatment for physical disabilities. We have clients spending lengthy time in hotels while accessing medical treatment, but mental health clients close to suicide while forced to remain in traumatic home environment. Many are single, but still need to escape their triggering residences for various reasons - none pot which are ever acknowledge by the NDIS. (Victims of traumatic crime - PTSD). Needless to say we have accessed all other available resources, which is why we seek NDIS support in these cases, and are arbitrary refused, because it is only available to carers, and those seeking medical treatment. There is no acknowledgement of the extreme suffering those with mental disbabilities (particularly PTSD, extreme anxiety, depression, personality disorders,) suffer, and the fact they at times need to be in isolation - having others around only exacerbates the condition. We have no doubt these clients make up a fair proportion of your clientele, yet you make now allowance for their suffering or conditions, and deny them funding for their needs on a regular basis. You only acknowledge physical disability needs, which in our view should be address under anti-discrimination legislation.

The reforms proposed herein only exacerbate this situation and sh0uld be rejected in toto. Any further proposals should be opposite - not generalising, rather becoming specific and more individualised to each case. We are already disappointed that Local Area Managers are become State Managers.. this latest proposal disappoints us further, as is increases the generalisation of individual nuanced symptoms, diagnoses and

Page 3

circumstances, and is clearly a blatant attempt to remove as many participants from the scheme as possible,

and deny those remaining on it as many supports as possible, particularly those with invisible illnesses.

We strongly object the idea of NDIA appointed independent assessors delivering assessment for reasons stated above.

Kind Regards