To The Honorary Panel and Government,

My name is , I am a carer with long term experience of the two different systems from again disability and homecare to the current system. I am writing today not to support independent assessments, I will talk in length about reasonable and necessary supports (chapter 3, part 2, division 2, section 34) and areas in which independent assessments need to consider.

Under the current changes reasonable and necessary supports (chapter 3, part two, division two, section 34) will be removed from people’s plans, remove goals set and aspirations of taking part in the community, and being able to engage in social participation includes all members of the participants community to take part in funding or make support changes. These qualities are the backbone of what an NDIS plan features, it gives people with disabilities and their important people in the life the right to reasonable and necessary services, all of which is being replaced by the CEO calling the shots to how much a person receives funding and if they do or do not receive certainly supports. It is completely unfair, to expect one person to make deliberations on participants goals, given the complexity in how people with disabilities and their families interact, furthermore, these kinds of changes will remove the rights of the people receiving the NDIS. This is one reason why independent assessments should not continue.

Based on the current paper entitled, Briefing Paper on the Issue of Independent Assessors Determine Eligibility and Level of Support for The National Disability Insurance Scheme, written by Samantha Connor, on 31 August 2020, highlights a number of key issues to independent assessments and how there is more work needed based on this policy. Firstly, one of the key teething points of the pilot was there is no knowledge of how the system will affect how marginalized communities, aboriginal and torres strait islander people, and regional and culturally and linguistically diverse. Secondly, the pilot never disclosed the credentials and disability background in order to make a determination on a person’s plan. Thirdly, the pilot was reviewing people based on their life stages, and for every review came an independent assessment. This is the second reason why independent assessments should not go ahead.

The Tune report (2020) highlighted a number of recommendations post-pilot, which manned if independent assessments were approved, it would require extensive consultation with participants, the disability sector, service providers and the NIDA, in addition to this they recommended the following:

• participants having the right to choose the approved provider in the area to undertake the independent assessment
• participants having the right to challenge and functional capacity assessment including undertaking a second assessment if unsatisfied with the initial one
• NDIA approved providers are subject to uniform accreditation implemented by the NDIA and disability representative organizations
• NDIA having clear and accessible publicly found information on the website regarding functional capacity assessments and the available level of providers.

This is the third reason why the independent assessment should not happen.

Lastly, from my personal experience, if independent assessments are rolled out it will allow for participants to live in fear “if their disability is good enough” with every review, being told your functional and able to do a the task, that won’t delve deeper into people with disabilities needs and may cause participants recoil from engagement. Therefore, rolling this out will have mental health implications for participants, meeting a new person every time an independent assessment is done, and little sense of continuity. We need reasonable and necessary allowances, so participants can live life with dignity, and respect and to #fix-the-ndis.

Sincerely,