NDIA Accountability Project

Challenges navigating NDIS plan processing and system accessibility

‹ PrevPage 1 of 3 · Source p. 1Next ›

Submission to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee Regarding the

NDIS Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024I From: Cathy Pollaers Emerging Leader for Queensland Disability Network Email: Date:I25 April 2024 To the Members of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee,I As an Emerging Leader for Queensland Disability Network and a 63 year old person who has lived with physical and intellectual disabilities all my life, I am -writing to provide a detailed perspective on the proposed National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024. My experiences with the NDIS have highlighted several critical areas for consideration that underscore the potential impacts of this legislation on individuals like myself. I would like to express my gratitude for the support provided by my family and a professional scribe, who have assisted me in articulating my thoughts and concerns in this submission. Their help has been invaluable, ensuring that my voice is heard and represented accurately. Detailed Concerns with the Proposed Bill:II

  • Rapid Implementation and Previous Plan Delays:J The bill’s 28-day implementation timeline is highly unrealistic given my previous experiences with plan processing. For instance, my last plan submission on December 16, 2023, was not finalized until March 6, 2024, far beyond the proposed 28 days. This delay, which occurred over the Christmas period, left me without essential allied health support and support workers. This not only caused significant distress due to the uncertainty of approval but also impacted my daily living and health. Such experiences illustrate the potential risks of enforcing a rigid, short implementation timeline without accounting for the complexities and variabilities in processing times.

Page 2

Lack of Local Input:

The absence of local consultation in the decision-making process is a significant oversight. Australia’s diverse landscape, segmented into states, territories, and local governments, means that disability issues can vary greatly by region. Local voices are crucial in shaping policies that address specific regional needs. The centralized decision-making proposed in the bill could dilute the effectiveness of the NDIS, which was designed to empower and give voice to individuals with disabilities at a local level.

Personal Struggles with System Navigation:

The introduction of the new PACE system has been particularly challenging. Despite my best efforts, I encountered significant barriers in accessing my portal. When my plan was finally approved, I was unable to log in, and repeated attempts to seek help from the NDIA were unfruitful. I was told that no assistance was available, leaving me disconnected from necessary resources. My access code expired before I could use the approved plan, illustrating a gap in support and accessibility in the system’s infrastructure. This experience is concerning not only for me but for many who may lack the resources or support to navigate these complex systems independently.

Concerns with Algorithmic Assessments and Lack of Appeal Paths:

The proposed use of algorithmic tools for needs assessments is alarming. My condition, like many others, can change unpredictably, necessitating a flexible and responsive assessment process. The lack of a clear pathway to appeal algorithm-driven decisions further exacerbates my concerns, as it suggests a move towards a more impersonal and potentially error-prone system.

Recommendations:

  • Extended Implementation Period: I strongly recommend extending the implementation timeline and involving local NDIS offices to ensure they are equipped to manage transitions without disrupting ongoing support.
  • Enhanced Local Involvement: Policies should mandate the inclusion of local stakeholders in the decision-making process to tailor the NDIS more effectively to the varied needs across different regions.
  • Improved System Accessibility: Immediate measures should be implemented to assist participants in navigating new systems, ensuring that support is readily available to address technical and procedural queries.
  • Clear Appeal Processes: Establish clear, accessible appeal processes for participants to challenge assessments and decisions, particularly those driven by algorithmic assessments, to safeguard against potential errors and ensure fair treatment.

Conclusion:

The proposed NDIS Amendment Bill requires careful reconsideration to avoid unintended consequences for those it aims to support. By addressing these concerns, we can ensure that the NDIS remains a robust, responsive, and inclusive support system for all Australians living with disabilities.

Thank you for considering my submission. I am hopeful for a legislative process that fully incorporates the insights and needs of the disability community to foster an empowered and supported Australian disability sector.

Sincerely, Cathy Pollaers Emerging Leader, Queensland Disability Network