To the Senate submission

I am writing to you on behalf of people with a disability and as an NDIS participant, I urge you to reconsider the NDIS back on track bill and if possible, block passing this bill. This bill will derail the NDIS and negatively affect people with a disability.

I have a complex multisystem disability. The NDIS has given me a level of quality of life, participation in the community and enables me to be as independent as possible. The proposed bill “Getting the NDIS back on track” threatens this and brings much uncertainty and anxiety to not only myself, but the disability community. I also write to be a voice for those that can’t, putting forth what is being said and felt in the disability community.

I believe foremost the reason for this new bill is to reign in the cost of the NDIS. It is not in the best interest of people with a disability. Please read and consider these suggestions. I know I am not the only participant wanting reform of the NDIS price guide causing the price gouging and cost of the NDIS. Changing this or removing this as suggested below would save millions of dollars and not affect participants.

We must protect the Human Rights of people with a Disability.

The notion that Human Rights can be limited to ensure the viability of the scheme is both offensive and flawed.

At the heart of the reason for such sweeping changes to the NDIS is the burgeoning cost of the scheme. However there many solutions to this that do not harm and disadvantage people with disability.

Abolish the current NDIS Price Guide

The NDIS Price Guide has entrenched inflated charging from support workers through to Allied Health Professionals. Before NDIS OT, Speech Therapists, Physiotherapists and Dietitian charged about $100 p/hr. NDIS set the price as $193.99 p/hr and $166.99 respectively. Why such the increase, the therapists will argue because of the reports/notes they must do but again they charge for all reports at those rates nullifying this argument.

Then there is Provider Travel. Charged as time of travel against $193.99p/hr not just the kms. Many professionals have travel in their daily routine but are only able to claim this on tax. When you live in a small community travel of only 10-15 mins is cost $40-$60. Ridiculous.

Pay support workers according to the SCHADS award. The price guide currently enables support workers to go out independently and charge the maximum rate.

Support workers ranging from no qualification to at most a certificate 3, ie an individual, can charge:

$65.47 p/hr weekday rate,
$72.13 p/hr weekday evening
$73.46 p/hr weekday night rate
$92.12 p/hr Saturday
$118.78 p/hr Sunday
$145.44 p/hr public holiday This is truly absurd. Self-managing participants can then try and negotiate this rate but demand is outstripping supply so independent support workers can demand these prices. There needs to be a set rate for independent support workers and then again another for providers that can prove they have a certain number of particpants they support and genuinely have the overheads requiring the above rates.

Also stop increasing Core support ie the support rate by over 9% every year.

Nurses, Paramedics, Teaachers & Police can barely get a 3% pay rise over a number of years.

7 day cancellation period must be abolished. This came in during COVID and even then it was ridiculous as who is aware if they are unwell more than 7 days prior to service. Reduce this notice to 48 hours at the most.

Again the cancellation fee should not be charged if the provider can fill this shift. Again who is checking on this? NO ONE! YET WE THE PARTICIPANT ARE CONSTANTLY BLAMED FOR THE COSTS.

Appropriately target the price gouging. Abolish the price limits on therapies and make this the same as private rates charged to other individuals. The Government enabled the price gouging so now therapy providers will not have people on ndis at the lower rates. It is only if they think you’re a private client and then they find out/realise on ndis that we even become aware of the overcharging.

A media released from Minister Shorten will do nothing and puts the responsibility on the participant. This again is wrong.

These measures alone would ensure a significant savings to enable the NDIS to continue and protect the scheme well into the future. Many of the proposed bill changes will do nothing to reign in spending.

1. You cannot cherry pick the UNCRPD and the Disability Discrimination Act.

This bill selectively references the CRPD and takes it out of context.

They are not looking at the whole person puts them at odds with the UNCRPD which is entrenched in the objects and principles of the NDIS Act. This poorly written legislation appears to have a disregard for Human Rights.

It has disability discrimination issues throughout the bill, especially with the mention of specific “classes” of disability!

2. What is the definition of Disability?

I can’t see where there is a definition of disability for this new legislation.

Currently the legal definition of permanent disability in Australia as set out by the Australian government is 20% of the whole-body impairment. However, many aspects of this new legislation fail to assess and support the whole-body impairment.

3. Only impairments meeting access criteria will be funded.

Again, there are no definitions of which impairments will meet the access criteria. As this is fundamental to being accepted to the NDIS and gaining funding this must be clearly defined before legislation is passed.

The same applies to ‘condition’ and ‘diagnosis’. Without definitions, it can mean they can do whatever they want that suits them at the time.

There is no information on how multiple disabilities will be considered. How are they intending to teach the NDIA planners about rare/uncommon conditions & their resulting impairments? Repeated on a point below, the NDIS legislation must be clear on who will do the assessments. Regardless the assessments must be undertaken by appropriately qualified individuals with experience in disability. They need to be able to understand the reports the NDIA requires for assessment and of foremost importance read the reports and if recommended by qualified

Page 3

medical/allied health practitioners implement the supports required. When this finally happens there will a significant cost reduction to the NDIS.

Changing this will mean all participants overtime will have to be reassessed. What about Minister Shorten’s promise that will not have to continually prove our disability. FALSE.

Reassessment means unnecessary reports and assessments already done and provided to the NDIS. This will generate cost unnecessarily, not to mention the waste of time and resources from Practitioners and the undue stress and anxiety to people with a disability and their loved ones.

4.  Gives extreme power to the CEO of the NDIS.

This bill serves to abolish the current reasonable and necessary supports. Instead, the CEO of the NDIS is to create a list in the rules of specific approved NDIS supports and a list of non- approved supports.

How is it legal to pass legislation giving one person such power? Surely such definitions should be clearly stated in the legislation before being passed.

Without clear definitions the CEO will be able to determine who deserves access to the only system for disability care, based on nothing more than the vaguely specified “information”.

Importantly supports need to be linked to disability/impairment needs irrespective of being ‘on lists’ or ‘everyday costs’ table.

5.  Specific approved NDIS supports and a list of non- approved supports.

Before legislation there needs to be clearly defined lists of approved NDIS supports and non-approved supports.

Will people with a disability still have the right to ‘choice and control’ over the supports they need to live the most independent lives possible?

Yes, there needs to be greater accountability of all providers ie. Registration. However, the level and cost of registration should be proportionate to the size and nature of the provider. For example, independent support workers with one or 2 participants this should be a nominal cost and only need register their name, personal/business details, and ABN versus a large organisation/provider responsible for many NDIS participants.

Independent support workers are an important part of support in the NDIS, and they need to be part of support provision. They give stability to a support team, we can deal directly with the person, check all their credentials, develop appropriate relationship with one another and is more specific and personable to the person with the disability. The independent support workers feel more invested in the person’s care. They normally provide much more stable support. It helps both the support worker and participant as they know each other well and don’t need to orientate constantly to new environments, nor the stress and anxiety to meeting new people constantly. How would you feel having people you’ve never met coming into your home, responsible for your care and participation in the community? That is what we, participants, constantly face from larger providers. We need choice and control over our support to find the right balance of our support teams.

Specific approved ndis supports will only serve to raise already inflated prices of Assistive Technology. Currently self-managed participants can source alternative/mainstream supports as innovative solutions to the problem. This often results in a substantial reduction of cost of an item which is surely a win for participants and the NDIA. The “disability” versions of the supports are substantially more expensive and perform far worse/provide less accessibility than the innovative supports?

6. "Needs assessments will not be a reviewable decision"

Page 4

Firstly, the NDS legislation must be clear on who will do the assessments. Regardless the assessments must be undertaken by appropriately qualified individuals with experience in disability. They need to be able to understand the reports the NDIA requires for assessment and of foremost importance read the reports and if recommended by qualified medical/allied health practitioners implement the supports required. When this finally happens there will a significant cost reduction to the NDIS.

Has there ever been a productivity review into the cost difference of implementing of plans as reports indicate versus the cost of reviews and then the need for lawyers and AAT at great expense? This needs to be done to accurately evaluate the effectiveness of the NDIS and expenditure.

When the government said it was a priority to reduce the amount of AAT cases, they made it sound like they were going to make sure that every person’s package was assessed correctly. Not that there was to be no Administrative Appeals Tribunal! We must have the right of appeal.

Redefinition of Assistive Technology, that only supports mobility.

Physical disability is far more than just wheelchairs and crutches!

The new definition of Assistive Technology will ban access to AT that is not mobility related.

There are multiple examples of these:

AAC, medically required AT (high-low beds, pressure care, seizure mats, ventilators, etc), safety-required AT (visual fire alarms/door bells for people who are deaf, grab rails), AT required to access/use a computer or mobile (speech to text, screen readers, braille output devices, mouth sticks, orthosis, etc), prosthetics that are not lower limb prosthetics (lower limb ones can be argued to be mobility related), household AT that enables someone who is disabled to independently do tasks that someone without their disability can do for themselves?

The changes to Assistive Technology based on the proposed legislation discriminates all those with disabilities that do not relate or rely on mobility aids.

Discrimination from the very service/agency that is supposed to support our right to live with dignity and self-determination.

This bill greatly decreases the scope of what the NDIS does. This Bill has been rushed and secretively made with supposed co-design. The disability community had no say in the legislation and all parties in the co-design had to sign non-disclosure agreement. This from a government that promised TRANSPARENCY!

The changes to the NDIS as Minister Shorten led us to believe will not be a gradual process over the next 18 months as outlined after the Review. Once law it will take a herculean effort to implement changes the disability community needs and even a change in government at the next election will not help, as many are led to believe.

It’s just terrifying that a government could move so deliberately to unilaterally harm such a large group of people in a such an underhanded way. And so far? Rather scary that there’s been so little outcry about it.

PLEASE RECONSIDER AND AMEND THIS BILL.