Amendment Proposal for The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No 1) Bill 2024

I am writing to you to express my concern about planned reforms to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), as proposed in The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024. As a NDIS participant, I ask for your support in making sure proposed reforms do not pass into law. These reforms pose many risks to people with disability in Australia. Changes to the NDIS Act, for example that amend or remove government responsibility to provide access to reasonable and necessary disability supports, will disadvantage many disabled Australians; and prove more expensive in the long term as disability needs are neglected. The standout impression of the Bill in its entirety is the lack of specifics, lack of consultation and generally being rushed. It is very concerning that there is a possibility of legislating for situations, criteria, rules and conditions that not only do not yet exist but have had so little public consultation and have the potential to undermine the objectives of the NDIS Act and the choice and control that people with disabilities have fought so hard to gain.

My understanding is that The Bill places future Scheme design and amendment to the legislative instrument (the Rules), rather than placing essential design in the primary legislation. This will mean no parliamentary oversight of future NDIS development. Without parliamentary oversight there is an unacceptable risk of reduced transparency and accountability, potential for abuse or misuse of power and less opportunity for public debate and input. There is no publicly available Bill Implementation plan or formal acceptance of the NDIS Review recommendations, yet implementation has clearly begun. The Bill has clearly been rushed with little shared transparency. The disability community and public need time and consultation to understand the vision and intention of the Bill.

Section 10 Definition of NDIS Support.

Under the definitions outlined in the draft many essential disability supports have not been included and those which have been noted are very specific. This will cause problems for many participants, including myself who relies on funding flexibility and the ability to choose supports that suit our individual needs. If a prescriptive list of support is to be legislated it must include all available disability supports that are currently listed in the NDIS Support Catalogue to enable continuation of supports. Items that should be included in any prescriptive list should include:

• Assistive Services or Equipment that assists with daily activities such as personal care, meal preparation, transportation, or household tasks that are not explicitly related to mobility support or health services.

• Specialised Therapies such as music therapy, art therapy, or animal-assisted therapy, which may not fall directly under habilitation or rehabilitation services.
• Social and Recreational Supports related to social inclusion, recreational activities, or community participation programs that may not be explicitly related to preventing isolation or segregation from the community.
• Supports to maintain the ongoing capacity of family members and carers to provide informal support and care to participants
• Ancillary costs connected to another support that is funded or provided in your plan
• Supports related to employment, vocational training and job coaching
• Support to assist the participants and nominees to strengthen their ability to self- manage their funds and build capacity to undertake all aspects of plan administration and management.

I would also suggest that subclause 10 (b) and (c) be removed. As can be seen by the number of Administrative Appeals Tribunal cases and the current NDIA operational guidelines and rules that do not abide by the current legislation, the NDIA cannot be trusted to get this right. Past track record has meant there is little confidence in the NDIA to produce rules that are appropriate and in line with legislation.

Rules such as suggested will also conflict with the NDIS Objectives:

1(c) support the independence and social and economic participation of people with disability; and

1(d) provide reasonable and necessary supports, including early intervention supports, for participants in the National Disability Insurance Scheme; and

1(e) enable people with disability to exercise choice and control in the pursuit of their goals and the planning and delivery of their supports; and

(g) promote the provision of high quality and innovative supports that enable people with disability to maximise independent lifestyles and full inclusion in the community.

These rules will also impact the general principle of the Act that “People with disability and their families and carers should have certainty that people with disability will receive the care and support they need over their lifetime”

Section 46 Acquittal of NDIS amounts references ‘spending only on NDIS supports’. This will severely stifle the innovation and creativity that the NDIA has actively encouraged participants to embrace. This has the potential to increase costs, put current supports at risk and diminish the ordinary lives that participants and their families have worked so hard to achieve. This section must be removed from the Bill.

If support must be declared via legislated rules, then these rules must be developed by co-design. This co-design should be legislated. At a minimum this section of the Bill should not be passed until the foundational supports are in place, to prevent creating service gaps.

32L Assessment of participant’s need for supports

Arbitrary assessments of support needs or reassessment for each new plan is an issue the current political party assured the public would be reduced and limited and yet here we are again. Of course, support needs must be determined but to have this assessed for the preparation of each plan is not appropriate or needed for many participants.

Assessments of any form are a huge source of stress and anxiety, often degrading and insulting. Participants gain access to the NDIS because of permanent impairments and lifelong support needs. Reassessments become a waste of time and money.

I would suggest that section 32L (1) specify circumstances when assessments should be undertaken rather than at a preparation of a plan and these circumstances should be determined by co-design. For many adults, such as myself, the support required will not change unless there has been deterioration, for which a reassessment can be requested.

It is not clear if 32L (3) relates to the impairments present prior to NDIS access or acquired after access. This has been an ongoing issue for participants and here is a good opportunity to make clear that all impairments, current and newly acquired, are to be included in any support need assessment.

The addition of Assessment of participant’s need for support has not been added to Part 6—Review of decisions. Participants must have a pathway to an internal review of any needs assessment or assessment report. A decision to vary a participant needs assessment must be reviewable and legislated.

Again, this section lacks specifics and appears rushed. The Support Needs Assessment will directly inform plan budgets. The ‘method’ for this will be determined by the Minister (subclause 32K(2)). – this should be detailed in the primary legislation. If the Supports Needs Assessment is not outlined in the legislation, this process will not have parliamentary oversight and the method of budget-setting will be at risk of utilising assessment scores in an unknown and potentially unproven manner. Key principles around this ‘method’ need to be included in the NDIS legislation, for transparency, trust, sound fiscal management; and to protect the rights of NDIS participants.

These proposed amendments address such a small amount of the shortcomings of this Bill. I urge all Members and associated parties to consider the requests and opinions of NDIS participants and their family members as we rely on this legislation to be able to live an ordinary life. The control over our health, wellbeing and lives depends on your decisions. I am writing to ask you to STOP the changes to the NDIS Act (2013) going

Page 4

through until due diligence around Commonwealth government responsibility to disabled people, has occurred. Without detailed analysis, the Bill may lead to unintended or unconsidered consequences.

Regards