Submission to the Legislative Affairs Committee

On the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2024

Shirley Humphris 15/5/24

The NDIS will stand alongside the minimum wage, the age pension, Medicare and universal superannuation as one of the great Labor pillars of social justice and opportunity for all Australians.

It will change our society in profound and lasting ways, enabling those who live with disability to fulfil their potential as valued and valuable members of our society.

Bill reading 29/11/2012 Gillard Speech Transcript ID:18932 https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-18932

Do not destroy this vision of how the NDIS will make a difference and is making a difference.

Summary:

Will this Bill really save costs short-term and long-term. This MUST be considered?
The amended Act will contradict itself.
Human Rights must be central, and this Bill fails Human Rights.
Access criteria must be written into the Act not directed to, yet unwritten, Rules.
The definitions of s10 NDIS supports will have unintended, unconsidered, and ill- considered consequences of neglect and harm. Cuts to support will be savage, and many are left out.
The assessment process will be unethical and not fit for purpose.
The “whole person” impact of disability will not be funded, despite the Review recommendation and there will be consequences of harm.
The right to review the assessment must be legislated.
The Bill is half-baked with too much that is crucial left to the power of Ministerial Instruments. Rules must be in place before the Bill can be passed.
Termination of self/plan management can lose a team of workers at a pen stroke.
The Bill must not pass until States have ensured, in detail, that they will not allow cracks.

Recommendations:

This Bill MUST BE STOPPED until due diligence of outcomes, harms and costs is done.
The Joint Standing Committee should hold an Inquiry on Assessments, their right to review and the impact of denial of whole person approach.

NDIS overhaul ‘penny wise, pound foolish’

Bruce Bonehady June 10 2021 Canberra times

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7292268/ndis-overhaul-penny-wise-pound-foolish/

It is concerning that there is no evidence that this Bill will lead to cost saving in the long term. Short term savings, causing neglect, can lead to far greater long-term costs of increased harm and reducing capacity.

I am not a lawyer but have had to apply myself to understanding NDIS legislation over my granddaughter’s 11 years as a participant with complex high care needs (including many life- threatening seizures a day. My granddaughter met access at age one on global developmental delay. It took many years for 2 rare genetic conditions to be diagnosed. These conditions account for her 12 impairments, some of which may not meet s24 if this Bill passes. Each impairment will need to be considered in isolation and likely with a flick of a tick box from the assessor, who apparently is not even allowed to assess that which does not meet s24. This family is often in crisis due to care and unable to work. More admin fights and expense would be intolerable. We are now 2 months away from the 3rd AAT substantive hearing.

At the outset this amendment even fails the Review recommendations it is supposed to be based on. It behoves the Reviewers to send their own submissions highlighting where the Bill fails the Review.

The Bill is poorly written; ambiguous; confusing; lacks clarity; open ended and fails the UNCRPD that has been written into the Objects of the Act. It is so poor that even amendments will be difficult to make a silk purse out of this sow’s ear. It is a writing that assumes “things” will be in place that are unknown, not defined, not designed, and gives ultimate power to bureaucrats and the Minister to make swift legislative instruments. It should be canned and done from scratch. It has the potential to create real harm by disallowing certain vital supports as soon as the Bill passes with immediate savage cuts.

There are many Human Rights fails including invalid assessments, with no appeal rights, lack of family support stated, the “blank cheque legislation” and rushing this vital legislation through, only allowing a short time for an important submission when people with disability and the families are barely coping.

Very many people are saying they want to submit but are too overwhelmed with their life and the timeframe. This has not been co-designed. It is disingenuous to state co-design will come after legislation. Trust is completely broken.

Before turning to the legislation, I implore every member of this inquiry team to spend the time watching this SBS documentary (at least this Trailer) but preferably the documentary, it defies anyone not to agree with supporting whatever can assist a person in their battle, and the inhumanity to do anything less.

https://fb.watch/rIkkOaOkS6/ Trailer – at least please spare 1 min and 8 secs.

“Life is a Battlefield” SBS is a poignant and insightful look into the life of Uli Kaplan with multiple disabilities (including psychosocial) and the systemic challenges he confronts. Should Uli’s supports be cut if this Bill passes, because they likely will as he is mostly mobile?

https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/life-is-a-battlefield/1973886019956

                      The Bill and s3 Objects of Act

(1) The objects of this Act are to: (a) in conjunction with other laws, give effect to Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities done at New York on 13 December 2006 ([2008] ATS 12);

Many of the NDIS Act Objects and Principles s3 and s4 and 17a have been disregarded and conflict with the amendments of the Bill.

AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION SUBMISSION TO THE UNITED NATIONS COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

Recommendation 1: The Australian Government fully incorporate the CRPD into domestic law.

Recommendation 2: The Australian Government introduce specific disability rights impact assessments on legislative changes that may impact the human rights of people with disability.

        55.The connection between the funding of participants under Pt 2, the objectives of the NDIS Act, and the threshold criteria for admission as a participant, is important. In WRMF, the Full Court said at [141]: The supports to be provided to a person who qualifies as a participant are intended to accommodate an individual’s particular impairments and to assist that particular individual to be a participating member of the Australian community, and to do so on the basis of the values set out in the objects and guiding principles clauses of the Act, as well as the values set out in s 17A of that Act … ) National Disability Insurance Agency v Davis [2022] FCA 1002

                                                                            3

The Amendments

s10 Definition of NDIS support

Maybe some legal work around can be fashioned for supports with these restrictions, but the purpose of an amendment should be to clarify not confuse, as this does. I find it difficult to comprehend this section and so do lawyers. What on earth will it become in the hands of NDIA and their Operational Guidelines and the likely ensuing conflict within the current Act and legal argument at future AAT appeals.

It is poor that so much detail is left to the Rules at the Minister’s direction without a full parliamentary process, however, nothing can be allowed for in the Rules if these definitions of s10 do not allow it.

This section IS NOT “engaging with Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).” explanatory memorandum. It has cherry picked the UNCRPD.

10 Definition of NDIS support

A support is an NDIS support for a person who is a participant or prospective participant if:

The support:
- i)is necessary to support the person to live and be included in the community, and to prevent isolation or segregation of the person from the community; or

Is isolation prevention or segregation needed to be met before supports are possible? So if the participant can get assistance to the neighbours for coffee they are not isolated therefore cannot get assistance for any other community access including employment or study??

Conflicts with17A (3c) and s3 (c and g)

The National Disability Insurance Scheme is to:

S3 (c)“support the independence and social and economic participation of people with disability.”

S3 (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;

Nothing there about support only available if in isolation.

Where is support in the home? Is the word “live” in relation to UNCRPD Right to life? What does “be included” mean in terms of a support?

**What is “necessary”? How is that defined?

ii)**will facilitate personal mobility of the person in the manner and at the time of the person’s choice; or Only mobility?

**iii)**is a mobility aid or device, or assistive technology, live assistance or intermediaries that will facilitate personal mobility of the person; or

So what of many other forms of Assistive Technology (AT) that are not mobility?

Supposedly to “ensure that the NDIS funds supports that are effective and backed by a strong evidence base”. Explanatory memorandum. Where is the evidence that —only mobility aids are effective and evidence based? Many other AT items are evidence based.

Where is innovation? Conflicts with:

section 118(1) “The Agency has the following functions:

(a) to deliver the National Disability Insurance Scheme so as to: (iv) promote the provision of high quality and innovative supports that enable people with disability to maximise independent lifestyles and inclusion in the community; and

S3(d) provide reasonable and necessary supports, including early intervention supports, for participants in the National Disability Insurance Scheme;

S3(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;

**iv)**is a health service that the person needs because of the person’s impairment or because of the interaction of the person’s impairment with various barriers; or

Service not AT again? So CPAP, O2, dysphagia support equipment and enteral pumps in doubt? Is mental health here, it is not certain??

**v)**is a habilitation or rehabilitation service; or

Service not AT? Also conflicts with APTOS on rehabilitation. Will the budget be sufficient to access. Note APTOS is to be legislated but lawyers are opposed to this as legally problematic.

**vi)**is a service that will assist the person to access a support covered by subparagraph (iv) or (v); or

Service again not items. Assistive technology can be cost saving compared to service.

(b) the support is declared by National Disability Insurance Scheme rules made for the purposes of this paragraph to be a support that is appropriately funded or provided through the National Disability Insurance Scheme:

Rules are to come later by legislative instrument and not full parliament. These Rules MUST be codesigned before this legislation can be in anyway meaningful. There must be full analysis of cost impact of Rules and the proposed Act amendment because there may be increased costs due to neglect. Co design must happen first because trust is eroded. It needs to be proven trust can be regained.

(i) for participants or prospective participants generally; or

(ii) for a class of participants or prospective participants that includes the person; and

A class of participants is disturbing and open to discrimination.

(c) the support is not a support declared by National Disability Insurance Scheme rules made for the purposes of this paragraph to be a support that is not appropriately funded or provided through the National Disability Insurance Scheme: see b)

(i) for participants or prospective participants generally; or

(ii) for a class of participants or prospective participants that includes the person.

Note 1: For subparagraphs (a)(i) to (vii), see the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities done at New York on 13 December 2006. Cherry picked. No mention of the UNCRC Rights of the Child.

Note 2: The Convention is in Australian Treaty Series 2008 No. 12 ([2008] ATS 12) and could in 2024 be viewed in the Australian Treaties Library on the AustLII website (http://www.austlii.edu.au).

Note 3: For subparagraph (a)(viii), see paragraph 51(xxiiiA) of the Constitution.

Missing or in doubt due to s10:

The Bill expects that missing supports will come from elsewhere i.e., States or the likely (shallow) pockets of the person with disability. There is no agreement with the States yet. It is even likely that the States will struggle to implement supports needed for those people outside of NDIS let alone offloading NDIS participants supports. The States are already underfunding their own obligations to health, mental health, child protection, housing, justice, transport, early education, and education. A squabble will no doubt ensue that will likely result in neglect and harm. The taxpayer still pays at the end of the day no matter what the funding bucket.

These support cracks could be realised the instant this Bill passes due to s10, not the 5-year consideration promised of the Review. There is no certainty and no trust.

Possible support gaps due to s10 culling of supports:

Support for employment.
Accommodation support outside the home.
Community participation that is not to prevent isolation (the low bar).
Home modifications such as ramps, bathrooms etc.
Assistive technology unrelated to mobility.
Specialised therapies not applicable to mobility (speech therapy, music therapy, art therapy, psychology).
Support to run a high care homecare team cannot be claimed, team.
Psychosocial supports are not legislated in s10 unless qualified as health, it is not clear.
Autism supports
Home support such as cleaning, gardening, meals are missing.
Innovative individualised supports are missing and that may lead to increased costs.
Supports for informal supports to sustain the caring role, especially for children with disability. The Rights of the Child UNCRC seems to have been forgotten and consequences of family breakdown is completely unacceptable.

Note: NDIS Act s5 (f) if the person with disability is a child—the best interests of the child are paramount, and full consideration should be given to the need to:

                      (i) protect the child from harm; and

                       (ii) promote the child’s development; and

                        (iii) strengthen, preserve and promote positive relationships between the child

and the child’s parents, family members and other people who are significant in the life of the child.

No child should be removed from their home because their parents are under supported.

No adult should be forced into a group home due to lack of home support .

These cracks are very serious and could have profound consequences for people with disability and their families of health detriment and the inability to remain employed leading to rent/ mortgage pressures and homelessness risk in the short term. Long term could mean deterioration of or inability to build capacity. There is no safety net.

Assessment of Participant’s Need for Supports

CEO to Arrange Assessment of Participant’s Need for Supports

The CEO must arrange for an assessment of a participant’s need for supports to be undertaken as soon as practicable after the CEO commences the preparation of a plan for a participant.

Despite the recommendations of the Review there is no certainty of the qualifications of the assessor, their scope of practice, or whether the assessment may be multi-disciplinary.

Where will the workforce come from in the already thin markets? Intuitively many assessors will likely be from the newly qualified looking for work, they will consequently have no nurturing from their organisation. What will happen to the already often unavailable treating workforce if they move to assessments?

It is outrageous that the assessment cannot be reviewed because a plan review must be based on the assessment that is unreviewable by law.

The assessment must be part of s99 reviewable decisions and must be sent to the participant.

What an Assessment Covers

The assessment must be undertaken using the assessment tool, and in accordance with any other requirements, determined under subsection (8). University academics spent 5 years trying to find a tool for independent assessments and failed. The emphasis on THE tool by the Bill casts doubt on whether an assessment will ever be possible. Professional Allied Health use tools as fits the need, not as one (or even several) tools fits all, as decided by bureaucrats or politicians, after disregarding professional advice, as happened with independent assessments.
The assessment must assess the participant’s need for supports only in respect of impairments in respect of which the participant meets the disability requirements or the early intervention requirements. This requirement must be scrapped. The whole person impact is dismissed. A person’s disability is the combined impact of their impairments. That the functional assessment is to be unpicked by impairment is a rejection of support and harmful.

This clause also begs the question how is the assessor to determine another impairment does not meet access if they cannot assess?

The assessment must:

have regard to any information and reports requested under subsection 36(2) for - the purposes of the assessment; and Must have regard whether or not appropriate or accurate??

(b) may have regard to any other information held in the records of the Agency that relates to the person. The persons own reports and information to be considered were assured by the reviewers. It is not certain whether there is to be gatekeeping of
information held in records.

Needs assessment reports

(5) A report of the assessment must be prepared and given to the CEO as soon as practicable after the assessment is completed. It should be legislated to be given to the participant to comment on inaccuracies before going to a budget planner.

(6) The report must include any information, and meet any requirements, determined under subsection (8).

(8) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine the following:

(a) assessment tools to be used in undertaking assessments under subsection (1);

(b) requirements for undertaking assessments under subsection (1);

d) requirements that a report prepared under subsection (5) must meet.

Section 8 is one of many details of a half-baked legislation amendment that leaves detail to swift power of the Minister (NDIA and DSS).

So the legislative instrument will strictly control the methodology of the assessment EVEN IF that control conflicts with the professional Code of Conduct and best practice of the assessor’s profession. The review has suggested that this will be overcome by the assessor being an APS employee and therefore will not be required to be AHPRA registered.

The NDIA technical advisors are already relinquished of their AHPRA obligations as APS employees; hence the assessors are likely to be similarly employed.

TAB (technical advisory branch) adr-.ii.sors are not employed by the Ag1ency as Allied Health Practitioners - they are employed as APS employees (who also have AHP qualifications and experience).

This oversight of a professional body is not certain if the professional has dropped their registration to become an APS employee. Public safety is therefore at risk.

It is highly concerning that a poor assessment is unable to be reviewed. The assessment may not even be the fault of the assessor, but the legal framework of the Act and Rules that they are required to follow even if it conflicts with best practise and professional Code.

Furthermore the 32K(2) fails to legislate the method of turning an assessment into a budget but leaves it up to the Ministers Rules. Again, promises of co design and transparency have evaporated.

This paper on assessments and tools by Bruce Bonyhady 2021 should be considered and compared with this Bill. Note Bonyhady’s description of the assessments is not reflected in this Bill.

https://disability.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/3969041/Independent- Assessment-An-Analysis-of-the-Proposed-Approach-by-the-NDIA-22-February-2021.pdf.

               The whole person is ignored by s34 1aa

At s34 1 aa (aa) the support is necessary to address needs of the participant arising from an impairment in relation to which the participant meets the disability requirements (see section 24) or the early intervention requirements (see section 25); So an impairment is to be unpicked from the whole person.

The whole person was an emphasis and recommendation of the Review.

Definitions are not specified in the Bill and are needed for impairments, disability, mobility, co design. Impairment (singular) is not the whole person. This is not the person’s disability, and a definition of disability must be included. A person can still have an impairment that may not meet access alone but impacts the whole person function. That is, the combined effect causing greater disability than the impairments in isolation. Gestalt theory is the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

S24c refers to impairment or impairments: the impairment or impairments result in substantially reduced functional capacity to undertake one or more of the following activities:

So s24 can assess the whole person sum of impairments because of interactions which form the disability.

Legal minds have commented on the whole person application over very many AAT and FCA decisions. Yet this Bill expects a dubiously qualified assessor to do so and without even

assessing the (ineligible) impairment (they are not permitted to!). it is not a simple process to

unpick a disability into component impairments and certainly goes against human rights.

Federal Court has made commentary on the disability / impairment importance and is worthwhile consideration before amending this legislation with a hatchet.

This is the point made in Mulligan in the passages extracted above. What the legislative scheme focuses on is not the name of a person’s disability, nor the diagnosis given to a person – but rather what are the impairments experienced by a person which may require supports so that the person can participate in all aspects of personal and community life. It is the impairment which the scheme contemplates may affect the “functional capacity” of a person. (With 12 citations)at 69 National Disability Insurance Agency v Davis [2022] FCA 1002

It is therefore relevant that the Review recommended a whole person assessment of impairments (plural) and that this, it appears, will happen at access.

However, for a funding (budget) decision the separate impairments will need to be “unpicked” to only allow for those that individually must meet access per s34 (1) aa amendment. The total impact of several impairments that combine to affect function is disregarded. Consider my granddaughter. She has some 12 impairments covering all bodily functions, which could be unpicked as some not meeting access. For example, she has a stoma for feeds, on its own does not meet access, but she cannot access it herself, etc etc on her other supports. She already utilises Health for medical needs of hospital, drs, medicines etc, and education support so those other entities are already factored into the existing legislation.

Section 15AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Interpretation Act) is in the following terms:

In interpreting a provision of an Act, the interpretation that would best achieve the purpose or object of the Act (whether or not that purpose or object is expressly stated in the Act) is to be preferred to each other interpretation.

Objects of the NDIS Act

Part funding a participant’s disability (their function) does not align with this Object of the Act s3 g. that is the person is not properly enabled “to maximise independent lifestyles and full inclusion in the community” if their whole disability is not funded.

The following extracts from HRZI draws on deliberations of FCA cases. Learned minds have dealt with the concept of impairments, function, interactions with the environment and disability.

This Bill is prepared to then turn this work aside with a concept of handing over to one assessor of unspecified qualification and unknown method of assessment to pick an impairment to fund the budget.

In HRZI and National Disability Insurance Agency [2023] AATA 481 (24 March 2023)

  111.     When dealing with issues under the access provisions in Part 1 of Chapter 3
        in *National Disability Insurance Agency* v Davis (*Davis*)[61], Mortimer J referred with

      approval to passages in her Honour's earlier decision in Mulligan v    
       *National Disability Insurance Agency*
       (*Mulligan*)[62], namely:

             51. ... The term "disability" is used in the Act, and in s 24, as a descriptive concept
               for the overall effect of a person’s impairments on that person’s abilities to
              participate in all aspects of personal and community life. Threshold provisions
            such as s 24 operate not on the concept of disability, but on the concept of an
            impairment, which ... is generally understood as involving the loss of or damage
             to a physical, sensory or mental function.

115Thus, it can be understood, conceptions of ‘disability’ and ‘impairment’ under the NDIS Act should not be confused as interchangeable. A person’s disability may not be confined to or adequately described as ‘an impairment’ to which it is attributable. The disability may be multifactorial and attributable to more than one impairment, as the plain words in s 24(1)(a) clearly contemplate.

116The word attributable has particular work to do.[67] For the purposes of s 24, it refers to a causal connection between a person’s disability and the impairment or impairments from which it results. The threshold of attributability does not import a sole cause test, requiring the person’s disability to be solely or only attributable to one or more impairments which meet the thresholds in s 24(1)(b), (c) and (d), and it does not require all impairments to which the person’s disability might be attributable to meet those thresholds. The threshold of attributability is met if the person has a disability that is attributable to one or more impairments which meet those thresholds. Similar relativities between disability and impairment arise in s 25, where a person’s future needs for supports in relation to disability are to be considered in reference to the likely benefit of early intervention supports being provided in respect of developmental delay in a child or impairments which meet the thresholds in s 25(1).

      117Nonetheless, conceptions of ‘disability’ and ‘impairment’ are closely inter-related:
       causally, experientially, functionally, progressively and legally. 'Disability' refers to the
       overall effect of a person’s impairments on their capacity to function and to participate
        in all aspects of life, whereas 'impairment' refers to loss (including reduction) of or
    damage (including variation) to a person’s intellectual, cognitive, neurological, sensory
      or physical function.[68] Without resorting to relativistic enquiry, a person’s disability is
       attributable to functional impairment or impairments, including what the person can
    and cannot do, as well as barriers the person experiences which impede their social or
     economic participation, or their participation in personal or community life.[69] When
      considering the access provisions in *Davis*, Mortimer J explained:

                                                                           12

What the legislative scheme focuses on

What the legislative scheme focuses on is not the name of a person’s disability, nor the diagnosis given to a person – but rather what are the impairments experienced by a person which may require supports so that the person can participate in all aspects of personal and community life. It is the impairment which the scheme contemplates may affect the “functional capacity” of a person.[70]

Access, disability requirements and participant’s impairment

While impairment is used as a measure of the severity and permanence of a person’s disability for the purposes of s 24 and s 25,[74] it is the person’s disability which qualifies their access to the NDIS (subject to other applicable criteria) under s 21(1) and, subsequently, their continued status as a participant under s 29 and s 30.

Proceeding on this basis, it does not follow an impairment may qualify a person for access to the NDIS. The NDIA’s submissions to this effect must be approached with caution.

Take, for example, a participant with a disability attributable to a neurological

impairment, a cognitive impairment and a physical impairment. If only one of the impairments is found to meet the essential thresholds in s 24(1)(b), (c) and (d), under the construction preferred by the NDIA the person would be able to obtain supports under the NDIS in relation to that impairment, but not the other impairments. Under the

construction pressed by HRZI , correctly in my opinion, once the person has passed through the gateway for access to the NDIS, as a participant the person would be able to obtain supports for their disability, including the three impairments to which it is attributable. The Tribunal adopted a construction of this kind in McLaughlin and

in Goodliff and National Disability Insurance Agency

The NDIA’s assertion supports must be viewed through the lens of a participant’s impairment which meets the thresholds in s 24(1) or s 25(1) misconstrues and unduly narrows the statutory focus on disability.

Psychosocial Support

Psychosocial as a s10 NDIS Support seems to be missing

A target of the Review was psychosocial and the early intervention requirement with the implication “getting better”. State Mental Health have always been responsible for crisis interventions (though poorly actioned) even when a participant of NDIS. NDIS provides ongoing community support for the disability. It is disingenuous for the Review and this Bill to “pull the ug” because someone “seems better” due to support they are getting. Fluctuation considers there will be times of coping. The consequences of living in increasing crisis due to lack of support can lead to an enormity of community cost.

“Claire Jones (not her real name) knows well the pain and trauma shared this week by the distraught parents of Bondi shopping centre killer Joel Cauchi.

Her journey with mental health has been ongoing for the past three decades.

Toowoomba couple Andrew and Michele Cauchi spoke openly of the battle of caring for their youngest child after saying he was diagnosed with schizophrenia when he was 17.

It is the same diagnosis Claire’s brother received, and his illness is something her family has lived with for most of her life.“

Claire’s brother is not much older than Cauchi and, on Saturday night as she watched television coverage of the 40-year-old running through a Bondi shopping centre armed with a knife, she says she was “quietly distraught”.

Claire does not want to be identified to avoid potentially upsetting her brother, but wants to advocate for those with schizophrenia and their families…

…“Dr Morris says it is possible to reduce the risk of incidents such as the Bondi attack from happening.

"I would think one of the most important things to do is to start to improve the level of care for these groups of patients that have been disadvantaged over the last 30 to 40 years and provide them with the sort of care that they deserve and that they need to remain productive and safe members of the community,“ he says.“

… “Social engagement can be difficult for people with schizophrenia and Dr Morris says research indicates that, despite expressing interest in social interactions, people with schizophrenia report spending less time with others and feeling lonely.”

‘It could have been us’… Another brother is a frontline emergency worker and every time he attends a knife incident involving the mentally ill, he thinks, “But for the grace of God, this could be our family”.

Her brother with schizophrenia last "spiralled out of control", as she calls it, two years ago.

"I spent two full days on the phone to every single mental health support agency from Brisbane to Sydney,“, Claire says.

"No one could provide any help.

The main line kept me on hold for two full hours.“

NDIS keeps participants supported between fluctuations so that crisis is more likely mitigated.

Of course, such serious mental health crisis is only the minority and most with psychosocial 残疾只是少数，而大多数有心理社会障碍的人只想能够得到支持来过他们的生活。州政府对危机的支持是不足的，并且不能让各州独自提供人们在社区中富有价值和生产力生活的必要残疾人支持。

Autism

我没有任何与自闭症相关的经验，但我无法看到s10中的自闭症支持措施。这不是健康问题。我知道一些家庭担心他们患有自闭症成年子女如果得不到持续的、具备技能的专业人员以2比1的比例进行照顾的话，在与警察互动时会感到害怕。

Closing Statement:

直到更全面地评估长期成本以及未考虑或不良意图带来的意外后果之前，请驳回此法案。必须首先建立完整的州级支援计划及规则。