Submission to: The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024
To the Committee considering changes to the current Legislation - National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013
Dear Committee, Along with many others I had a very personal interest and was involved in the formation of the NDIS and its legislation, prior to it becoming reality. My oldest daughter, who is now 54 years old, and my wife, and I, as her ageing parents depend on it to provide effective supports for her very existence. Some of the proposed changes, however, are counter to the very existence and purpose of the NDIS and would place our daughter’s well-being and life at risk. I shall refer to some of the sections that concern me and hope my responses and reasons are considered and addressed by the committee.
Thank you Name withheld
I will refer to concerns I have to some of the proposed changes (marked in red or crossed out) of the current legislation throughout my submission.
The deletion of the terminology ‘reasonable and necessary’ occurs in parts of the document.
In definitions: NDIS amount means an amount paid under the National Disability Insurance Scheme in respect of reasonable and necessary supports supports (other than general supports) funded under a participant’s plan.
Reasonable and necessary supports are the mainstay and strength of the current NDIS process. These are not the components that place the viability of the scheme at risk. If a support is reasonable and necessary, it should be provided after due diligence, collaboration and discussion with participants, along with checks and balances and completed by the agency in full consultation with participants. Consultation and collaboration to address what is reasonable and necessary, must be fully built into the legislation and into the whole working operation of the NDIS.
Division 2—Preparing participants’ plans
Concerns with the Note: in red following here
Subsequent plans
Note: The CEO may suspend the preparation of a new framework plan if information or reports requested for the purposes of the undertaking of an assessment under section 32L are not received (see subparagraph 36(3)(b)(i)).
Reports and information take time and are complex and expensive when working with some people with disabilities. This is a cost that is often placed back onto the participant. To give the CEO the power to suspend a person’s plan without providing them full support to receive these reports may place many people at risk. The legislation should ensure that people with disabilities are not disadvantaged by its very process.
Under the proposed changes to 32 L there is no requirement for the CEO to consider what is already on the participants file. All information on a participants file must be open and considered fully to ensure participants are NOT disadvantaged. This must be addressed fairly in the legislation. Any information the participant wishes to submit should be allowed and discussed fully with the participant.
34 Reasonable and necessary supports
Reasonable and necessary supports are an essential part of the current and any future determination for individual needs. I am concerned with the change of part (f) in section 34. Following shows the part that is to be removed (crossed out) followed by the change in red.
(f) the support is most appropriately funded or provided through the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and is not more appropriately funded or provided through other general systems of service delivery or support services offered by a person, agency or body, or systems of service delivery or support services offered: (i) as part of a universal service obligation; or (ii) in accordance with reasonable adjustments required under a law dealing with discrimination on the basis of disability. (f) the support is an NDIS support for the participant.
The Productivity Commission identified the mix of Government departments that provide supports for individuals. These include but are not restricted to housing, health, education etc. These other supports should be taken into consideration when determining NDIS funding. To consider the responsibility of other areas of support outside the NDIS is an essential exercise. It establishes a basis for what is the responsibility of the NDIS and what is the responsibility of other agencies.
Page 3
The Productivity Commission identified there should be better interaction between various government departments to ensure more effective outcomes for people with disabilities. This never occurs. I respectfully suggest this should be built into the NDIS legislation and ALL OTHER Government Legislation.
This would ensure Australia becomes a true and effective leader in supporting our disabled citizens as outlined in the charter of United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. All other aspects of the United Nations charter on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities must also be considered and included in the legislation.
Housing is one example where the Housing Commission could ensure all community housing includes a mix of general and disability housing. With around 15 - 20% of the population identifying as disabled, this proportion could be part of all future builds. This would avoid the need to discuss options of group homes for people with disabilities, which by their very nature result in segregation and exclusion of our disabled citizens.
The cost and viability of the NDIS
Some of the proposed legislation changes are to address the cost and future viability of the NDIS. It has been my experience that the current excessive costs of the NDIS is from overdue diligence from the agency, not engaging and listening carefully to participants, and from employing expensive lawyers to avoid providing reasonable and necessary supports.
The Productivity Commission, in its report prior to the NDIS becoming reality, identified that to not provide necessary supports to people with disabilities, the costs would be greater in future.
Thank you.
3