National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 [Provisions]
Submission 184
Inquiry: The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 [Provisions]
To whom it may concern, I am a final year social work student conducting placement in a private disability social work practice in Western Australia. My current role includes completing pro-bono Functional Capacity Assessments for people with disabilities to access NDIS funding and supports. The agency is led by a neurodivergent team who specialise in working with people living with Autism, FASD, ADHD, and intellectual and psychosocial disabilities. I believe that the NDIS is a great scheme; however, the issues and barriers that exist are a result of inefficient legislation and execution. NDIS legislation needs better clarification and definitions, to make it easier for people (other than lawyers and politicians) to easily interpret/understand and it also needs to compliment other relevant state/territory legislation (i.e., consistency/uniformity in the definition of a disability etc). The below submission stems from the Do Gooder. STOP THE NDIS BILL. hhttps://ausgreens.good.do/stopthendisbill/Email_NDISBill/Petition I participated in on 13 May 2024. I agree with the points raised in this petition and have elaborated on the points below:
Key Point Issue How can it be addressed
The new proposed The new framework Create a framework that framework will create stipulated in the bill will aims to support people with further barriers to access have an adverse reaction on a disability rather than trying disability community. to redirect individuals to to alternate unknown supports. specifically, making it alternative support systems Furthermore, advise which harder for individuals to will be in place for persons alternative support systems access NDIS and/or current who are not eligible for will be in place for persons NDIS participants losing NDIS funding and supports. who are not eligible for NDIS funding and supports. NDIS funding and supports. Reducing an individual’s Section 10 of the bill The wording in Section 10 choice and control via outlines the definition of needs to be written in a way restrictive and unsuitable NDIS supports which is that it can be used flexibly plans. incredibly restrictive. No and be inclusive of all two people are the same, so persons with a disability to why would people with a be able to access NDIS disability be any different? funding and supports. Disabilities present different People with a disability do for each individual and the not all fit in one box or challenges they experience category. Therefore, it is vary for a variety of reasons, imperative that NDIS including but not limited to legislation reflects this to a person’s gender, cultural reduce barriers to access, background, mental and discrimination, and breaches physical health, formal and of human rights.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDI Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 [Provisions]
Submission 184
- informal supports, housing,
- and finances etc.
- Intersectionality and a
- holistic view of an
- individual’s environment is
- paramount to their overall
- health, access, and
- participation in society.
CEO powers and reduction Giving ‘the CEO’ the ability Their needs to be better in autonomy to appeal to request more personal (clear) ‘rules and powers’ decisions. sensitive documentation surrounding what is including but not limited to reasonable, ethical, and psychological and medical realistic to request from a notes and reports is a gross participant. There needs to abuse of an individual’s be a strong focus on privacy and confidentiality. ensuring that we are The way this function is upholding and protecting the written gives the impression autonomy and human rights that participants are not to of all persons with a be trusted and to prove the disability and that they are legitimacy of their disability supported by a fair and just they must provide process of appeal. information within a strict timeframe. Using a punitive approach to instil fear and compliance of participants to provide such documentation within a strict timeframe is simply unacceptable, unethical, and unrealistic. Furthermore, making it harder for participants to appeal decisions will have a detrimental (mental, physical, and emotional) impact on the individual, their informal supports and in some cases the wider community.
NDIS legislation needs to reflect the needs of the disability community to enable the best outcome for both the individual and society. People with disabilities are the experts in their lives and deserve legislation that upholds their autonomy, whilst providing them with the adequate funding and supports they require to live a fulfilling life and participate in society.
Yours sincerely, Rebecca Roussis Social Work Student