NDIA Accountability Project

Concerns regarding NDIS bill and impact on participant rights

‹ PrevPage 1 of 2 · Source p. 1Next ›

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 [Provisions]

Submission 198

Submission to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee Inquiry on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Ge@ng the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024

Background:

My name is Angie Keegan. I am a person with disabilities and an NDIS participant. My professional background is in disability as a qualified Special Education Teacher. I have had to leave my profession due to the degenerative nature of my physical disability and now use my experience of transitioning from the professional / support/ case manager side of the counter to being the person with disabilities/ the participant/ the client. I use this experience in my advocacy work and in assisting people with disabilities to build their own self-advocacy skills.

My concerns:

This bill must be stopped in its entirety until co-design can occur. Great harm will occur to people with disabilities if this bill is allowed to pass. For these reasons I say NO to this bill:

  • This bill proposes that the NDIS CEO be granted power with seemingly no limit, no pathway to appeal, no mention of consent… just asks us to give them all the power and to trust that they will work out the details later, and that that will be okay? No.

  • This bill also states that access and funding will be determined by an assessment instrument that has yet to be created. No.

  • This yet to be created instrument will be wielded by someone of the CEO’s choosing and determined level of skill and training. We should just trust that they will be suitably trained to assess our needs accurately, instead of our own doctors and treating professionals who know us and have seen us for more than ten minutes at one point in time? NO.

  • Reasonable and necessary supports will be redefined, but as yet, we are told, the detail will be worked out later and in the interim we are to use the APTOS, which is woefully inadequate for this purpose. No.

We are told in this bill amendment that plans will be more flexible, but this is not the case as what supplier and provider we choose will be the focal point, not how we might create and innovate to meet our disability needs. No.

“Class of participant” as the starting point of plan budget considerations, is against the purpose and intent of the NDIS and fails to recognise that people with disabilities are individuals, with individual disability needs in contexts that are not going to reflected in ‘cookie cu7er’ modelling. No.

The whole tone of this bill is punitive, do this, meet this deadline, allow us to do …OR you will not have supports. This is dehumanising and fails grossly to meet people where they are at and to understand the dynamic and complex nature of people with disabilities, and their

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 [Provisions]

Submission 198

families. This is not best prac6ce and is not in keeping with the social model of disability. NO.

The intent of this proposed amendment is erroneous. It paints par6cipants as the defrauders, and has an inference of ‘we think you’re fraudulent, it’s up to you to prove that you’re not’. The whole tone of this document is paternalis6c, and proposes that people with disabili6es are infan6le in need of protec6ng from the world, themselves and their own decision making. This is not a good bill and if allowed to pass will have grave ramifica6ons for people with disability, what is being proposed is Robodebt AND Independent assessments all rolled into one. I propose that this bill be put aside in full un6l actual co- design occurs in order to create legisla6ve reform that actually puts people with disabili6es at the centre of the NDIS rather than the current proposal that seems more set on pu@ng people with disabili6es in the crosshairs of a targeted narra6ve to disempower the disability community and take individuals choice and dignity away from us.

Context of my submission:

  • I understand that the sustainability of the NDIS going forward requires a more measured and thoughtful approach. I also understand that there has been massive defrauding and unneedful spending in rela6on to the NDIS. Where I disagree is that this ‘cost blowout’ as it’s been bandied about in the media is predominantly the fault of the par6cipants claiming unnecessary and unreasonable purchases. Where this money has been largely fri7ered away has been by providers and many of them already registered.

I call on this government and the Minister of the NDIS, Hon. Bill Shorten to do what he promised and RESTORE TRUST in the NDIS through listening to us and engaging in authen6c codesign. NB. Consulta6on is NOT co-design. I call on this government to do more than men6on the UNCRPD, but to actually enact it within our legisla6on, in full and commit to protec6ng our human rights, to have choice, control and dignity in our own lives.

Nothing about us; without us.

Thank you for your considera6on of my submission.

Sincerely,

Angelica (Angie) Keegan Par6cipant of the NDIS.