NDIA Accountability Project

Concerns about ministerial power to define 'NDIS Supports'

‹ PrevPage 1 of 4 · Source p. 1Next ›

@@Attn. Legislative Affairs Committee Cc Emma McBride Cc Kate Washington Date: 06/05/2024 Dear Legislative Affairs Committee, I am writing to express my deep concern and alarm about the planned reforms to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), as articulated in The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024. This is my supplementary submission. Since my last submission, the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), as articulated in The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 has passed through the House of reps, we have also had a mere 2 and a half days of public hearings and over 200+ publicly available submissions. Amendments have been made to the bill by the government that only go to the way they will implement their ideas, not changes to the ideas that have been pointed out again and again. “NDIS Supports” The Bill still allows for the minister to create lists of things that are “NDIS Supports” and what ar not. This is problematic and dangerous. Core Supports A predefined list of core supports will significantly limit participants’ choice and control over their care. By standardising the types of daily living assistance available, the NDIS will inadvertently restrict individuals from selecting supports that best fit their unique lifestyles and preferences. This one-size-fits-all approach will stifle creativity and flexibility in support planning, leading to a mismatch between the provided services and the actual needs of participants. For example, a participant will prefer an innovative support option that isn’t listed, but they will be forced to settle for less effective alternatives. This limitation undermines the core NDIS principle of participant-driven care, reducing individuals’ autonomy and likely impacting their satisfaction and outcomes. Capacity Building Supports When the types of capacity-building supports are predetermined, participants will find their choices restricted to programs that do not align with their personal goals or learning styles. A standardised list will overlook the diverse range of needs and aspirations among participants, leading to a narrow scope of available programs. This will result in participants being enrolled in training or education that is irrelevant or ineffective for their specific situation, reducing their motivation and engagement. Limited choice in capacity-building supports will hinder the

development of personalised pathways to independence, ultimately restricting participants’ potential to achieve their individual goals and aspirations.

Capital Supports

A fixed list of capital supports, such as specific assistive technologies or home modifications, will limit participants’ ability to select the most suitable and innovative solutions for their needs. Technology and accessibility solutions evolve rapidly, and a standardised list will not keep pace with these advancements, depriving participants of cutting-edge options. Furthermore, participants will require bespoke solutions tailored to their unique living environments and personal preferences, which a standardised list cannot accommodate. This rigidity will result in participants receiving suboptimal or inappropriate equipment, thereby limiting their functional independence and quality of life. Ensuring flexibility and adaptability in capital supports is essential to maintain participant choice and control, fostering a more inclusive and responsive NDIS.

The bill STILL mentions the removal of line items. Here is why that is life threatening.

Importance of the Line-by-Line Process:

Personalised Support:

Reason: The line-by-line process allows for highly individualised plans that cater to the specific needs and goals of each participant. This ensures that the funding is directed towards the most relevant and beneficial supports for the participant.

Explanation: Different participants have unique requirements, and the line-by-line approach ensures that each support is tailored to their individual circumstances, leading to better outcomes.

Transparency and Accountability:

Reason: This approach provides clear documentation and tracking of how funds are allocated and spent, ensuring transparency and accountability in the use of public funds.

Explanation: Each line item can be monitored, making it easier to audit and ensure that the funds are being used appropriately and effectively, reducing the risk of misuse.

Flexibility and Responsiveness:

Reason: The line-by-line process allows for adjustments to be made more easily in response to changes in the participant’s needs or circumstances.

Explanation: If a participant’s situation changes, the NDIS plan can be updated to reflect new requirements, adding or removing specific line items as necessary to provide the right support at the right time.

Risks of Changing to a Whole-of-Budget Approach:

  • Reduced Specificity and Personalisation:

    • Risk: A set budget might not adequately address the specific needs of each participant, making it more likely that there will be a one-size-fits-all approach.

    • Explanation: Without detailed line items, participants might not receive the precise support they need, potentially compromising the effectiveness of the NDIS in improving their quality of life.

  • Potential for Misallocation of Funds:

    • Risk: A whole-of-budget approach could lead to funds being spent on less critical supports or misused, as there would be less oversight on how each dollar is allocated and spent.

    • Explanation: Without the detailed tracking provided by line items, it would be harder to ensure that funds are being used appropriately, increasing the risk of inefficiency and waste.

  • Difficulty in Monitoring and Reporting:

    • Risk: It would be more challenging to monitor and report on the support’s effectiveness, making it harder to assess the impact and success of the NDIS.

    • Explanation: Line items allow for detailed reporting and analysis of how specific supports contribute to the goals of participants. A whole-of-budget approach would obscure these details, making evaluating program outcomes and making informed improvements harder.

In summary, the removal of line items from the NDIS could lead to significant gaps in care, inadequate support for complex and emergency needs, and increased stress and mental health risks. These changes could have life-threatening implications for participants who rely on the NDIS for essential health and support services.

This bill should not pass. can not pass and I urge decision makers to stop it in its tracks.

Thank you,

Jarrod Marrinon