Feedback on Explanatory Memorandum

Key Issues:

The interchangeable way in which this document uses “impairment” and “disability” is concerning, misrepresents the mechanisms and origins of disabling experiences and perpetuates an outdated and discriminatory medical model of disability.
The needs and lived realities of complex cohorts such as Deafblind people appear not to have been considered in what is proposed across this Bill.
The Bill aims to reduce the cost and scope of supports provided under the scheme and to improve quality outcomes for participants. Upon closer inspection however it difficult to see how the proposed changes will address anything other than the former of these two stated aims.
Deafblind people on the scheme are frequently dealing with barriers brought about by the inconsistent and uninformed application of existing policies. There is nothing in the new Bill to address this and what is recommended may further entrench disadvantage for Deafblind people and other cohorts with complex support needs.
Proposed rules risk creating and entrenching a separate disability specific economy of products and services in complete contravention of the inclusion focused goals of the NDIS and ADS.
Appeals to the Legislation Act to assuage fears around rules and instruments being designed without meaningful consultation or codesign do not inspire confidence. This is based both on past experience and details of language used in the Act and what it actually obliges rule makers to do.
The human rights impact statement fundamentally misrepresents the relationship between the changes proposed and certain specific articles of the UNCRPD.

Detailed feedback:

“The changes in the Bill are expected to contribute to decisions made by National Cabinet to moderate cost growth of the NDIS in the medium to long-term and meet the 8 per cent sustainability target by 1 July 2026.”(Page 3)

This feels like the focus of these changes, even if it drives the scheme further away from its original intention of providing the choice and control for participants to decide the best way for them to be supported to overcome the inaccessibility of the world around them. The blown-out cost of the scheme is a scathing indictment of how inaccessible mainstream spaces and services are yet this perspective is not reported in the mainstream press or commented on in any discussions around the cost of the scheme.

Schedule 1

“An NDIS support will only be an NDIS support, and therefore constitutionally supported, if the participant has a need for that support as a result of their impairment. This is consistent with recommendations of the NDIS Review around taking a needs-based approach to planning and budget setting.” (Page 3).

This misrepresents the origins of disabling experiences as being related to the impairment alone. This is inconsistent with Australia’s Disability Strategy 2021-2031 which “…is based on the social model of disability. It recognises attitudes, practices and structures can be disabling and act as barriers preventing people from fulfilling their potential and exercising their rights as equal members of the community.“ (Page 7). In light of this social model foundation “The Strategy focuses on removing these barriers so people with disability can fully and effectively participate in and contribute to society.“ (Page 7).

“As an interim measure, until new rules are made under paragraphs 10(b) and/or (c), APTOS will be incorporated to determine what is and is not an NDIS support (see item 124). Reliance on the APTOS is a transitional measure that will only be in place until new NDIS rules can be made. These rules will be developed with States and Territories as a priority.” (Page 3-4).

What happens with continuity of service whilst this takes place? The positioning of Auslan interpreting services in APTOS is particularly concerning. It is only mentioned in the educational context and is classified as being the responsibility of ‘other parties’. This would exclude interpreting from being an NDIS support according to the stipulation below.

“Proposed subsection 71B(3) prescribes that a support is taken to not be an NDIS Support for the purposes of the Bill if the support is within a class of supports that are mentioned in the Applied Principles and Tables of Support under the heading “Other parties”. (Page 46).
“This new definition assists participants by providing clear guidance on what supports they can access through the NDIS. For example, things such as holidays, groceries, payment of utility bills, online gambling, perfume, cosmetics, standard household appliances and whitegoods will not qualify as NDIS supports.” (Page 4).

What about a smartphone? This is one of the best examples of a low-cost communication device for people surrounded by people who don’t use their language. This also erodes what was fought so hard for in the roll out of the scheme which is the right to choose mainstream options and not be segregated off into a distinct disability economy.
“The NDIS Review commented that the needs-based approach to budget setting will prioritise evidence-based supports that lead to a more predictable and manageable Scheme. It also commented that a stronger evidence base providing clear regulation and guidance on effective therapies and supports should provide better quality, improve outcomes, and make navigating the scheme for participants and their families easier.” (Page 4).

Needs based does not equal impairment related. A holistic picture of need, and the appropriateness of requested/suggested supports, must include assessment of environmental capacity. Evidence based guidance may support better quality and improved outcomes for cohorts lucky enough to be well represented in research literature but will do little to support this for those that are hidden.

“Implementing and relying on this definition of NDIS supports will allow the Commonwealth, States and Territories together to ensure that the NDIS funds supports that are effective and backed by a strong evidence base.” (Page 4)

This is not guaranteed for all cohorts in all locations. The only thing implementing this definition will do without a doubt is reduce the scope of supports the Commonwealth is obliged to supply.

“Section 26 deals with requests for information that the CEO may make for the purposes of determining an access request. Subsection 26(3) provides that if requested information is not received within relevant time periods the prospective participant is taken to have withdrawn the access request unless the CEO is satisfied that it was reasonable for the prospective participant not to have complied with the request within that period.” (Page 6-7).

The degree to which this is left open to interpretation is concerning. DBA has heard consistently that the issues Deafblind people experience with policies and legislation of this nature are more about how they are applied rather than what they contain. These changes do nothing to mitigate human errors in application and, in fact, just pave the way for these errors to have even more devastating impacts for participants.

“This item amends subsection 26(3) so that this exception also applies to information that was requested from a person other than the participant. This protects the participant from being penalised if information is not provided by another person, for example a health professional, within a certain period of time.” (Page 7).

But doesn’t take into account the additional labour required for people with certain disabilities to navigate the sourcing of these materials, support that may be required to do so and thin market issues impacting the provision of those supports. This assumes that all participants have an equal experience in complying with these directives and this is simply not the case.
- “Similar to the existing section 27, proposed new section 27 will allow NDIS rules to prescribe methods and criteria to be applied, or matters that may, must or must not be taken into account for the purposes of sections 24 and 25. The rules may also prescribe circumstances in which a matter relevant to the application of either of those sections is taken to exist or to not exist in relation to a person. This new section 27 allows for flexibility for tailored rules.” (Page 7).
```
But without obliging the rule makers to undertake meaningful co-design with people
with disabilities or Disability Representative Organisations there is a risk of these rules
not being fit for purpose for the many and varied cohorts on the scheme. Little
comfort can be gained from appeals to the legislation Act as this leaves all assessment
 of quality and sufficiency of the consultation to the rule makers themselves and also
provides scope to not consult provided a justification can be given that is satisfactory
 to the rule maker.
```
  - “Currently, there is no ability for the CEO to request information for the purposes of considering the revocation of a person’s status as a participant. It is important for the CEO to be able to request and receive information from participants. It ensures that the CEO is making decisions based on up to date and current information about a participant. This will not result in people having to repeatedly prove their disability but will allow the CEO to determine the state of their functional capacity (which can change over time) having regard to the best available information to ensure they are receiving the most appropriate supports.” (Page 9).
```
   This will not result in people having to repeatedly prove their disability but will allow
  the CEO to determine the state of their functional capacity, aka how disabled they are.
 The interchangeable use of impairment and disability throughout this memorandum
 and the Bill is a real concern. It seems like fundamental concepts of disability theory
```

As laid out in the ADS have not been considered let alone implemented in the creation of either of these documents.
“The intent of these changes is to provide clear timeframes for the reassessment process and allow the CEO to take into account circumstances outside the participant’s control, such as a specialist not providing the required information within the timeframe.” (Page 9)

Good to see this acknowledged but as we have seen with the operational guidelines these things have a tendency to not be applied consistently across cohorts. Are the full range of circumstances that may impact a participant’s ability to comply with the timeframe going to be taken into account??

“Subsection 30(7) provides that the CEO must give the participant written notice of a revocation of participation that includes the date on which the revocation comes into effect.” (Page 9)

Can there be some additions here that impose a duty on the CEO to ensure the accessibility of the format and language in which this notice is given?

“Under section 17 of the Legislation Act, appropriate consultation must be undertaken in relation to the proposed legislative instrument before it is made…………This means that relevant stakeholders and the States and Territories will need to be consulted on this legislative instrument and have the opportunity to make comment before it is made. The instrument will also be subject to Commonwealth parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance. The consultation process will need to occur in a timeframe that is consistent with the operational requirements for the transition.” (Page 13-14)

The referenced legislation only states consultation must be undertaken in ways and to degrees that is determined as sufficient by the rule maker. The inappropriate ways consultation is currently undertaken (timeframes, inaccessible formats and meetings etc) illustrates why appeals of this nature do not lend confidence that affected parties will have meaningful input into the development of these instruments.

“Flexible funding will be provided to or in relation to a participant up to a certain amount. This change is based on the principle that people with disability know their own support needs and are best placed to determine how to meet these needs. This means that a participant may use flexible funds to acquire a range of supports that

They need as a result of their impairment/s, provided those supports are appropriately funded by the NDIS. This gives participants a much higher level of choice and control around identifying and acquiring the supports that best meet their individual needs.“\n (Page 16).
Flexibility to choose anything you need from a pre-prepared list of approved supports. It’s also interesting to see just how deeply embedded ableist assumptions are. To say something like “supports that they need as a result of their impairments” fundamentally misrepresents the issue. A Deaf person needs an Auslan interpreter because the person they want to talk to is signing-impaired, not just because they are hearing impaired. If the other person learns to sign they no longer require the support despite their being no change in the status of their impairment.
“How Kirra spends her flexible budget is up to her, as she will know best how she should be supported. Kirra will be expected to manage within her budget, and have a real need for what she purchases, which must be NDIS supports related to her impairments.” (Page 17).

The freedom to choose from a pre-approved list of supports is merely the illusion of choice and control. This section also posits that the assessment process has “the objective of identifying the impacts of Kirra’s disabilities” but then states the supports she can purchase must be NDIS supports “related to her impairments.” It is difficult to tell if the authors are just using terms interchangeably at this point or if they don’t realise the gap they’re creating. It also appears that “related to impairment” could fall into the same issues as “reasonable and necessary” around how these are applied by staff who lack the expertise to effectively assess people’s needs in a holistic way.

“In certain circumstances, the CEO may place restrictions on the spending of some or all of the flexible funding provided for in a reasonable and necessary budget. This will only occur where the CEO is satisfied that any of the following circumstances exist:” (Page 19).

By only allowing flexible funds to be spent of NDIS Supports you are effectively restricting the spending of all funds in all circumstances. Why are we being so cavalier in removing people’s ability to select mainstream products and support options if that’s what they need? This attitude is reminiscent of the early conversations around assistive technology when the scheme was being designed and the desire to drive people toward using more expensive options because they are disability specific. For example: a Brailliant vs an iPhone with a Braille display. The person needs the device

as a communication support but might live in an area or situation where getting specialist training and device maintenance is difficult if not impossible. The choice of an iPhone and a braille display gives the person the functionality they need in a package that is understood by more people and able to be taught, maintained and supported by a wider range of services and individuals. The sense of inclusion that comes from being able to use the same tech as everyone else is also huge.

“For example, NDIS rules may specify what evidence-based supports are appropriate for children under nine years of age with developmental delay. The rules could also specify particular supports in a remote First Nations community that have been co-designed with that community through an alternative commissioning approach.” (Page 20)

This is concerning as there’s a massive potential for the needs of Deafblind people to fall between the cracks in the setting of these types of rules due to their absence from much of published research in these areas.

“This approach is consistent with the recommendations of the NDIS Review that the needs-based approach to budget setting will prioritise evidence-based supports that lead to a more predictable and manageable scheme.” (Page 24).

Making the scheme more predictable and manageable at the expense of participant outcomes is unacceptable.

“Under section 17 of the Legislation Act appropriate consultation must be undertaken in relation to the proposed legislative instrument before it is made. The nature and extent of this consultation must be explained in the Explanatory Statement for each instrument in accordance with section 15J of the Legislation Act. This means that relevant stakeholders and the States and Territories will need to be consulted on this legislative instrument and have the opportunity to make comment before it is made. The instrument will also be subject to Commonwealth parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance.” (Page 24).

This legislation leaves evaluation of the efficacy of the consultation in the hands of the rule maker and thus leaves the door open for tokenistic consultations. If the Legislation Act arbitrated for quality in consultations the way they are expecting it to in this context, then we would not have the track record of poor consultation that has plagued the sector in the 21 years this Act has been in place. Nothing in section 17 provides that consultation must be accessible, sufficient or relevant. It leaves all determinations about the quality of consultation completely in the hands of the rule

maker and does not state that consultation must be undertaken. 15J(2) provides that an explanatory statement as to why no consultation was undertaken can be added.
“Subsection 36(3) deals with requests for information for the purposes of preparing a new framework plan. It provides that a request for information must specify a 28 day minimum timeframe in which to provide information and reports. If the CEO does not receive the information or reports within the specified timeframe, the CEO must suspend the preparation of the new framework plan unless the CEO is satisfied that it was reasonable for the person not to have complied with the request for information within the relevant timeframe.” (Page 28).

In a Deafblind context, we need only look at the current application of “exceptional circumstances” in the operational guidelines to see the potential for this to create issues. Lack of contextual knowledge amongst responsible agency staff can lead to the application of definitions, protocols and powers in ways that are contrary to the stated goals of the scheme. This is especially worrying when it could now lead to a plan being suspended for failure to provide requested information within a designated timeframe.

“The requirement to spend money only on NDIS supports for the participant means that funds may only be used to obtain supports that have a constitutional basis, are appropriately funded by the NDIS, and are needed by the participant as a result of their impairment or impairments.” (Page 35).

Again, the machinations of disability are misunderstood and misrepresented.

Human Rights Impact Statement.

“The Bill further engages with Articles 3 and 4 by providing legislative authority for participants to utilise their plan funding flexibly for NDIS supports. This reinforces participants’ inherent dignity and individual autonomy by supporting the freedom to make one’s own choices about their use of supports, in turn promoting their independence to ensure full and effective participation and inclusion in society. This is articulated in Article 3 of the CRPD in relation to promoting the full realisation of persons with disability, as per the obligations in Article 4.” (Page 3).

Giving someone free choice from a narrowly defined list derived from a misrepresentation of the origins of their needs does not reinforce inherent dignity and individual autonomy. Neither does creating and entrenching a disability-only economy, separate from the mainstream.

“The Bill further engages with Articles 3 and 4 by providing legislative authority for participants to utilise their plan funding flexibly for NDIS supports. This reinforces participants’ inherent dignity and individual autonomy by supporting the freedom to make one’s own choices about their use of supports, in turn promoting their independence to ensure full and effective participation and inclusion in society. This is articulated in Article 3 of the CRPD in relation to promoting the full realisation of persons with disability, as per the obligations in Article 4.” (Page 4)

The Bill cannot promote higher levels of choice and control by limiting the scope of
 supports the funds can be used for. It can’t be a wholesale narrowing of the scope of
 the scheme that also leads to higher levels of choice and control. One could
   potentially make the argument that there is no reduction, but it seems disingenuous
  to try and paint this as an increase in choice and control.

“The Bill is compatible with Article 4(3) through the clarification and expansion of the NDIS rules which relate to the access criteria. The new NDIS rules will be designed and implemented with extensive consultation and co-design with the disability community. In addition, the methodology for working out the amount of funding in a participant’s plan will be developed and built with the disability community.” (Page 5).

  There is nothing in the Legislation Act that says there has to be active involvement of
  people with disability. It requires consultation, directed and assessed by the rule
  maker. Not codesign or coproduction. DBA disagrees that appealing to the Legislation
  Act makes this compatible with Article 4(3). Article 4(3) also specifically states that
    Disability Representative Organisations be the mechanism through which  this
   consultation takes place and that is missing here. “Article 4 (3): 3. In the development
 and implementation of legislation and policies to implement the present Convention,
 and in other decision-making processes concerning issues relating to persons with
     disabilities, States Parties shall closely consult with and actively involve persons with
     disabilities,  including  children  with  disabilities,  through  their  representative
   organizations.”

                                                                    9

Feedback on “Getting back on track” Bill.

Key issues:

Powers around setting rules for disability and early intervention requirements leaves massive potential for human error and for specific needs and cohorts to fall between the cracks.
Rules around report provision and timelines for communicating decisions do not factor in the lived reality of some cohorts and will disproportionately disadvantage them.
Language used around communicating with participants and internal handling of documents leaves room for agency practice to be completely inaccessible to a participant whilst still remaining compliant with the Act.
Amendment 32D uses a very narrow definition of environmental context that neglects key influences, enablers and barriers in people’s lives.
Regarding the needs assessment report mentioned on page 25: What is this instrument? Can we see it? Who is overseeing its use and what training are people going to receive in its use? These are all details that will have as much if not more impact on its ability to effect outcomes as the changes being proposed in this Bill.
Page 26 states that Ministerial decisions relating to the scheme must have regard to “the need to ensure the financial sustainability of the National Disability Insurance Scheme.” This is a huge change to the spirit in which directions were given to the CEO around similar decision making in the previous version of the Act. To what extent is the requirement to factor in the financial viability of the scheme expressed in other decision making across this space? This reinforces the idea that the bulk of financial waste needs to be recovered from individual plans and not poor operational decisions/structures. This could open the door for supports to be provided on the basis of government capacity and not individual needs. The obligation to consider financial viability of the scheme is also put upon the Minister in other sections of the document. Capability uplift in the mainstream community and accessibility of mainstream spaces and services is the only way to reduce the cost of supporting people long term. You can only reduce the cost of supporting people by reducing the need for support and you can only do that by reducing the number of ways of moving, communicating and engaging that are excluded in mainstream spaces.
Some language in the Bill further entrenches the primary/secondary dichotomy that has been rejected as unrealistic and has caused no end of problems for Deafblind participants. It also seems to use impairment and disability interchangeably and these words do not mean the same thing.
Granting the Minister powers to create instruments with no concurrent obligation to consult with disabled people in the development of these instruments runs the risk of them being wildly unfit for purpose in the Deafblind context. We have already

Page 57

“A support is taken to not be an NDIS support for a person for the purposes of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 if the support is in a class of supports mentioned in a table in the Applied Principles and Tables of Support under the heading ‘OTHER PARTIES’.” So, where does this leave interpreting? Interpreter support (and Auslan more broadly) are only mentioned in APTOS in an educational context as the responsibility of Other Parties. We see things like ‘support for complex communication’ used but, yet again, it all comes down to the discretion of the individual staff member applying these definitions/policies.

Detailed feedback:

On defining NDIS supports (page 6): Given what we have heard about people’s issues primarily stemming from the application of instruments and legislation rather than their contents this doesn’t provide any answers to current issues around planning and support provision. DBA is concerned with who is putting the lists together or overseeing their application? It’s the skills, knowledge and abilities of those people that needs uplift and better monitoring.
(Page 7): Yet another mechanism that places a lot of power in the hands of an individual without any checks and balances around assessing the suitability of that person’s skills and knowledge to wield that power. And given that a CEO will most likely come from a business/management background what qualifies them to assess people in this way? In an agency already riddled with ignorant decision makers wreaking havoc in people’s lives this feels like an escalation and entrenchment of these practices that will only lead to worse outcomes for participants.
Page 9 leaves scope for the NDIS rules to prescribe “(a) methods or criteria to be applied, or matter that may, must or must not be taken into account, for the purposes of either of those sections; or (b) circumstances in which a matter relevant to the application of either of those sections is to exist or to not exist in relation to a person.” There is huge potential for errors in human judgement here. Who is setting these rules and what are their qualifications for doing so? Why should participants trust them? What confidence can participants have given how little staff-to-date have been able to demonstrate comprehensive knowledge of disability?
Page 10 on requesting information and reports: The format and timeframe in which this information can be provided is different for every disability constituency and is often underpinned by in-person support such as that of interpreters and translators. People could be subject to disproportionately burdensome practices based on the

additional support required to communicate with the agency and difficulties/delays
in sourcing this support that the agency does not understand. “..appropriately
qualified“ as determined by who? This raises the same issue encountered when
proposing Independent Assessments: Allied health qualifications and even disability
specific qualifications do not impart required skills and knowledge to work with
every community. In addition to this, skills and knowledge in fields like Deafblindness
are rarely codified in formal course work and qualifications because of the niche
nature of this disability. Who is most appropriate to perform this kind of examination
on a Deafblind person? Where are they? What are their timelines like for getting
assessments like this completed?
This change assumes a robust infrastructure of knowledgeable professionals in order to execute it’s aims. This infrastructure and the human workers to power it simply don’t exist for Deafblind people at this time.

Page 11 timelines for responding to requests: There are several reasons, some

directly related to disability and its impacts, that will make complying with these
timelines difficult and leaves the consideration of these reasons completely up to the
CEO. This sets up a potential for people to be found non-compliant by someone who
doesn’t know the first thing about their situation, due to issues that are not their
fault. There is too much wiggle room for subjectivity here. Not only do these changes
provide little in the way of improvements to outcomes they will likely disadvantage
many people.

Page 11: “The CEO must give the participant written notice of a revocation under

subsection (1) or (5), stating the date on which the revocation takes effect.“ Again,
this misses the mark in terms of the audience it is designed for. Why written notice?
What if the person is blind or their first language is a signed language? This leaves
the door open for the agency to communicate decisions in a completely inaccessible
way and still be found compliant with the terms of the act.

Page 16: Given notice how? What contingency is there to ensure the communication

of notice has been timely and in a language/format the participant can understand?
The language in a lot of these changes does nothing to address the issues Deafblind
folks are having with how the agency and the scheme operates in their lives.

Page 16: This is a very narrow definition of “environmental and personal context of

the participant’s living”. The impact of workforce crises on someone’s personal
context needs to be factored into planning for it to be effective. There is little point
in writing people plans for supports they can’t access. Things like goals, objectives
and aspirations are also impacted by historically poor service provision and its
impacts on expectations. Participants are far more likely to ask for what they believe
they can reasonably expect to access, not necessarily what they feel they need.

Page 17: How are the lists of funded/acceptable supports communicated to

participants if they don’t make up part of this planning document? Are they to be

Page 19: “A participant’s statement of goals and aspirations need not be prepared by the participant in writing, but if it is prepared other than in writing, the Agency must record it in writing.” What quality control/oversight is there to make sure things are translated accurately? DBA is not confident this has been considered from an operational perspective.
Pages 24-25: This feels a lot like tightening control over what can be paid for with plan funds. Massive potential for the mechanisms of executing this particular part of the reform to further exclude people from the supports they need. Again, there is no attention paid to the precedent for agency policy and legislation to be applied in a way that is not consistent with the stated goals of the scheme. Huge potential for these issues to not only continue but to also get worse.
Regarding the needs assessment report mentioned on page 25: What is this instrument? Can we see it? Who is overseeing its use and what training are people going to receive in its use? These are all details that will have as much if not more impact on its ability to effect outcomes as the changes being proposed in this Bill.
Page 26 states that Ministerial decisions relating to the scheme must have regard to “the need to ensure the financial sustainability of the National Disability Insurance Scheme.” This is a huge change to the spirit in which directions were given to the CEO around similar decision making in the previous version of the Act. To what extent is the requirement to factor in the financial viability of the scheme expressed in other decision making across this space? This reinforces the idea that the bulk of financial waste needs to be recovered from individual plans and not poor operational decisions/structures. This could open the door for supports to be provided on the basis of government capacity and not individual needs. The obligation to consider financial viability of the scheme is also put upon the Minister in other sections of the document. Capability uplift in the mainstream community and accessibility of mainstream spaces and services is the only way to reduce the cost of supporting people long term. You can only reduce the cost of supporting people by reducing the need for support and you can only do that by reducing the number of ways of moving, communicating and engaging that are excluded in mainstream spaces. As the ADS specifically points out, finding solutions to the issues faced by people with disability in Australian society is an all of government, all of society responsibility.
Page 27: “(3) 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 relies on diagnostic criteria and will still be anchored to a primary/secondary dichotomy that falsely erodes the intersectional and compounding nature of impairment, disability and

mental/physical/emotional wellbeing. Through this lens, a person on the scheme for

deafblindness would have no time given to their mental health needs because the

only needs being assessed are “impairments in respect of which the participant meets the disability requirements.” Disability and impairment are used interchangeably which is erroneous too.

Page 28: “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); (c) information that must be included in a report prepared under subsection (5); (d) requirements that a report prepared under subsection (5) must meet.” With no concurrent obligation to consult with disabled people in the development of these instruments they run the risk of being wildly unfit for purpose in the deafblind context. We have already seen this with participants being forced to interact with specific instruments being used by partners in the community that do not match their circumstances. Any tool is only as good as the breadth of experience that goes into its design and that resides within the individual applying said tool to such a wide variety of circumstances. -Obligations placed on Minister to consult with disability community in creating any of the aforementioned instruments or rules are those outlined in the Legislation Act which give the rule maker power to determine if consultation has been sufficiently detailed or inclusive. This leaves the door wide open for measures to be imposed that are not based on a holistic picture of issues and therefore are not fit for purpose.
Page 33: “the support is necessary to address needs of the participant arising from an impairment in relation to which the participant meets the disability requirements or the early intervention requirements.” This stipulation replicates the current emphasis on diagnostic criteria that these and other changes are supposed to move the scheme away from. The needs that the support is intended to address do not arise as a result of an impairment alone. This is outdated, medical model thinking and is completely incompatible with the ADS and the social model/human rights emphasis it calls for. -Page 57: “A support is taken to not be an NDIS support for a person for the purposes of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 if the support is in a class of supports mentioned in a table in the Applied Principles and Tables of Support under the heading ‘OTHER PARTIES’.” So, where does this leave interpreting? Interpreter support (and Auslan more broadly) are only mentioned in APTOS in an educational context as the responsibility of Other Parties. We see things like ‘support for complex communication’ used but, yet again, it all comes down to the discretion of the individual staff member applying these definitions/policies.

Concerns regarding supports for Deafblind people under NDIS changes

Feedback on Explanatory Memorandum

Schedule 1

Feedback on “Getting back on track” Bill.

Page 57

Detailed feedback: