Submission to the Community Affairs Legislative Committee for the Senate: Urging Rejection of the “Getting the NDIS Back on Track” Bill

Introduction

I am Mark Pietsch, the Founder and Director of Ability Links and the NSW State Director of Physical Disability Australia. I live with a Musculoskeletal Movement Disorder and Autism. Ability Links appreciates the opportunity to provide feedback on the “Getting the NDIS Back on Track” Bill. We urge the Senate to reject the bill in its current form. The proposed amendments fail to address the diverse needs of the disability community, risking significant harm to individuals who rely on the NDIS for their support and independence.

Outright Rejection of Principles of the Needs Assessment

The bill’s approach to needs assessment is fundamentally flawed. Precedents from other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom, demonstrate that rigid, algorithmic needs assessments often fail to capture the nuanced and individualized needs of people with disabilities. The UK’s shift towards standardized assessments for disability benefits has faced widespread criticism for inaccuracies and lack of empathy, leading to substantial harm and increased appeals. This experience underscores the danger of implementing a similar approach within the NDIS, which could result in inadequate support and increased administrative burdens. Tools such as the I-Can assessment fail as a measure in situations where there is complex overlap of circumstance and miss that people and our lives are too complicated to put into a box.

Key Concerns with the Proposed Legislation

1. Narrow Definition of “Reasonable and Necessary” Supports The bill’s restrictive definition of “reasonable and necessary” supports could exclude essential services, leaving individuals without the critical support they need. The disability community requires a broad, inclusive definition that reflects the diversity of needs and circumstances. Additionally, granting the minister unilateral power to change this definition without adequate safeguards or consultation undermines the stability and predictability of support services.

2. Lack of Detailed Appeal Rights and Safeguards The proposed legislation does not provide robust mechanisms for appealing decisions about support levels. This leaves individuals without recourse when their needs are not adequately met. The NDIS must include detailed, accessible appeal processes to ensure that all participants can challenge decisions that do not reflect their needs.

3. Insufficient Consultation and Co-Design The bill fails to mandate meaningful consultation and co-design with the disability community. Inclusive decision-

Bureaucratic Simplification Over Genuine Improvement

The legislative amendments proposed by the Department of Social Services appear to be an exercise in bureaucratic simplification rather than a genuine effort to improve the scheme and safeguard the rights of people with disabilities. If the Department of Social Services, the NDIA, and politicians engaged in meaningful discussions with front-line workers in the sector, they would find ways to improve the quality of supports, enhance participant safety, and improve the financial viability of the scheme using common sense and leveraging the innovation and expertise within the disability

community.

For example, participants have suggested using their funding for grocery delivery services instead of having a support worker shop for them. This approach would offer a less invasive and more cost-effective solution for some participants. However, the rigid structures proposed in the legislation prevent such flexible, innovative solutions, which can sometimes increase the overall cost of meeting participant needs.

This disregard for the expertise within the disability community and the devaluation of lived experience as evidence perpetuates a focus on bureaucracy rather than common sense when interpreting “reasonable and necessary.” Australia is founded on the principle of a fair go, and the disability community is simply asking for an equal opportunity. We’re not asking for lavishness or luxuries, but for the ability to engage in community activities, work, contribute to society, and be part of families. This bill, as it stands, threatens these fundamental aspects of our lives.

At present, the NDIA is severely lagging behind the Participant Service Guarantee with no accountability or repercussions. They have essentially stopped reporting on their adherence to the Participant Service Guarantee. Many participants who have experienced significant changes in their lives and support needs, such as the loss of a family member who provided support, have found that their increased needs are being dismissed as “plan top-up requests.” This term is a gross oversimplification and misrepresentation of what is, in fact, a legitimate change in circumstances. These underhanded ploys to frame the needs of people with disabilities as mere money grabs lack both morals and ethics and devalue the dignity of people with disabilities.

External Cost pressures threatening Scheme Sustainability

The proposed legislation takes a simplistic view of addressing scheme sustainability while disregarding external upward pressures on costs, such as the structure of the SCHADS Award, which defines the rate of pay for support workers. This award does not encourage career progression or skills development. Pay rates are determined by the amount of supervision and independence workers have in navigating their roles. As it stands, a worker providing social access to someone with less intensive needs is paid the same amount as someone showering or providing personal care. This structure does little to encourage workers to take on roles with more complex needs.

A full review of the SCHADS Award is required. Workers should be paid based on competencies and skills assessed by the Quality and Safeguards Commission. Adding a loading to tasks such as personal care and hoisting would provide an incentive for workers to prioritize shifts for people with higher needs and promote the sector’s professionalization.

Recommendations for Amendments

1. Broad and Inclusive Definition of Supports Expand the definition of "reasonable
  and necessary" supports to be inclusive and reflective of the diverse needs of
    individuals with disabilities. Ensure any changes to this definition require
  thorough consultation with the disability community.

2. Clear and Accessible Appeal Mechanisms Establish detailed and accessible
  appeal processes within the legislation to allow participants to challenge
   decisions that do not meet their needs adequately.

3. Mandatory Consultation and Co-Design Introduce provisions that mandate
  ongoing consultation and co-design with the disability community for any policy
  changes affecting the NDIS.

4. Balance Economic Considerations with Rights Ensure that the bill balances
  economic sustainability with the rights and dignity of individuals with disabilities,
    prioritizing their well-being in all decision-making processes by establishing an

Page 4

independent panel of advocates that are not elected or appointed by the minister, or the Department of social services as a safeguard to report on the participant service guarantee and to police legislative overreach and adherence to the principals of the UNCPWD.

5. Empower the Quality and Safeguards Commission Strengthen the role of the Quality and Safeguards Commission to build sector capacity, coordinate responses when participants are at risk, and adopt a preventative approach to addressing issues rather than a retrospective one.

6. Improve Communication Channels Enhance the communication channels of the Quality and Safegards Commission to ensure they are accessible, efficient, and responsive to the needs of people with disabilities. This includes providing multiple avenues for communication beyond emails, such as phone support and in-person consultations and having liasons available in the community to help mediate disputes and help facilitate sector capacity building.

Ability Links strongly urges the Community Affairs Legislative Committee to reject the “Getting the NDIS Back on Track” Bill in its current form. The proposed amendments fail to adequately protect the rights and meet the needs of people with disabilities. Substantial amendments are necessary to ensure the legislation aligns with the principles of the UNCRPD and serves the disability community with dignity, respect, and support.

Thank you for considering our submission.

Regards

Mark Pietsch Director // Specialist Support Coordinator Ability Links