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

Submission 126

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 submission to Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry

deeply concerning.

Dear Committee

Thank you for extending the submission date

I am writing to express my serious concerns about the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024. As a current NDIS participant, I believe this Bill could have a detrimental impact on the lives of people with disability and undermine the original intent of the NDIS.

I am a mother with two arms length needs complex disability children, as well as a participant with my own needs.

Even with the current legislation that is respectful of a person with disability- NDIA ability to manage this is dismal. The legislation changes will not change what they say, everything they currently claim they want to “prevent” is something they can do with the legislation they have.

I am very worried about the needs assessment and the lack of detail that will only be known later. We do not even have certainty that a qualified person will be the assessor or whether our own information will be allowed. It is especially concerning that there is no right of review of the assessment, only a request of a replacement that can be refused.

I feel that assessment detail is too important to leave to a later legislative instrument and I do not see how the bill should be approved without more certainty.

I am particularly worried about the following aspects of the Bill:

1. The shift from reasonable and necessary supports to reasonable and necessary budgets. I fear this change could lead to arbitrary limits on the supports people can access, rather than focusing on what each individual actually needs to live an ordinary life. The fact that the focus is on budget more than support is dehumanising to participants. It is also scary when we consider future changes of governments or changes in budget focus. Even just the narrative that the media puts out about the budget or economy could have unknown implications for how the NDIS budget is set.
2. The tighter definition of what supports the NDIS will fund. I am concerned this definition is too narrow and could exclude vital supports that people with disability rely on to participate in the community and pursue their goals.
3. The increased powers for the NDIA to require people to undergo assessments or provide information, with the threat of plans being suspended or revoked for non- compliance. This fails to recognise the many barriers people with disability can face in engaging with bureaucratic processes, especially if they are experiencing a crisis or have complex needs.
4. The provisions that allow the NDIA to prevent a person from self-managing their

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

Submission 126

funding if they have made mistakes in the past. This seems to go against the principle of choice and control that is central to the NDIS. It is very wrong to be punitive in this sense. It makes no sense to punish people for trying to use their funding to pay for supports that they need but are not necessarily included in their plan by NDIS oversight. Not all perceived problems with spending are the mistake of the participant, other people/organisations should also be held accountable for this.

The overall changes feel like a huge step backwards from the original guiding principles of the NDIS being in the control of the participant. Overall, I am deeply worried that this Bill represents a shift away from the original vision of the NDIS - to give people with disability choice and control over the supports they need to live an ordinary life. It seems more focused on cutting costs than on improving outcomes for people with disability.

I think the shift towards only funding a primary disability and ignoring the complex crossover of conditions that many people have is a harmful oversight. It completely goes against what was in the NDIS Review. I think co-design is the best way to move forward. Having planners who are not medically educated reading medical reports and making decisions about what supports to provide is not appropriate. The new legislation is compounding on this error and making the access to appeal rights much harder if not impossible.

The legislation amendments are referencing Rules which have not been made or even drafted as a major part of where the regulations and tests will be. It means we have no idea what the actual changes will be yet or how they will play out in real life. Also, part of the reason it will be harder as well to challenge decisions at a legal level is because most of the regulations will be in these Rules. This removes a fundamental right to appeal decisions or even question the reasoning behind them.

Considering that there are already parts of the NDIS legislation which are completely ignored by the NDIA, how can we know that any of these changes will actually be complied with or followed the way they are meant to be?

I strongly urge the Committee to recommend significant changes to this Bill. At a minimum, there must be thorough consultation with people with disability and our representative organisations to ensure any reforms genuinely meet the needs of the people the NDIS is intended to support.

The NDIS is too important to get wrong. We must take the time to get this right, with people with disability at the centre of the process.

Thank you for considering my submission. I would be happy to provide further information to the Committee if required.