SubmissionontheNationalDisabilityInsuranceSchemeAmendment(GettingtheNDISBack

onTrackNo.1)Bill2024

to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee,

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

My name is Bianca Parsons and I am an Occupational Therapist with ten years experience. I am a member of the NDIS Occupational Therapy Community of Practice and the Founder of Recovery In Mind Occupational Therapy. Our practice is dedicated to supporting individuals with psychosocial disabilities by enhancing their independence and participation in everyday life. With a deep commitment to advocating for the rights and needs of people with disabilities, I am writing on behalf of our organisation to express our profound concerns regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 (referred to as ‘the Bill’ from this point forward).

After careful consideration of the Bill and its potential impacts, we strongly urge the Committee to recommend against passing this legislation in its current form. While the intention to improve and sustain the NDIS is commendable, the proposed changes are far-reaching and could significantly compromise the scheme’s integrity, participant rights, and access to essential supports. Some of the concerns we share include:

• Lack of Genuine Co-design and Consultation The Bill fails to mandate meaningful co-design with people with disabilities, their families, and advocates. This omission contradicts the fundamental principle of ‘nothing about us without us’ that should underpin disability policy. The Bill’s unexpected introduction without a publicly available exposure draft or sufficient time for stakeholders to respond does not represent an inclusive approach for Australians living with a disability to actively engage in the democratic process. While the amended bill requires the Minister to consider co-design principles, it does not make this a legal requirement. This leaves the door open for critical decisions to be made without adequate input from those most affected. Furthermore, the implementation plans for the bill have not been shared, despite calls from the disability community for urgent and transparent disclosure. Recommendation: Amend the bill to require genuine co-design processes for all significant changes to the NDIS, including the development of rules and assessment frameworks. The government should be required to publish detailed implementation plans and draft rules before any legislative changes are made.

• Overly Broad Ministerial Powers and Redefining NDIS Supports The Bill grants extensive powers to the Minister to define key aspects of the scheme through rules, without sufficient parliamentary oversight. This includes the ability to determine what constitutes an NDIS support (Section 10) and to set assessment methods. Such broad powers could lead to significant changes being made without proper scrutiny or consultation.

Submission Regarding the NDIS Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.

The redefinition of ‘NDIS supports’ in Section 10 could exclude many essential supports currently funded. The categories appear restrictive and may have unintended legal consequences. It is unclear if vital supports like home modifications, assistive technology, psychosocial supports, and employment supports will continue to be funded. Additionally, the Bill’s selective use of UNCRPD language without reflecting the convention in its entirety creates confusion and risks misinterpreting the intent of the UNCRPD.

Relying on the Applied Principles and Tables of Support (APTOS) as a temporary measure is incompatible with the new definition of NDIS supports in Section 10. There is already confusion about the NDIS interface with state and territory systems. Without clear boundaries, there is a risk of further confusion and service gaps.

Recommendation:

Key elements of scheme design, including the definition of NDIS supports, should be included in primary legislation rather than delegated to rules. Revise Section 10 to ensure all essential disability supports that enable social and economic participation can be accessed through the NDIS. Clarify system interfaces and responsibilities before changing legislation (revise the APTOS agreement).

3.  Mandatory Assessments and Budget Setting

The introduction of mandatory ‘assessments of support needs’ raises serious concerns:

     a) There is no clear definition of what these assessments will entail or who will conduct them.

    b) The Bill does not guarantee that assessors will be qualified allied health professionals
   working within their scope of practice.

      c) There are no clear appeal rights for participants who disagree with assessment outcomes.

    d) The assessment appears limited to impairments that meet disability or early intervention
    requirements, potentially failing to achieve a 'whole of person' approach for those with multiple
      disabilities.

Furthermore, the Bill introduces a new budget-setting method that lacks transparency. There are concerns about the use of algorithms for budget setting (so-called ‘robo-planning’) and how assessment scores will be used to determine funding. The Bill also restricts funded supports to only those impairments identified when a participant enters the NDIS, potentially disadvantaging those with complex, acquired, or progressive disabilities.

Recommendations:

• Define ‘assessment of support need’ in the primary legislation.
• Ensure assessors are qualified allied health professionals (most appropriately occupational therapists who are experts in assessing function), working independently within their scope of practice.

Classification System and Participant Rights

The Bill introduces a system for participants based on ‘classes’ that raises significant concerns about potential discrimination and policy segregation. This approach risks creating arbitrary limits that do not reflect individual needs and could be discriminatory.

The Bill also enhances plan revocation powers for the NDIS CEO without adequate safeguards, particularly for high-risk and complex needs participants.

Recommendations:

• Remove or clearly define terms like ‘classes of participants’ in primary legislation to prevent discriminatory practices.
• Ensure any classification system is scrutinised through an independent review and evaluated against UNCRPD commitments.
• Establish robust appeal rights for participants regarding assessments and support decisions.
• Include safeguards in primary legislation to protect participants during plan revocation processes, requiring risk assessments and confirmation of alternative supports for high-needs participants.

Economic Impact and Implementation

There appears to be a lack of publicly available economic modelling to support the proposed changes. The full impact on participants, the care economy, and service providers is unclear. This includes potential effects on access to supports, employment for carers and people with disabilities, loss of essential support providers, access to allied health services, and impact on small businesses and sole traders nationwide.

Recommendation:

Conduct and release comprehensive economic modelling and impact assessments before proceeding with legislative changes. Develop and make publicly available a detailed implementation plan addressing potential service gaps and clarifying responsibilities across different systems.

Conclusion

The NDIS is a vital support system for hundreds of thousands of Australians with disabilities. While reform may be necessary to ensure its sustainability, changes of this magnitude require careful consideration, extensive consultation, and strong safeguards to protect participants’ rights and access to necessary supports.

We strongly urge the Committee to recommend:

• Rejecting the Bill in its current form and requiring a rewrite that places fundamental NDIS scaffolding in primary legislation, not the NDIS Rules.
• Mandating genuine co-design processes for all significant changes to the NDIS.
• Addressing the specific concerns outlined in this submission, particularly regarding assessments, support definitions, budget setting, early intervention, and capacity building.
• Ensuring robust safeguards and appeal rights for participants.
• Conducting comprehensive economic and social impact analyses before proceeding with reforms.

The Committee has a crucial role in ensuring that any changes to the NDIS enhance rather than diminish the scheme’s ability to support Australians with disabilities. Please take the time to get this right – the lives and wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of Australians depend on it.

Thank you for your consideration of this submission.

Bianca Parsons on behalf of Recovery In Mind Occupational Therapy Director and Occupational Therapist BSocSc(Psych) GD(Psych) MOT(Prac)

W: recoveryinmind.com.au

Submission regarding the NDIS Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024.