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

Submission 209

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

Bill 2024 submission to Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry

deep concerns about what I have heard regarding the proposal for 24/7 funding to be at the 1:3 ratio, as that would not be safe for , nor for others he would be forced to live with if he was required to move into that sort of situation. He already has difficulty coping with two neurotypical adults in his space during buddy training shifts. (I suspect because it takes a lot of mental energy for him to keep track of where people are currently located so he doesn’t bump into or trip over them – difficult if you can’t hear at all and can’t see very well). We would also lose our choice and control over who works with , and our ability to ensure they are willing and able to communicate with him using his preferred mode, Auslan.

If was to be forced into living in a group situation with others also requiring robust accommodation, he would be likely to harm himself or others. As is prone to very loud outbursts out of the blue, he would also be at risk of a housemate becoming distressed or angry, and harming or lashing out at him. would therefore be at a real risk of being medicated to control his behaviour, and having other restrictive practices, in particular seclusion or physical restraint, implemented against him.

The potential requirement to only use registered providers is also a concern. We have tried that previously, and very few organisations have been able to provide workers with Auslan skills. Where they have had such employees, generally the employees have not had the type

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

Submission 209

of personality required to work with . We have discovered that, for us, the best way is to choose an employee based on personality and attitude and spend time to train them in the necessary communication skills. And by employing a small team ourselves, they can cover for each other, and is never left with some random support worker who does not understand him and can’t pick up on his cues of distress.

I am extremely 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 (and there would be very few professionals who would have the breadth of skills, knowledge and experience to assess what needs, and the impact of his complex disabilities on his life). In case (and I suspect those of other people), it is not a simple matter of adding up the disabilities to reach some kind of ‘severity number’ – the impact of his disabilities is more like 1+1+1+1= 8 or 9, rather than four. 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 understand that other impairments, that may not meet the disability access criteria, have now been included in a proposed amendment. According to the explanatory memorandum, however, other impairments will only be picked up in the tool.

The tool has not been described in the bill, yet the bill states it must be used. That detail is to come later. It is very worrying that it may be an inappropriate tool for my son with all his complexities, yet the tool will be used because the law will say it must be.

Even though a proposed amendment states the other impairments will be assessed, the bill also states in s34 1 aa that only those impairments that meet the disability access criteria will be funded. That is a contradiction. Which of disabilities will be funded? And which will not? (And will we be advised of this?) How can anyone not familiar with work out which disabilities have most impact on his life?

As someone who advocates for a young man with multiple impairments that need funding, thi clause 34 1 aa is very concerning. It will lead to harmful under support, and thi clause must be removed from the bill.

The support of the whole person had been promised in the NDIS Review and thi bill does not do that.

Thank you for your due diligence on thi vital legislation. It i important to so many, that it i sound legislation.

Regards,