Dear Committee Members,

Re: Submission Opposing the “Getting the NDIS Back on Track” Bill even with Amendments.

I am writing to formally oppose the “Getting the NDIS Back on Track” Bill, even with the recent amendments. Despite the changes made, the bill remains fundamentally flawed and continues to pose significant discriminatory and abusive impacts on individuals with disabilities.

The amendments, while intended to address some concerns, fall short of rectifying the bill’s core issues. The primary focus on cost-cutting measures over the well-being and rights of NDIS participants is deeply troubling. This approach undermines the purpose of the NDIS, which is to support people with disabilities to live full, independent lives.

The bill, even in its amended form, introduces several problematic elements:

• Co-Design Must Be Legislated: It is imperative that co-design is embedded in the legislation to ensure that people with disabilities and their families have a say in the creation and implementation of policies that affect them.
• Access to All Disability-Related Supports: Participants must be able to access all supports related to their disabilities, not just those approved by the government. The entirety of a person’s needs must be considered and funded, reflecting a holistic approach to disability support.
• Right to Appeal Assessments and Plans: Participants must have the right to appeal assessments and plans they disagree with at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in a timely manner. The NDIS must make greater efforts to resolve disputes before they escalate to the AAT. Most AAT cases result in favor of participants, indicating a systemic issue that needs addressing.
• No Creation of Separate Participant Classes: The NDIS should not categorize participants into classes that dictate the types of supports they can receive. Each individual’s entire situation and needs must be considered without placing them into restrictive categories.
• Crack Down on Providers, Not Participants: The focus should be on holding providers accountable rather than penalizing participants. It is essential to fight fraud and abuse within the system without further burdening those who rely on it.

6. Legislated Co-Design and Participant Control: Individuals with disabilities and their healthcare teams should decide what constitutes necessary disability support. Resolving issues before involving lawyers and the AAT will reduce costs and improve outcomes. The NDIS should adhere to its service charter and take punitive actions against planners who bully or act unethically towards people with disabilities.

7. Heavy Input and Weight from Health Team in Assessments: Assessments must include significant input and weight from participants’ allied health teams and medical specialists. It is unreasonable to expect a random assessor to capture a person’s needs in one meeting without substantial input from their health team and family.

8. Respect for Individual Needs: People with disabilities must have a voice, choice, and control in the assessment and planning process. No one understands their needs better than themselves, and this should be enshrined in all aspects of the NDIS process.

9. Ability to access necessary supports. Creating an “In list” could mean that people with disabilities will be unable to receive support and items that would allow me to function with decency and dignify. No bureaucrat or policy maker should be able to determine what does and does not mitigate a persons disability. People’s disabilities and needs are so diverse that creating an in list would lead to discrimination and disadvantage.

However I do agree that there should be an out list. This should include things like gambling, stocks, drugs, anything illegal. This list should be composed in co design with the disability community to insure that policy makers don’t inadvertently get it wrong and disadvantage disabled people even further.

10. Full inclusion. Another big concern is around the intention to create classes of participants. For me personally, I do not have extended family to fill gaps if my supports were to limited by class. What I need is what I need and this is true for all people with disabilities. Creating a class would limit critical, life saving, necessary and essential supports.

11. Be realistic around foundational supports.The public system is not equipped to handle chronic and complex disability, and is frankly failing in its current state. Forcing the most vulnerable to rely on it is unacceptable. Foundational supports, at this point seems to be nothing more than a slightly veiled excuse to boot psychosocial disability of the scheme. The public health system is not fit to care for chronically disabled people, most especially people with chronic psychosocial

Page 3

disabilities. Anyone with a psychosocial disability will be able to tell you many stories of the abuse and neglect that is prevalent in the public mental health system. It is not a safe place for people with psychosocial disabilities, and foundational supports are mockery to people who suffered in the public system. Get health systems right for the general public before thinking about pushing psychosocial folk into the lions den. Better yet. Stop targeting them all together and afford them the same human rights as any other person with a disability who meets NDIS access criteria. The way people with psychosocial disability have been targeted in this Bill and by the NDIA is abysmal.

• Full disclosure and open access must be a part of the process now and going forward. The forcing of providers to sign nondisclosure agreements is negligent and is considered as an institutional betrayal by the government and the departments. This behavior by the government, departments and policymakers must end. It’s abusive coercive, secretive, sinister and manipulative. We need full transparency and honest co design. This is not a big ask. This is also called “Team work” or “being a team player”. It’s a good thing and the government, departments and agency need to get on board with it.

Additionally, contrary to the proposed intentions of the bill, it is important to note that the bill does not effectively address fraud and waste as the minister claims. The current legislation already allows for legal action to tackle fraud, making the minister’s reasoning unsound. This appears to be a tactic to create panic and force the bill through without proper scrutiny.

In conclusion, the “Getting the NDIS Back on Track” Bill, even with amendments, remains discriminatory and abusive. I urge the committee to reject this bill and engage in meaningful consultation with the disability community to develop policies that truly reflect their needs and aspirations.

Thank you for considering my submission. I look forward to a resolution that honors the principles of fairness, equality, and respect for all individuals with disabilities.

Sincerely,