To the Community Affairs Legislation Committee

I am writing to you to express my concern with some of the clauses set out in the bill: National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track) 2024. I am a mental health practitioner, and I work for a social enterprise that provides NDIS services. I also speak from the perspective of a concerned community member and ally to people with disabilities. My primary concerns are as follows:

• [32F(7.a)] I am concerned about the terms in which a participant’s flexible funding can be changed to Agency managed. The clause states that if there in non-adherence to the plan or overspending either during this plan or previous plans, this can be grounds for change. To strip the participant of the rights to manage their own budget and plan due to one mistake, a mistake made in a past plan, or non-plan adherence due to circumstantial or environmental disadvantage due to few approved services in the area, is a great concern. The plan should only be changed due to repeated non- adherence, with warnings and education given prior, in the participant’s desired communication style. Also, the flexible portion can be changed to Agency managed if there is reason to suspect risk to the participant, including financial risk. What classifies as financial risk to the participant should be outlined more clearly.
• [30(2)] A written request for information can be made, but the bill fails to consider the participant’s communication preferences and therefore is not inclusive or accessible. 28 days to undergo certain tests and get the information to the CEO can be unrealistic where there are long wait lists. People in remote communities, with limited access to varied specialists, are once again disadvantaged. People face having their existing plans suspended and then cancelled due to the inability to quickly get tests done. These information gathering powers also have the potential to push participants to get tests done with practitioners that they are not familiar with, who may not be culturally informed or the best fit for the individual. This should be amended to state that requests for information will be made in the

Participant Feedback on Proposed Changes

participant’s preferred communication. Cost of required additional tests and any access requirements for said tests should be covered by the government. There should be a clear list of what constitutes a reasonable explanation for not being able to get information on time. Eg) carers duties, ill health, work commitments and so on. Existing plans should not be suspended during this time.

3. [32L.3] I am concerned that the Needs Assessment will cause participants to jump through unnecessary hoops to prove their disabilities and their needs. The assessment focuses only on those impairments which are related to the identified disability and early disability requirements. This deficit-based approach fails to take in the intersecting factors of disability such as environment and living situations, culture, comorbidities and what services are available to a participant in their area. This could disproportionately affect First Nations participants especially in rural areas. I would suggest that if an individual would prefer, then practitioners from an individuals’ existing healthcare team should be able to perform the needs assessment. The assessment report should be provided to the participant for review and collaboration before it is provided to the CEO. Participants should also have the right to request a re-assessment, and have this request granted, if they disagree with the outcome of the needs assessment.

4. [10.4] Under the proposed amended bill, something will only be an NDIS support for a participant if it is needed because of their disability (as determined by the needs assessment). The NDIS supports disregard holistic supports, white goods (as per [10] in the explanatory memorandum) including those with accessibility features assisting with communication. This would include devices that have screen readers, voice to text, etc., and are generally more expensive as a result. It should be made clear in the bill that devices that assist with participant’s communication and access needs are allowed to be funded, even if they are white goods. Also, more holistic forms of care should be allowed, that may not fall under medical supports.

5. There is a specific concern around the phrasing of Section 10(A)1, in which the Bill states that a support is a NDIS support if it: “is necessary to support

“the person to live and be included in the community, and to prevent isolation or segregation of the person from the community.” My concern is that the use of ‘and’ in this clause instead of ‘or’, may be used to dis-allow funding for 1-1 support in participant’s own homes, and in cutting these 1:1 supports, result

in participants needing to live with others, under a one to three support ratio. This is very concerning. This NDIS support should be changed to read; “is necessary to support the person to live and be included in the community, or to prevent isolation or segregation of the person from the community.”

Thank you for taking my suggestions into consideration. This was not a comprehensive list of my concerns, rather a brief statement of the most concerning clauses. I hope you take these amendments into consideration because I believe the harm to participants could be significant if the bill is approved as is.

Kind Regards,

Anna Morris

08/07/2024