To the Community Affairs Legislation Committee,

I am writing as I am extremely concerned about the proposed NDIS Amendment Bill. It is alarming how quickly the government seems to be acting to force the bill through.

I am concerned at the lack of details regarding several issues which could have a devastating effect on the lives of many people who rely on this support, as well as those who are not yet on the NDIS and are not receiving the support they need. I have been working as a support worker for around 6 years and have been following this issue closely as it has a significant impact on the people I support, and has been causing a lot of distress to them and the wider disability community.

One alarming issue is the lack of detail around NDIS participants’ right to appeal incorrect assessments or insufficient funding, as well as the proposal to enable arbitrary suspensions of people’s plans. This takes away fundamental rights and could trap people in unsafe and unjust situations where their needs are not being adequately met. The very possibility that a person’s plan could be suspended due to suspicions of misuse of funds, or if they do not submit requested information within a certain timeframe, is truly horrifying and inhumane. There are so many legitimate situations where a person could inadvertently miss deadlines like this, due to their disability and life circumstances (e.g. potential lack of support), or having to wait for others to provide necessary documents, etc. There must be other ways of addressing instances of fraud (generally committed by providers not participants) that do not open the door to risking people’s health and life like this.

Another is the imposing of a new, narrow definition on what supports will be funded, rather than as currently stated what is ‘reasonable and necessary’ according to an individual’s life and needs. It is still unclear what would fit under this category of NDIS supports, however there is talk currently of requiring all providers to be registered for their services to be funded. I am concerned that mandatory registration could become a barrier for sole trader support workers and small businesses who don’t have the resources for registration and auditing, and that mainstream (non-disability-specific) businesses wouldn’t necessarily be incentivised to register. The reduction in services that NDIS participants could get funded would cut off a lot of choice for them, and affect the quality and affordability of the services available. This is especially problematic in regional or remote areas. It also doesn’t take into account the broadness and diversity of disability-related needs which may be addressed using mainstream sources in a more cost-effective way, or are necessary because a person’s needs or circumstances are so unique that a purpose-made product does not exist.

I am also concerned about the proposal of independent assessments, which is something that was proposed by the Coalition government in 2021 and vehemently opposed by the disability community, who eventually succeeded in having those proposals scrapped. The Labor government has shown that it clearly does not care about the opinions of people with disabilities by putting this on the table again.

• reports of people with disabilities who went through trial assessments during this time, these are intrusive and traumatising experiences, administered by assessors who have no understanding of the context around individuals’ lives, and who are then given the power to determine what a person’s needs are based on one encounter. It is unfair to put people with disabilities through this, when their doctors and therapists have already provided these assessments. It also leaves people vulnerable to inaccurate assessments or denial of funding, with no right of appeal (as this is not mentioned at all in the bill).

This will make it harder for people to get on the NDIS, or to stay on it. I say this because Bill Shorten has made it clear that cost-cutting is the most important aim and has also stated that where possible people should be accessing ‘foundational supports’ rather than NDIS-funded supports. The problem is that many of these foundational supports haven’t been established yet (or were reduced after the introduction of the NDIS), and there are no details in the bill about how and when this would happen. I do agree that foundational supports must improve drastically, as the majority of people with disabilities are not on the NDIS and struggling with inadequate support. However, to potentially move people off the NDIS without ensuring this other support exists is dangerous.

I am concerned that the pledges around stopping people’s funding being topped-up mid-plan completely disregards the fact that people’s disability and health can change unexpectedly, or that many people have degenerative conditions, and they may need more than initially planned. This is a normal part of life and cannot be fully predicted or controlled. There needs to be clarity that people will not be left without funds for vital supports if their needs increase unexpectedly. I also have fears about the idea of debts being raised against participants who are judged to have used NDIS funds for unapproved services, especially as the conditions around what is approved or not are unclear or might be changed, or that this sort of ruling might not take into account the complexity of real life situations. It is all the more concerning that the right to appeal is not clearly defined or protected. These debts may be impossible to pay for a majority of people with disabilities and the potential for harm caused by raising these debts is very likely.

I am concerned at the proposed changes that mean people with disabilities requiring 24 hour support could be funded on a ratio of one support worker to 3 clients, rather than on an individual basis. This could potentially force people into group living situations to make that possible. This goes against recommendations from the Disability Royal Commission that group homes, which have long been a source of abuse, neglect and trauma, should be phased out.

Finally, it is not right that co-design is not a requirement in the legislation. The experiences and knowledge of people with disabilities needs to be at the centre of how this crucial system of support is designed and implemented. There has already been too much harm inflicted on generations of people with disabilities because all the structures in society that they need to engage with were largely set up to exclude them or disregard their humanity. This harm will only continue if the people who are most affected are excluded from decisions that will affect their lives in every way.

Please ensure that clear protections for the rights and freedoms of people with disabilities are built into any NDIS reform.

Sincerely, Trish Roan