NDIA Accountability Project

Impact of multiple disabilities and interconnected conditions on NDIS support

‹ PrevPage 1 of 2 · Source p. 1Next ›

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

Submission 289

Subject: Feedback on NDIS Amendment Bill 2024

deeply worried about the proposed changes and their potential impact on the lives of NDIS participants.

Firstly, it is crucial to highlight that no two disabilities are the same. Basing the support I receive solely on one of my disabilities is incredibly narrow-minded. A significant percentage of people live with multiple disabilities that interact with and affect each other. In my case, I do not have a single “primary” disability; each condition exacerbates the others. This interconnectedness is not adequately addressed in the current Bill.

Ongoing Concerns with the Bill

  • Co-design is Not Required: The Bill now requires the Minister to consider co-design principles, but it does not make this a legal requirement. True co-design involves collaboration with those directly affected by the policies, guaranteeing their voices shape the outcomes. Without making this a legal requirement, the Bill fails to guarantee that the needs and perspectives of people with disabilities will be adequately considered.

  • Does Not Take a Whole of Person Approach: The Bill may not fully account for people with multiple and interrelated disabilities, which could lead to inadequate support. For example, I live with PTSD, a chronic pain condition, multiple spinal injuries, migraines, hypermobility, and ADHD. Each condition affects and is affected by the others. This complexity must be recognised in the assessment and support processes.

  • Unclear Review and Appeal Rights: The Bill lacks a clear way to appeal or replace needs assessments. This ambiguity can leave participants without a means to challenge decisions that may not accurately reflect their support needs. A transparent and accessible review and appeal process is essential for maintaining trust and ensuring fairness.

  • Broad Powers to Require Assessments: The Bill provides the NDIA with broad powers to require medical assessments, which could be difficult to obtain. Access to medical professionals can be limited, and additional assessments can place a significant burden on participants, both financially and emotionally. These powers need to be carefully regulated to avoid unnecessary hardships. Personally at this moment I am unable to access NDIS as I require an Occupational Therapist report costing around $2500 when I earn $2300 a month and do not have access to a healthcare card or low income card as my worth is based off my husband (Flawed Welfare system perpetuating the DV Crisis)

  • Limits on Support and Spending: The Bill gives the NDIA considerable power to control how participants use their funding, reducing participant choice and control. Flexibility in funding is crucial for participants to tailor support to their unique needs and goals. For instance, travel costs for people with disabilities can be significantly higher, and restricting funding usage can limit essential activities like visiting family or attending medical appointments.

  • Punitive Measures: The Bill gives the NDIA new powers to change how participants’ plans are managed and raise debts if

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

Submission 289

they decide funding has been misused. This punitive approach can create a climate of fear and uncertainty, deterring participants from fully utilising their supports. The focus should be on collaboration and support rather than punishment.

Personal Perspective

In my personal experience, the interplay between my conditions demonstrates the need for a holistic approach. My PTSD, chronic pain condition, multiple spinal injuries, migraines, hypermobility, and ADHD interact in complex ways. For example, migraines, ADHD, hypermobility, spinal injuries, and PTSD can trigger flare-ups of my chronic pain condition. In turn, my chronic pain condition and spinal injuries can worsen my ADHD symptoms. This interconnectedness shows that treating each condition in isolation is ineffective and counterproductive.

The support provided should be based on personal goals rather than preconceived notions of disability. For instance, traveling with a disability incurs extra costs at every step. For me, flying between states can cost anywhere from $50 to $250 more than it did before I acquired my spinal injuries. Such practical realities must be considered in the support plans especially when we statistically earn less than a non disabled person, are statistically less likely to be employed and statically more vulnerable to be taken advantage of and or be a victim of Domestic Violence.

Conclusion

The proposed amendments to the NDIS Bill do not adequately address the diverse and complex needs of people with disabilities. Instead, it perpetuates a crisis that the royal commission only just last year reported its findings regarding the exploitation and exclusion of people with disabilities experience every single day. I urge the Senate Committee to reconsider these changes and ensure that the NDI continues to provide comprehensive, flexible, and participant-focused support.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Sincerely,

Daniella Fraser