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

Dear Members of the Committee review the NDIS 2024 Bill. This submission is extremely rough due to time constraints.. sorry! I went through the bill and commented on sections of concern, I hope you understand them.. if not please contact me.

I am a retired Dept of Human Services (Centrelink) social worker with an employment background in federal and state government Policy/legislation creation and implementation, debt management, as an (ARO) authorised review officer and moreover a current self funded recipient of NDIS.

I reviewed this Bill and became so horrified at the tone of the Bill that I requested my friend Dena_. who is also retired DoHS management employee to review this separately so I could check if my observations were reasonable - she confirmed my observations.

We understand the need to manage budgets for the Government but this Bill will not achieve this.. this bill needs to be reassessed and have people with a disability to help show the government how to save money. I’m happy to help!

ONE MAJOR theme stood out … the tone! All legislations have a ‘vibe’ aka a mission that is written into them. This NDIS 2024 Bill has a ‘vibe’ of utilitarianism/accrual accounting.. or in other words this Bill said to us…(participants are not human).. we are number or a ‘class’ or type of disabilities to be grouped together. And amazingly this wording was written in the Bill!! …..And without being dramatic, this is exactly what Hitler did!. When are we going to learn from history?. Grouping people into ‘classes of disabilities’ it starts with people with a disability… then the aged.. then the refugees.. it is the common story of the ‘fear of the other’ by making them ‘Not human’.. just an accounting issue. This tone has dangerous repercussions for misuse in future Acts.

9 main points are covered in this submission:

1.Poor appeal process. The Entire bill, presumes that people with a disability have the cognitive ability/capacity to argue with NDIA and be able to fight legally for their rights. Equally, families are ill equipped to manage this also. (Centrelink is actually fairer and easier). This bill will make disabled people unable to appeal appropriately compared to the average Australian, thus forcing them to accept NDIA rulings as thier process is too legalistic. - Recommendation; create an legislative equivalent to Centrelink - an ARO (authorised Review officer - a general staff member is not sufficient) and SSAT (Social Security Appeals Tribunal). .. Will stop unnecessary AAT rulings.

2. Insulting terminology. The term used in the bill to puts people with a disability into “Classes of participants” - is extremely insulting. Our thoughts individually (and separately) were categorising participants as ‘classes’ was… “Nazis”. “train to AUSCHWITZ concentration camp” - Recommendation; Remove this entirely.

3. Imbalance of power. Reasonable and necessary only for BUDGET not support.

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

vice .. all determined by NDIA. Recommendation- very confusing.. are they taking away choice and control from Participants?. This bill appears to put all the choice and control to NDIA.

4. impossible timeframes. Timeframes for reports for specialists 90 days!! Is currently Not doable across Australia. (Plans will not be renewed) ie waiting time for neurologist in northern Tasmania is currently 1739 days), see link. Recommendation; scrap this as it is unworkable.

5. DEEMED compensation is USA style. Insurance will increase for ALL. poor will get othing as unable to fight in courts. This will cause all insurances businesses to increase there costs to cover disability for life. Recommendation; scrap this

6. Capping funds instead of reassessing need or checking provider. Dangerous if funds run out. Recommendation; participants need a local NDIS Community/visitor officer who can visit these participants to SEE what the issue is and phone call is NOT enough!.. typically it is due to incorrect reports/agencies charging too much from the plan/fraud. They can provide feedback to NDIA compliance team / safety. ( Aged Care Assessment Team - A CAT style.)

7. Payments ceasing no timeframe.. Will cause debts. - Ownership of debts if plan anaged- garnishee from participants process is wrong when debt was made by provider! V s offence.. contradictory. - Review process is very legalistic .. see attachments Recommendation; needs a written notice of 30 days minimum.

8. Penalising the many for the few.. this bill is clearly punishing all people with a disability.. instead of focusing on the few misuser ie alcohol and bad providers. Recommendation, trust the participants (owe know our disabilities best) . support the few participants who are making poor choices by providing case management. Providers only give a paid service.. they do not recommend NDIA to increase services for participants (not their role) - if we only use limited providers we are at risk of being treated as ‘cash cows’ and being misused.

9. Overriding the VOICE of the participant ..they won’t be heard. Recommendation, uphold the original NDIS ACT of the participants having choice and control.

thoughts: The current Act is better and safer. This bill needs to be stopped and rethought. nothing in this bill is good.. and can not be negotiated. This bill is Knee jerk reaction.. serious review needed how much agencies are charging.. this bill supports the agencies who will make a fortune. You Need to Oversee providers more than participants! I was charged $97 for 2 x forks and 2 x spoons from a NDIS provider.. I can provide the invoice as proof. Where is the choice and control; where is the participants Voice in this bill?

Actual Bill points; section 5 , point 9 .. Taking out reasonable and necessary SUPPORT, leaves the all power in NDIA interpretation but see 32H talks about reasonable and necessary BUDGET.. (??? ) No protection re Knowingly re debts …. Bill needs the same powers as human services (Centrelink) which requires upon a request of a review the staff member to look at the situation, then if the participants is not satisfied then it goes to an ASO6 anauthorised review officer (which is a mandated legal position in human services). If this is ot satisfactory to the participant then they are able to go to the equivalent of the Social Security appeals tribunal circumventing the need for a holistic change of policy by the government which the AAT (administrative Appeals Tribunal currently mandates.) see SS A section ?? - 3 legged cat scenario.. what to do with unusual situations

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

Section 30|5: 90 days for reports - current waiting period for a non urgent appt to see a neurologist in northern tasmania is 1739 days which is 4.761 Years as of 30 April 2024

https://outpatients.tas.gov.au/clinicians/wait_times/northern_region

Section 31 /8: no time frame for warning that payments will stop… people hire staff via agencies… unable to cover this potential debt.

Section 35 /3 overrides participants voice… with no appeal.

Section 36 32/B: see note.. so can cancel previous plan start plan – No protection or grandfathering.

$36 32 B we are being put into boxes not individual needs … CLASSES (is offensive). Plus, no time frames in legislation… ie policy can be changed on a whim. Plans can be changed at any time by CEO…no voice again before decision made.

$32D /2 ‘statement of participant supports’… requirement! - expect the community to do more?? Supports refer to unpaid ‘supports’ … Why needed? Needs based Comcare.- big issue!

32E 2a Capping Funds .. dangerous. Risk is huge for people being left without care.

32F 7B.: ‘not knowingly defraud’… issues re participant ownership of debt vs management of plans by other agencies. Who is responsible for the debt?

32/k 1b.: restricting equipment funding… limited choice… ie NO wheelchair Paralympics; city wheel chair; beach wheelchair…limited access to equipment. 32K 4 DEEMED compensation … USA style Insurance… passing buck back to insurance companies will have a negative effect in the courts… increased payouts with increased insurance rates for all Australians.

32K total funding amounts… CAPPING total amounts – 32k 5 CLASSES OF PARTICIPANTS!!!! See also 32 B.. legislation instruments … nazi Classes what happens if disability cross-lines?… cerebral palsy… brain injury OMG Compensation–have to sue! Deemed if you don’t Cognitive abilities to be able to fight this - huge problem.

32 7L notes: grandfathering see 32 B note… replacement plans… no requirement to uphold AAT ruling as can create new plan… sunsetting removed.

32L /7: No accountability…review appeal.

43 only agency approved suppliers…see forks— not cost effective (before subsection 33(6))

44 sub section 33/7 they can add additional matters…. ???? Like what??? dangerous.

$32H page 25 ALL dangerous $32K is capping Need to better manage providers, not penalise participants https://www.kidspot.com.au/news/my-sons-care-costs-2m-and-its-still-not-enough/

63 Subsection 43b.: (2c) a & b …misuse of funds???. .. down to interpretation.. choice and control Appeal?

78 …. though out the bill… ‘Reasonable and necessary BUDGET’ NDIS supports… who determines this definition – right of appeal outside NDIA - Not there.

83 should be incorporated throughout the Bill not after

47.(A): 2 warm and fuzzy but it is contrary to rest of bill See Page 28…

$32L: 7 CEO has all the power.

96 /73 insert problem if they are not getting their own money or spending their own money how can they be held responsible if debt rises Provider spends as they see fit Capping means unable amend plan Providers run out of money what happens to person with disability legal duty care issues re capping.

129 needs to be grandfathered when plans reviewed Already accepted, but need have clause in act some participants do not have provide additional proof Disability ie leg grown back,

131 no Right Of Appeal suspended Plans.

132 .very complicated Need more info.

134 discusses garnishing participant BUT No protection of They Have ‘not knowingly’ see SSA Act defrauded government i e Plan manager Is The Defrauder

138 states that NO offences Or Civil Penalties But An Offence IS Breach OF Rules Then Garnishee https://www.choice.com.au/shopping/shopping-for

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

Submission 987