Dear Senate Community Affairs Legislative Committee,

I am writing to you to make known my concerns about the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track) Bill 2024. I have taken the time to read over the Bill and Explanatory Memorandum and my concerns lie, generally, in the lack of detail included in the Bill, the lack of disclosure around how the contents of the Bill were formed, The limited review opportunities the new Bill gives participants, the assumptions it makes, and the vague language used.

Cap on NDIS Budget

The bill states that the budget will be capped at an 8% increase every year and doesn’t say anything about how. Who is going to miss out because of this?

Lack of Detail

There are many areas of this Bill that lack a severe level of detail. One of these is the ‘landscape of supports’ that is referred to in the EM. There is no detail about what this landscape of supports is. It leaves me with questions like: What are the other options? And who is referring people to these options if the NDIS denies them?

I think there needs to be some explanation of what this landscape of supports is and give people an understanding of what their other options are if they are failed by the NDIS.

It is also said that the funding provided to participants will be in accordance with the new definition of ‘NDIS Supports’, however, the definition of NDIS Support exclusively refers to NDIS Rules which have not yet been written. How are we meant to know what is going to be included in the Rules, or included as an eligible NDIS Support if it is not included anywhere in the actual legislation?

Who is going to miss out because of these changes?

Further is the mention in various places about timeframes that are going to be placed on the NDIA and the CEO to do certain things. However, there is no mention of what will happen if these timeframes are not met. Consistently with the current system, the NDIA does not meet their ‘participant service guarantee’ but it does not seem to matter at all. Whereas, if a participant does not meet their timeframes, they can be removed from the Scheme. There needs to be much clearer information about who will be held responsible and how for every action or inaction if any changes to the NDIS happen.

‘Reasonable and Necessary Budget’

The original intent of the NDIS was meant to be ‘for life’. This new Bill makes this not the case.

It seems to make it far too easy for participants to have their supports revoked or reduced. The change of phrasing from ‘reasonable and necessary support’ to ‘reasonable and necessary budget’ leaves a lot of confusion. If people are assessed not by what supports they need but by a monetary amount, how will this change the current and future plans of participants? Also, why is it the CEO who is the one making changes to people’s ‘budget’? It does not seem that in reality the CEO would be the one personally responsible for reviewing each and every NDIS participant’s plan.

Another issue with the change to a ‘budget’ rather than listed supports

A capped budget for a participant doesn’t appear to consider changes to circumstances. If you use up your plan early because your circumstances change, then is the NDIS not going to help you?

Lack of Disclosure

It has been said that the Rules and assessment process will be made with co-design with the disability community, however, they have not said how this co-design process will work or to what level they will accept the input of the disability community. There needs to be a formal framework already put into place before this process even begins. The entire thing also needs to be completely transparent and openly accessible to anyone who wants to access it.

Limited Review and Appeal Opportunities

Where a person is trying to access the NDIS and is denied, or where they are denied on certain claims but allowed others, there are severely limited options to appeal these decisions. Often, the person can only request one review of the decision which may only end up with them being informed of the reason they were denied, and no actual review or change of the decision.

The Onus is on the Participant

The inclusions that the CEO can request any information and reports reasonably necessary at any time places an incredible onus on the participants. This seems to be another way the Agency is trying to save money and cause more delays. It is unclear from the Bill whether there are any restrictions placed on the requests for information, or whether the NDIA will have any responsibility to commission any of the reports or tests they would ask for in making their determination. For example, if the CEO requests an Occupational Therapy assessment, is the CEO responsible for organising and paying for that, or is it the participant’s job to find, schedule and fund an OT assessment?

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

Submission 315

Could the NDIS assessor just keep asking for more pieces of evidence and reports one after the other to drag the access application out over a long period of time to delay having to aactually provide funding for the supports a person needs?

is there any allowance for failure to comply with a time limit on providing a document where the participant has experienced a difficulty due to their disability? What if they were unable to leave the house on the day of an appointment? Or what if they had no one who could help hem read and understand a request for information where they are intellectually unable to do s `redacted"> This is another area where it’s too vague. The bill says that our status will be evoked unless the CEO is “otherwise satisfied there are reasonable grounds to have not complied with that request.” But that doesn’t say anything about what “reasonable grounds“ are, and is too easily interpreted to mean whatever the CEO wants it to mean - and again, it seems to be up to just one person to decide.

Assumptions

though not explicitly written, in practice, there is an assumption that a disabled person’sriends and family are going to pick up the slack of what the NDIS chooses not to support. If hey will not provide support for a person to get groceries, it is their family’s job to do it for t`. If they do not have support to travel to a medical appointment, their friend can drive t.\This plays into the landscape of support that the NDIS assumes every person has access ito while this is quite often not the case. Not everyone has contact with their family. Not everyone has a network of friends to help them. Not everyone feels comfortable asking the people around them for help every day.

i think there needs to be a reset in the process. The process needs to be transparent and detail from the start. The contradictions that are currently occurring between what is being shared in the media and what is actually in the wording of the Bill need to stop. There needs to be a severe reduction in the vague language used because this leaves far too much ambiguity and uncertainty moving forward. And finally, the disabled community’s ecommendations need to be far more included, not just picked and chosen from.

thank you for our consideration,