NDIA Accountability Project

Concerns about assessment and funding for participants with multiple disabilities

‹ PrevPage 1 of 2 · Source p. 1Next ›

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

Submission 59

Tomika Hillebrand Support Worker & Advocate Hillebrand Shaw & Co E: info@hillebrandshawco.com

‘GETTING THE NDIS BACK ON TRACK NO. 1’ BILL (‘the Bill’)

Dear Senate Committee,

My name is Tomika Hillebrand. I am a support worker and disability advocate. My qualifications include a Bachelor of Social Science, Bachelor of Laws (Honours), Master of Laws and I am currently pursuing a PhD in Laws. I would like to take the opportunity make a submission to the Committee to raise concerns about the Bill and to provide recommendations on what amendments should be made to bring participants back to the centre of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).

Co-design & consultation for legislative instruments: I am concerned that the Bill gives the NDIS Minister the powers to make legislative instruments without having a legal requirement to consider the principle of co-design. This principle is an essential and fundamental notion that ensures that all key stakeholders to a NDIS-related issue are consulted before major changes are made. It should be a legal requirement for the Minister to consult shareholders in the creation of legislative instruments.

It should also be a requirement that the Minister has to publish (for all to access) a statement that details: the issue at hand, the individuals/organisations that were consulted, a summary of the views expressed, and the weight afforded to each view in creating the legislative instrument.

Needs Assessments:

‘Whole of Person’ Funding: The Bill as it stands currently fails to assess and fund participants at a ‘whole of person’ level. It fails to consider support needs arising from impairments that may not satisfy the disability requirements. Whether a disability meets the disability access requirements is irrelevant considering the serious and adverse impact it may be having on a participant who suffers from multiple disabilities. Interrelated disabilities are very common and whether it satisfies a bureaucratic check box system does not remove from the fact that multiple disabilities may be impacting on someone’s primary disability and their functional impairment overall. The new Bill needs to use the ‘Whole of Person’ system for assessment and funding purposes.

Right to Receive Needs Report: Participants should have the right to view and make comments on their Needs Assessment before it is finalised. They should also be allowed to invite their own specialists to make comments on their needs assessment before it is finalised. This would provide a holistic approach to the process, while ensuring that a determination is not just made based on the assessment of a single provider who may not know the participant as well as their treating specialists.

In addition, a replacement assessment, if requested by the participant, should be allowed. The participant should not have to provide reasons for their request for replacement. The participant should be able to undergo a secondary assessment with another provider if requested. They should not have to provide reasons why, however, if the participant decides they would like to provide reasons, there should be a formal complaint process in place for the participant to be able to identify unprofessional assessment providers.

If the participant is not happy with the second assessment, then they should be able to by virtue of internal review, be able to request another and give their reasons why.

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

Submission 59

Tomika Hillebrand Support Worker & Advocate Hillebrand Shaw & Co E: info@hillebrandshawco.com

Importantly, it should not be for the CEO to be satisfied for a replacement assessment to be undertaken.

Information-gathering powers:

Mandatory medical assessments are entirely inappropriate. They should not be incorporated into this Bill. Participants should not have to, nor should they be compelled to undergo an assessment, even in the context of access being revoked. The NDIA should afford value to the service providers and treating practitioners of the participants and if the NDIA requires further information, they should make their request in writing. It should be made clear:

  • What information is required;
  • Why this information is required in lay terms so that everyone can understand it;
  • What part of the Rules or Legislation this falls under;
  • What kind of information is the best to satisfy the NDIA’s questions. Provide examples. A reasonable timeline should also be provided. Getting appointments with specialists can sometimes take months at a time. It is unreasonable to demand an answer to a request within 30 days.

Constraints on obtaining supports, spending funds, and plan management:

The Bill allows the NDIA to impose conditions on how a participant obtains supports, restricts spending of flexible funding, and override a participant’s plan management request. Power needs to be given back to the participant. If a budget is agreed upon and the participant has the capacity to manage their plan (either with or without the support of a coordinator/family) then why should there be limitations on how a participant spends their funding for their disability? Increased limitations on how a participant may use their provided NDIS budget takes away from self-determination, choice, and control. Participants are fully capable of making decisions for themselves and building a support network that works for them. If money is a concern, then the NDIA and the Government should focus more on addressing issues of fraud and misconduct.

Concluding Comments:

It is evident that those in positions of authority are balancing a number of policy, economic, and political considerations in making these changes. However, participants must always remain at the centre of the system. The participant’s capacity for self-determination, choice, and control are enhanced through systems that afford flexibility, while remembering that no one-size fits all approach works in the context of disability.

If you have any questions about my submission, do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely, Tomika Hillebrand Support Worker & Disability Advocate

Page 2 of 2