PO Box 4016 Ainslie ACT 2602 ~ ACN: 623 372 047 email: convenor@a4.org.au Autism Aspergers Advocacy Australia web: https://a4.org.au{_fo,1
Committee Secretary
Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Depa1t ment of the Senate
PO Box6100
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
AUSTRALIA
Dear Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee,
I write briefly express major concerns about the proposed National Disability
Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024.
Autism Aspergers Advocacy Australia (A4) is a government-funded disability
representative organisation (DRO) primarily for Autistic Aush·alians ... and for
people with "lived experience" of autism. Notably, represents Autistic Australians
who are most severely and/ or profoundly affected by their autism, some of the people
needing very substantial levels of support.
Previously, A4 provided submission 142; our views have not changed. Briefly, A4's
concerns are that the draft/ proposed legislation:
1. requires the use of one or more assessment tools to assess the needs of an
NDIS participant. Currently, there is no tool that exists for autistic NDIS
pa1t icipants, so this aspect of the law is at the ve1y least premature.
2. may prevent the NDIS from supporting participants when the NDIS believe
the support should be Foundational Suppo1t s available elsewhere - but the
legislation fails to ensure the participants can access those suppo1t s
elsewhere. It is not yet agreed what things constitute Foundational Supports
... so again, this aspect of the legislation is extremely premature.
3. imposes the CEO with quite a few new powers both in terms of setting
operational procedures and affecting supports for individual NDIS
pa1t icipants. The legislation fails to ensure that all these new CEO powers are
externally or independently reviewable.
4. fails to recognise that a participant's disability often varies over time. Some
disability types are degenerative - part of a person's condition may not have
met "access requirements" when they got their initial access to the NDIS so it
was not among the conditions listed for access, but subsequent degeneration
of their condition requires new support. Or a NDIS participant might be
injured and thus get new disability support needs. Sometimes, how their
disability is described will change (for example, new names are given to newly
recognised genetic conditions). The proposed legislation limits support for
such changed circumstances.
The Minister's reasons for the legislation are misleading is many ways, for example:
- Fraud is fraud - no new legislation is needed to prosecute fraud.
- There is no automatic top-up of plans when plan funding is exhausted. His public announcement on this were seriously unhu thful. The existing Page 1 of3 Autism Aspergers Advocacy Australia acknowledges the traditional owners and custodians of the lands on which we live and work. We respect past, present and emerging elders. We recognise their continuing connection to lands, waters, and cultures. Sovereignty over the lands was never ceded. Addressees are subject to A4’s policy on unanswered questions: see https://M.org.au/node/1419
legislation requires either the participant to request or the CEO to conduct a
even if the requests in a s48 review are granted, this cannot be described as “automatic top-up”.
- The NDIA already uses assessment tool (which are unreliable and usually inappropriate for young autistic NDIS participants) in its planning process; demonstrably, legislation is not needed for this to occur.
The proposed legislation, by putting the NDIA’s Exclusions List for types of support in the Rules, will give the CEO the power to decide what is on the NDIA’s Exclusions List. The legislation does not require clinical (or any other formal) judgement or sector agreement to be sought when adding items to the NDIA’s Exclusions List - it’s all just at the CEO whim. Then when someone asks for things like an assistance dog, toilet training program, EIBI/ABA, etc. that will be on the Exclusions List, the NDIA just says to the AAT (or the coming ART) - denial of those supports is all in the Rules so it’s outside your jurisdiction. The individual NDIS participant has no way to have that CEO power (putting items on the NDIA’s exclusion list) reviewed independently.
A fundamental problem with this draft/proposed legislation is that it simply does not identify properly the problems that it is trying to address nor test whether the proposed legislation is likely to reduce or eliminate the problems/challenges.
A major part of the existing problem is that the NDIA’s implementation of the NDIS simply does not realise the existing legislation. Its access and planning operations do not deliver on the Objects of the NDIS Act 2013. For example, its use of Primary and Secondary disability types is simplistic, inaccurate, and unhelpful. Existing law is not the problem that needs to be addressed; how the NDIA interprets the Act is.
A4’s guess is that the problem that the Minister hopes to solve with this knee-jerk legislation is the media’s perception that any NDIS is unsustainable. It is important to appreciate the full nature of the issue. Is it about perceptions and expectations that:
- the media and politicians will make the cost of the NDIS an election issue?
- human rights for people with disability are unaffordable for Australia’s economy?
- people with disability are just bludgers on our community? and/or
- some other reasons.
Government must properly understand and review the challenges associated with how Australians with disability, including the growing number of Autistic Australians with severe and profound disability (see httJ>s: //www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/disability/disability-ageing-and-carers-australia-summazy-findings/latest-release) are supported and included in Australia and its economy.
Currently, 36% of NDIS participants list “autism” as their primary disability (there are many more autistic NDIS participants) yet their voices and the voices of their representatives are not being listened to.
The disability sector fully supports genuine efforts to eliminate fraud, misuse, overspending and inefficient use of funding. However, as with all government efforts that affect part of a population and particularly vulnerable parts of the community, policy and programs must be based on genuine consultations and agreement with the community.
Recommendation
A4- recommends that the proposed legislation be scrapped and a proper consultation with the disability sector (including the autism sector) be started instead.
Co-convenor, Autism Aspergers Advo redacted Australia
12/ 07/ 2024
Page 3 of 3