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

Submission 89

Submission on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting

the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024

Name: Mimi Horne

to whom it may concern

We want to respond to the proposed changes to the NDIS Bill. We are concerned with the proposed changes made by Bill Shorten to ban NDIS costs relating to non- assistance animals.

I am writing as an employee (Project Coordinator) and representative of Safe Pets Safe Families - an SA based non-profit charity leading the way in social support for people and pets in crisis. Having operated for ten years, our community engagements span domestic violence, homelessness, medical, mental health, disability, youth, and older people. Recently, our experience working with people living with disabilities led to the establishment of Pawsitive Support Solutions, providing critical support to people with a love for pets and animals.

At Safe Pets Safe Families, we champion the human animal bond proactively and wholeheartedly – with an emphasis on supporting human health and welfare, decreasing rates of animal surrender and neglect, and the intrinsic relationship between these two things. Our interventions are strictly evidence-based and we partner with key researchers in the field to make sure of it. Whilst the focus of this letter is on the NDIS bill, it can help to illustrate the impact of some of the work we do, hence the following two paragraphs.

Studies show that pets are a primary barrier to people leaving domestic violence; typically because there is nowhere the pet can go whilst crisis accommodation is utilised, and because perpetrators too commonly commit revenge violence against pets left behind. The loss of pets at such a traumatic time is additionally wounding for adults and children, further burdening their capacity to do well in future. With a foster care alternative through Safe Pets Safe Families, many of those at risk (mostly women and children) have found refuge from unsafe living conditions.

Pet owners living alone, with low to no social support, are notorious for neglecting their own health due to concerns relating to the care of their beloved companion animal/s. These are older people, socially isolated people, those under financial hardship, and people living with chronic medical conditions and disabilities. The burden on the medical system is greater when preventative measures are not taken, as are the health and lifestyle consequences for those personally affected. Again, our foster

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

Submission 89

The program has supported high numbers of vulnerable people to seek the health care they need.

We have many examples of human animal interventions that favour individual and social outcomes but let us focus now on the NDIS Bill.

We reject the idea that qualified assistance animals are the only animals contributing significantly or meaningfully to people living with disabilities. Or perhaps more accurately, we reject the idea that the bond between human and assistance animal is the only human animal bond deserving of support through NDS funding. This view is held from a place of education, observation, and experience; we are genuinely concerned.

Pets are cherished company, yes, but their wellbeing-function for people living with disabilities is much more than that. Over and over, we hear from our clients with disabilities that their pets are a reason to get up in the morning; that they motivate healthy responsibility and routine and are assets for greater independence. Some pets know the signs and symptoms of their owner’s health episodes, while others are a source of regulation and, quite plainly, a reason to stay alive.

We imagine such a decision to remove animal-assisted activities would be based on an attempt to save money – but we think that perspective is blind to the ways in which pets relieve social and medical systems. The following are some situations worth considering.

• If having an animal means improved psychiatric stability for a person living with severe mental health, is it reasonable to provide support for that same animal’s food to be prepared or their litter cleared?
• If a person has a cognitive impairment and their day is regulated by their companion animal, but that same companion animal has its own medical condition requiring multiple medications, is it reasonable to provide assisted veterinary appointments and medication management for that pet?
• If a person is autistic and is only comfortable socialising with other people by connecting via their pet, is it reasonable to assist them in linking with other people and pets with similar needs?

We think it is reasonable. Not only reasonable, but ethical. The implications of removing funding are too great. Our concern is for the people whose day-to-day functionality is observably improved by their non-assistance animals, yet need some help in supporting those animals, just like they need help with various other ADLs. It should be said that this concern is only greater for NDIS participants of financial disadvantage. In our experience, non-assistance animals prove their worth as a significant protective factor for people living with disabilities, time and time again.

I hope the Committee will take all submissions seriously in preparing its report.

Regards, Mimi Horne On behalf of Safe Pets Safe Families