8 November 2021

Committee Secretary Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs PO Box 6100 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600B

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Participant Service Guarantee and Other Measures) Bill 2021

PERSONAL

I have been a self-managing participant in the ACT since January 2015. I live wih a range of accepted and contested physical and mental conditions and disabilities.

I saw the policy writing on the wall towards unreasonably reducing the scope of the NDIS since an unexpectedly harsh annual review in mid 2017. I went through an internal review, appeal to the AAT, case management in the AAT, an AAT hearing and an AAT decision I was not happy with.

What this bill means to me is a continuation and augmentation of the uncertainty and fear I have been living with since mid-2017 that my supports could be reduced or removed with little reasonableness, notice or redress. This fear amplifies my anxiety and reduces my capacities to live a good life and participate in my communities. At worst, I face living in squalor, unable to invite people to my home and to get out into the community. I would be willing to make a statement to the hearing on 12 November, if I could do so from home.

SUBMISSION

I live with severe anxiety and fluctuating thinking. I also live with major challenges which reduced my capacity to work on these planned changes

I therefore provide this submission in general terms rather than my preference which would have been to name all sections, discuss them in clause order and always make specific alternative proposals. I nevertheless consider that it is clear what I am getting at.

Generally, I am in agreement with matters I haven’t discussed.

SUSTAINABILITY

I support attention being given to economic and social sustainability of the NDIS on the basis of proven economic and scheme performance data provided on a transparent and challengeable basis rather than simply on unsupported claims of endangering financial viability. It is not yet clear if that will be the case.

PARTICIPANTS SERVICE GUARANTEE¶

I do not support important issues such as the Participants Service Guarantee being able to be changed under category C Rules on the basis of a simple majority of jurisdictions rounded up, currently six, which could lead to governments attracting such support by using minimal bullying and/or bribery.

I support this being included in the Rules rather than the Act but requiring 8 out of 9 jurisdictions in favour. I do not support this happening without concurrent provision of all new Rules for consideration and approval as there may be unacceptable intended or unintended consequences.

OTHER CHANGES

I do not agree with mos yses pf category D Rules only requirig that all jurisdictions have been consulted rather than having agreed to changes.

FLUCTUATING SYMPTOMS

I accept the change with relation to psychosocial disability such that permanence can be accepted even when symptoms fluctuate. I also consider that that should be possible also for people living with physical disability such as ME/CFS.

REASONS FOR DECISIONS

The NDIS should hold detailed explanations of the reasons for decisions. I welcome that reasons would automatically be provided for plan decisions. However, I consider that they should also .be automatically provided on all other decision-making occasions, such as on internal consideration. I consider that this should happen as soon reasonably practicable rather than being delayed by requiring a request by the prospective or current participants. This wpuld enhance participants’ understanding of the reasons and reduce unnecessary disagreements.’

WORDING FOR ‘REVIEWS’

I support the substitution of ‘vary’ or ‘reassess’ for ‘review’ in the given situations, retaining the use of ‘review’ for consideration of previous internal reviewable decisions. ‘Vary’ can be

REASSESSMENTS

I have not been able to clarify whether reassessments by the agency, other than on scheduled dates, impose a burden on participants.

PROVIDER PAYMENTS

I support the proposal on page 31/62 of the PDF explanatory document:

“In addition, other amendments in this Schedule enable the Agency to pay service providers directly on behalf of participants, including self-managing participants, through a new payment platform (see amended section 45). This means some self- managing participants will no longer be required to pay for supports up front and then seek reimbursement.’”

The possibility of not having to pay upfront before claiming is welcome. However, I am concerned about possibilities shown in page 45/62 of the PDF explanatory memorandum that the NDIS may defer payments or require only short term payments:

“New subsection 45(2) clarifies that paragraph 45(1)(b) deals with how the payments can be made – specifically with relation to timing and whether amounts are paid as instalments or lump sum payments.”

This may take away substantial control from participants and could seriously change the nature of participants’ planning and implementation

Regards

Alexa McLaughlin

No machine-readable text was extracted from this page.