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

Submission 74

To the Hon. James Merlino I am writing to you in your role as Disability Minister for the State of Victoria. I sincerely appreciate your ongoing support for people with disabilities. I’m writing as a mental health occupational therapist and family member of a person with a disability.

I’m writing to express concern around particular proposed changes to the NDIS Act (2013), contained in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Participant Service Guarantee and Other Measures) Bill 2021.

While some aspects of the Bill are positive and demonstrate ongoing commitment to providing individualised, reasonable and necessary support to people with a disability based on their needs through the NDIS, the following proposed changes are alarming, and will potentially lead to negative experiences and outcomes for people with disabilities.

1. Schedule 1: Item 22

The newly inserted Section 47A which empowers the CEO to vary a participant’s plan (excluding the participant’s statements of goals and aspirations), without requiring a plan reassessment to be undertaken or a new plan to be created.

Varying of participants’ plans when this has been requested by the participant, in response to disability support needs can frequently be merited. However it is concerning that the CEO may vary a participant plan without requiring a plan re-assessment; and without request, consultation, or consent from the participant.

2. Schedule 1: Item 59

Provides (by amending s 209(8)) that all new rule-making provisions in Schedule 1 in relation to the guarantee, which will be inserted by this bill will be Category C rules. Category C rules require agreement of the Commonwealth and majority of states and territories.

NDIS (Participant Service Guarantee) Rules 2021 should have higher status than category c rules, and require unanimous agreement from jurisdictions to any changes to these rules i.e., category A. Changes to these rules are fundamental to NDIS, and to participant experience and outcome – these changes merit requirement of absolute agreement across all jurisdictions including all states and territories. Without this agreement, the NDIS is at risk of being politicised and cannot guarantee certainty and consistency of support needed by those with lifelong disabilities.

3. While changes to the NDIS Act (2013) better reflecting fluctuating and episodic nature psychosocial disability, are commended I’m concerned regarding ambiguity terminology used proposed changes ndis rules becoming partcipant rules(part 2)(8). The ambiguity terms such as ‘appropriate treatment’ and ‘substantial improvement’ potentially disadvantage people with psychosocial disability other forms fluctuating or episodic disability - creating barrier accessing nids due unclear treatment requirements lack definition around ; substantial improvement. This cohort participants already face significant disadvantages difficulty self-advocating difficult access services they need.

In summary please use your voice halt currently propose change legislation until it has been re-drafted meet needs people disability future ndis.

Thank you for listening, With respect, Lakshmi Shesan Mental Health Occupational Therapist