Submission 185

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

Submission for Inquiry into NDIS Bill

Please note that I am totally unable to understand the Act at all due to the legal aspects involved. This submission is based on what I have understood about the changes and the explanatory Memorandum.

I also believe that for the Labor Government to rush through this Bill is absolutely totally unfair. They MUST supply much more detail instead of making open ended statements without explanation or assessing the actual impact on participants. I’m sure the time allocated to the Inquiry does not allow for the volume of submissions.

Background

• I am the Carer for who has a brain injury that occurred in January 2010.
• It took us over 14 years to receive compensation from the NSW Government and that compensation ONLY covered the period between the injury and the allocation of her Disability Support Pension(DSP). There is absolutely NO WAY her DSP supplies the actual support needed.

•       received the NDIS in 2017 and she has aged substantially since then as I her Carer have aged as well .
  

• Her Brain Injury has not improved at all and we have supplied 3 sets of MRI results to the NDIA that prove that fact.
• There can be NO medical treatment that can improve her brain injury. In fact she is currently seeing a specialist neurologist to determine whether her continual headaches that she has are directly related to her brain injury.
• The NDIA have previously listed me as her informal support yet they do absolutely nothing at all to prevent Carer Burnout which has NOT even been mentioned in the changes proposed and Carer Burnout is not even mentioned in any plan reviews that have been undertaken.
• The NDIA do NOT even take into account how changes to plans actually affect the mental health of participants and their Carers. This affect on their mental health results in excessive use of state government resources due to the total lack of proper communication with participants and their Carers.

Submission 185

Systemic Failures with the NDIA

8. This Bill completely fails to address the failures within the NDIA systems and fails to advise where any review has actually been taken into NDIA systems to improve efficiency, communication and performance. One Example is how can a plan issued on the 31st January 2026 and the email states that it’s available online on that day, actually not be available online until the 11th May 2026? Despite Ministerial complaints and separate complaints nobody in the NDIA undertook any follow up action to find out why the plan wasn’t available. This is just an example of not only a communication failure but a total failure of follow up action. This is an extremely poor performance by NDIA staff that has resulted in not only stress on the participant but increased actions by NDIA Staff.

9. Another example alone is the $60 Million dollars spent last year on legal representation in the ART. Where does this Bill even mention what actions the NDIA are taking to reduce the number of cases in the ART and reduce the legal costs of such cases? These ART cases are directly related to failed decisions made concerning reductions in plans or refusals to allow equipment etc. Where are these cases used to change policies or procedures? 10.One also questions the need for extensive reports and assessments by Occupational Therapists for a number of Home Modifications. Items are covered by Warranty and Insurance as well. Where has the need for all these OT reports actually been assessed by the NDIA? What is the total cost per year of all these reports and where has the NDIA even reassessed the need for all those OT reports? A reduction would be a huge saving in expenditure.

Compensation Schemes

11.The use of compensation schemes does not take into account the following factors: a) Compensation schemes are limited to stringent State Government legislation and in most cases payment is not lifelong after an accident. In our case compensation ended once received the Disability Support Pension. So are you saying because she has some compensation then the NDIS won’t fund her supports? In our case we fully informed the NDIS exactly how was affected by compensation which was in fact too little and too late. b) The State Government legislation must be amended or updated prior to any changes in the NDIS regarding compensation. c) It can take many years for a disabled person to receive compensation at all. What happens during those years? How do they cope without any support at all?

Submission 185

Schedule ONE

Changes and Reassessments

12.The proposed Bill states that changes won’t happen until October 2026 yet plan was seriously changed in January 2026 without any prior advice to us. We are still suffering badly as a result of the reduction in support. The communication concerning these changes has been atrocious to say the least. To state that if in Crisis we should seek help from Lifeline or Beyond Blue is a joke because they cannot do anything at all to help us. The reduction in supports has affected us so badly that we are both still thinking about suicide. It’s this total lack of concentration now that has caused me to have a serious fall from which I am still recovering. This is how reassessments can affect carers or participants. 13.What I don’t understand here is that has a Brain Injury that will never improve and maybe even get worse. received the NDIS in 2017 yet there have been changes to her original assessment of support needs. Any such changes cannot be justified on the basis of value for money when originally was assessed as requiring 4 hours per day for support. Her condition has NOT changed at all. 14.To reduce weekends and public holidays to ONE hour a day is a total joke. Surely requires the same support every day whether it a weekend day or a public holiday? The reviewing officer even stated that yet her plan was not changed at all. 15.The exact reason for reducing her support from 4 hours per day down to 3 hours per day has never been explained to us and the concept of who will undertake the extra hour of support not supplied by the NDIS has never been explained either. As her informal support I am already stretched to the complete limit of what I can do. Does that mean we both miss out on the standard of life previously assessed by the NDIS? YES it does. Does that mean we miss out on meals because at the end of the day I am too tired and exhausted? YES it does. 16.The other reason given for reduction in plan was the support was not effective and beneficial. Well gee excuse me !!!! We supplied a 30 page report from an Occupational Therapist (OT) that cost $3,000 and that was not obviously enough justification for being effective and beneficial? In fact when plan was assessed in January 2026 the report submitted in November 2025 was not even used but an OT report over 12 months old was used instead. How could this even happen? The review has NOT even commented on the functional assessment undertaken by the OT. So what was the use of paying $3,000 for the assessment? Is this Value For Money?

Submission 185

The review states that “ A significant number of resources are available through Carer’s Gateway”. This was a total waste of time because I have been using Carer’s Gateway since January 2026 and in fact resources there are very limited anyway. They will only supply support in an emergency and even then limited to maybe 6 hours at the most.

Counselling will NOT reduce the affect seriously reduced support has had on me and I have suffered serious mental health problems since the reduction in plan in January 2026. These mental health problems will NOT go away.

Any supports are needed to ensure that has a suitable standard of life and that I do not suffer Carer Burnout. Right now the reductions made have clearly badly affected both of us and the NDIA don’t care one bit how we are affected. A Carers impact statement and letter from my doctor was supplied but the NDIA completely disregarded both of these documents. How can a 73 year old carer even be expected to look after a person with a Brain Injury with only a ONE HOUR break on weekends? Can the Committee please explain to me how I can be expected to cope at all for 24 hours on weekends?

Contact with Participants

Our experience has been horrific with attempts to contact us by the NDIA so how can you say that “Allow for the suspension of plans where reasonable attempts have been made to contact the participant and the participant has not responded to requests for relevant information. Allow for a plan to be revoked if contact is not made within 90 days.”

In our case a staff member of the NDIA called us without any previous notice of a Private Number calling and we were in the doctors office and did not answer the call. Next we receive a threatening letter stating that unless we contacted the NDIA before the 2nd April our appeal would go ahead without contacting us.

ALL calls from the NDIA must be notified first. We even had an email from a Reviews Branch wanting us to advise a suitable time for a call and we get an email response saying the case is closed.

Definition of Permanence

“Clarify the definition of permanence by introducing the concept of ‘all appropriate treatment’.”

Perhaps the Committee can clarify how a person with a Brain Injury can receive all appropriate treatment when the NDIA obviously don’t accept evidence of treatment by Westmead Hospital in 2010 and three subsequent MRI reports over various years as evidence of the fact that is NOT getting better and all treatments have been exhausted. They still go ahead and reduce her plan despite the medical evidence and a 30 page report from the OT.

Any reduction in a plan MUST clearly address all elements of a complete functional assessment explaining in terms of the functional assessment instead of just stating Value For Money and Effective and Beneficial.

Submission 185

Other Service Systems

25.“Require that a participant’s eligibility for certain other service systems must be taken into account when making decisions about access to the NDIS.”

26.The other service systems have NOT even been defined for me to comment but in reality other service systems do not apply because needs in home supports and I do NOT know of any other systems that supply in home supports. The Bill MUST fully identify these so called other service areas and ensure suitable funding arrangements have been made before the Bill is passed. In a lot of regional towns there are no other services.

27.All I know is that as her informal Carer, I can no longer supply support for the amount of time required because I no longer have the energy and ability to support for almost 24 hours without at least a break for 4 or 5 hours.

Schedule Two - Fraud Etc

28.In my opinion the majority of providers are decent and trustworthy. Whilst there are a number guilty of fraud I believe that the NDIA review systems on providers has failed to adequately protect participants from fraud.

29.There must also be a complete review of NDIA inspection systems to ascertain their effectiveness and value for money.

30.There must also be a clear rating system for providers.

31.There must also be a detailed investigation into the pricing associated with services and equipment supplied by various vendors. Some vendors immediately raise the price as soon as you mention the NDIS. One example is a quote for a registered contractor to install one rail was $200 with us paying yet through the NDIS the cost was $1,000 for two rails.

Ban providers of plan management supports from providing any other supports under the NDIS

32.Exactly how is this going to work and what will it in fact stop this from happening? Previous inspection by NDIA inspectors have failed to identify this happening.

Schedule 3

33.Automated Decision Making has totally failed in Robodebt and in recent Aged Care Assessments. The Aged Care case is currently under investigation by the Ombudsman. Any decision here must be delayed until such time the Ombudsman has made his report. How would any automated decision making in the NDIS be any different? How many plans in 2026 have already used automated decision making?

34.Any automated decision making MUST be advised to the participant with a full detailed list of the documents used in the assessment. In our case we were not advised whether automated decision making was used. The participant MUST be given the choice of refusing any automated decision making.

35.Recommendation 17.1 of the Robodebt Royal Commission, explicitly stated: “Where automated decision-making is implemented: there should be a clear path for those affected by decisions to seek review.” So where is the avenue for review of any automated decisions?

Submission 185

Summary

36.This Bill has clearly been rushed through just like the Bills after the incident at Bondi and there has not been enough consultation with participants at all and definitely not enough evaluation of other areas within the NDIA that can reduce expenditure.

37.There must be a full review of NDIA operations and an attempt to reduce excessive expenditure like the $60 Million spent in the Tribunal for legal expenses.

38.Any use of automation must be clearly identified to participants with all documentation fully addressed in results. There can be no more saying “Best Value” without full details being given of what is not Best Value, even more so when the NDIA can spend $60 million dollars without any review to reduce expenditure.

39.There must be a full review of communication systems used to communicate with participants. To have emails received from a no reply email advising the case is closed without reference to any communication from the participant is totally unacceptable. To receive emails signed by NDIS without any name of the person involved is also totally unacceptable.

40.A case cannot be closed when the person involved is still going to contact the participant or there is still some action outstanding. In our instance the case was closed yet the plan was still not available online and that availability was not even monitored at all. It took the NDIA almost 5 Months to verify that the plan was available online.

41.There must be clear communication with the participant both before a review is started and before the results of the review are advised. All phone calls from the NDIA must be preceded by a text message advising that you will received a call from a private number. Clear and efficient communication would reduce the number of staff needed in the contact centre and clear and better communication might just reduce cases in the Tribunal.

42.There must be a full review of NDIA inspection systems to ensure complete effectiveness in identifying fraud. The time frame for reviews of providers must be clearly identified in the Act. There must be a rating system used for Providers.

43.Other service systems must be fully identified and funding confirmed before the Bill can be passed. To say that the Carers Gateway can be used in totally not acceptable because it’s use is extremely limited. In my case they only gave me 6 hours support because I had a fall and this support is not available on weekends.

44.The bill must identify exactly who will pay for treatments to ensure that the disability is permanent. Once an applicant complies with a request from the NDIA there should no further requests made. Applicants do not have unlimited funds to obtain a number of medical reports associated with a disability. People have told me that the continual requests for reports from the NDIA is an attempt to make them go away.

Submission 185

• To say that if we are in Crisis to contact Lifeline or Beyond Blue is a legal requirement but one has to ask exactly how they can help us when the problem is related to how a reduction in funding and supports affects us and the lack of correct communication from the NDIA. The problem is caused by a total lack of correct and clear communication by the NDIA and no exact details given in decisions made. The NDIA must be NOT be permitted to send emails on a Saturday Morning or very late on a Friday afternoon.

• Compensation Schemes must also be overhauled if you are saying that anybody who receives compensation will not be eligible for the NDIS. Most compensation schemes run by State Governments totally fail to supply Full Life support due to the failure of legislation. For anybody to wait almost 14 years for compensation is a joke and the NDIS cannot say that anybody on compensation won’t get the NDIS if there is not Full Life support in compensation.

• The need for various reports from Allied Health professionals must also be fully reviewed and linked to permanency of disability. The type of reports required must be clearly identified in ALL plans as well as the time allocated for these reports. There is the capacity there for a substantial reduction in expenditure that has not even been addressed.

• This Bill should not be approved until such time as all other supports or services are fully identified and funded. The government cannot leave any disabled person without needed supports for any amount of time and in some cases in regional areas there are no other supports.

• This Bill totally fails to address the impact reductions in NDIS funding will affect the many Small Businesses that supply support to NDIS Participants. These are Small Businesses with often local support workers in Regional Towns. Where else will participants get support in a small Regional Town.