Submission: National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission Number - Not Provided Publication: My name must be kept private but may appear on inquiry webpage. This submission reflects experience related physical disabilities such as autism spectrum disorder level three intellectual disability psychosocial disability etc., supporting long-term sustainability objectives NDIS however Bill current form unsupported due numerous issues Committee should amend before passage. The short timeframe responses means errors possible after reading hundreds pages bill explanatory memorandum In current form this will not save taxpayer money because other community resources bear financial burden meeting needs vulnerable participants losing supports Increased usage police callouts mentally unwell ambulance calls emergency department presentations both participants informal support health complications carer burnout appears costs shifted publicly funded services ultimately borne taxpayer If predicted serious harms result individuals Royal Commission huge expense taxpayers Other cost-cutting measures unfortunately palatable MPs Senators reduction entitlements existing former MPs senators unpopular electorate exhausted governments tell them lose access service government itself does address finite resource Please note concerns listed order importance (9B) The functional capacity test Test revolves around assessing ability complete activity without assistance others technology excludes impact participant’s environment personal situation This is how disability works multiple impairments cannot separated For

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission: Submission 1884

example, an intellectual disability shapes a person’s understanding of their world, and their physical disability shapes their mobility. Alternative - Postpone the implementation of this test until it has been appropriately designed, consulted on, and piloted.(s9B Eligibility being reconsidered with the introduction of a new “functional capacity”test(described in section 2).) Alternative Delaytheintroductionofthis testeuntilthecompleted(comdesignconsultationandapilotprogramme). (s 20(2)(a)) The change oftimewindowforanaccessdecisionThis blowout from days to like unscheduled reassessment timeframe puts vulnerable people at extreme risk while waiting.Alternative Do not changefromexisting daytimewindow. (s) All appropriate treatment must betried first regardless offerson’s individual circumstances restrict access to treatments.This disregard for multiple barriers that those disabilities face accessingtreatmentforexample,treatmentsavailableinanothergeographical locationbut participantdisability prevents them safe travel there Thoseremote areas will be disproportionately affected as wellasintellectual disabilitynot able navigate systems determine other treatments exist. Bill mentions treatmets expected material improvement impairment Alternative That bill amended so participants’circumstances/barriers restricting access treatedmust consideredAdditionally term materially improve defined Automatic exclusion due compensation schemesAnyimpairment caused by motorvehicle accident or workplace injury which exists coveritwill excluded This fails acknowledge whether compensationscheme actually covers necessary supports No consideration given if injury and payout were decades ago, used purchase disability accessible home.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission 1884 Alternative: An amendment to reflect that this can only be applied when the compensation actually pays for the participant’s supports. (s 33(2EA)). The Minister can also cap any support, for any cohort, at eny time This is extremely dangerous as it overrides the Delegate’s interpretation of reasonable and necessary without any consideration of the risk matrix. Alternative — remove this dangerous option entirely and allow individual consideration following consideration of the risk matrix.(s )The Minister can cut a plan by legislative instrument with no review I note the first cut is social community participation phased in October plans renew renewal and same power apply category level future Many participants at risk harm result isolation because funding keeps them world outside home enables access supports allows others check welfare particularly living SIL mistreated Alternative that reduction preceded mandatory consultation disability community affected retain rights decision must considered before implementation (s))To ensure “value money” cheaper comparable supports demanded There safeguard ensures cheaper comparable achieves outcome alternative A comparable defined achieve comparison (s)(aa). The whole person approach being narrowed With change wording addition directly supports will eligible if need related qualifying functional impairment Where interaction people disabilities e.g. physical psychosocial or intellectual disability? Alternative Please restore entire person from amendments

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission 1884

(s 34(1E)-(1F)) “Effective and beneficial” now demands peer-reviewed research

This is dangerous as missing research could result in a veto. Many rare conditions do not have much research due to funding constraints associated with them.Novel or customised treatments may not have a research base but are highly effective for participants.The hierarchy puts treating professionals’ clinical experience at level d. Alternative: Amend s 34(1E) so it includes: a mandatory consideration of lived experiences of both parties, equal weight given between peer reviewed studies and other evidence supporting participation. The absence should no longer be grounds alone for denial if other categories support.

(ss 34(g)(g)) The need must consider whether another system can provide more appropriate supports.

Now CEO’s deny reasonable necessary criteria based that another system provides it. Alternative: Denial requires access within prompt timeframes.

(SSS 30A, S29(1A)) Participants can face plan suspension without knowledge.

CEO suspends after making attempts to contact the participant. This isn’t defined nor noted minimum period. It lacks acknowledging life stresses affecting communication capacity.For example,a person post brain surgery faces further hospitalisation resulting many weeks admission.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submission 1884

The participant and their supports will be so preoccupied that such communication could be innocently missed. Alternative - “Reasonable attempts” must be clearly defined and require that said attempts must be documented and have exhausted every possible communication channel, e.g., phone, e-mail,text , post,nominee,support coordinator.with nothing less thana 60 day timeframe afterthe last contact. (sNDIS pricing now sitswiththeminister,onAgency advice through legislative instrument Alternative – Implement Recommendation fromthen DIS Reviewthatit shouldbedoneby the Independent Healthand Aged Care Pricing Authority(IHACPA) (sA Requesting an unscheduled reassessment becomes more difficult.The changeof time framefromto daysfor then NDIA to decidecould put vulnerable participants at risk andrestrain community resources public health systems.Alternative: If this isretained there mustbe consideration givenan Emergency Reassessment process with no morethana-14-daytimeframe.)(s50A When plans auto-renew unspent funds are not rolled overThereisno provision made one-off funding item awaiting delivery example custom wheelchair on order Alternative please amend ensure that one offfunding items actioned quoted or ordered carriesover until support provided claimed. Schedule 3 Part of Bill immediately authorises automated decision making for four sections seven days Royal Assent s (plan content)payments claimspricing Also under(2), Minister can addmore bylegislativeinstrument The Justice and Equity Centre has written about concerns ADM noted parallels Robodebt In light historyRobodebtextremely concerning considered before legally enforceable safeguards place. Alternative Make safeguards in E legislatively enforceable require human review any adverseADMdecision affecting participant's funding eligibility claimbefore takes effect Delay implementation saiduntil safeguardsareinplace.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill

Submission 1884: Schedule 5 - Minister’s Power to Modify NDIS Act via ‘Transitional’ Rule

This power appears concerning given how long transitional rules have been effective. Alternative:

• Limit this rule’s application specifically where mandatory consultation with disabled communities precedes implementation, with clear timelines & public notification (ideally within 30 days).

Additional Considerations

• Add an independent statutory requirement, reviewed two years post-Royal Assent; report publicly in Parliament;
• Ensure participants are legally protected against debt notices due changes they’ve made based solely upon written advice from NDIA;
• Introduce appeal pathways before purchases if agency later disagrees about services provided through poor advice ( declined calls/plan managers/support coordinators/LACs);
• Regular transparent reporting needed for scheme effectiveness evaluation—data like suspension/revocation reasons, claim rejection rates/types of rejections, safety incidents/unmet needs/gaps in plans/timeframes for reassessments/access requests must be published;
• No provisions ensuring all participants can access communication methods as schemes become more automated;
• The issue regarding replacement supports remains inappropriate. Purchasing second-hand washing machines is disallowed but regular laundry service allowed—a false economy that should also allow reviewable decisions on such matters.