Submission 1946
THERAPY Services
Parliamentary Submission - Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Proposed Legislation
I do not believe the bill should proceed in its current form. At a minimum, implementation should be delayed until meaningful consultation occurs, comprehensive impact assessments are completed, and alternative support systems are properly established and funded.
Some particular issues I have with the bill include:
- Proposed changes to the definition of functional capacity The bill proposes assessing functional capacity without adequately considering the environment and personal circumstances of the person with a disability. Assessing someone’s functioning outside of their context is problematic and will likely result in inaccurate assessments and poor funding decisions, which may significantly impact people’s lives.
A person’s functioning must be considered in the context of:
- who is in their life,
- the supports they require to live safely and independently, and
- the environment in which they live.
Additionally, I strongly believe only appropriately qualified Allied Health professionals have the training and clinical reasoning skills necessary to perform these assessments accurately.
Finally, if automation is considered as a mechanism to assist in determining functional capacity and eligibility, this raises significant concerns and would require strong human oversight and safeguarding measures to be implemented.
- Proposed changes to activities “as a whole” The bill proposes reversing the current “whole person” approach, which presently allows consideration of how multiple disabilities interact with one another.
For example, I have many clients who have both Autism and ADHD. It can be impossible to determine whether their difficulties with social interaction are attributable to Autism, ADHD, or the interaction of both conditions. In practice, the cause of the difficulty is less important than ensuring the person receives the support they require.
The proposed changes risk creating artificial distinctions that do not reflect the lived reality of participants.
- Proposed tightening of “appropriate treatment” The bill proposes requiring participants to have undertaken “all appropriate treatments” without adequate consideration of:
- geographic location and access to treatment,
Submission 1946
THERAPY Services
- affordability of treatment, and
- a person’s right to choose whether to engage in treatment.
Given the current cost-of-living pressures faced by Australians, this is a major concern and should not become a factor that limits a person’s ability to access support through the NDIS.
Changes to plan reassessment timeframes
The bill proposes extending decision-making timelines from 21 days to up to 90 days, while also narrowing what is considered an exceptional circumstance.
In my experience, plan reassessments are generally requested only when:
- a plan was inadequately funded in the first instance, or
- a participant’s circumstances have changed significantly.
Participants should not be disadvantaged due to deficiencies in initial NDIA decision-making, nor should they be required to wait up to three months for decisions when their circumstances often require urgent adjustments to their plans.
While I acknowledge that cost savings may be necessary, there are many operational changes within the agency that could reduce costs more effectively, including:
- ensuring plans are adequately funded initially, thereby reducing costly plan reviews, section 100 reviews, and Administrative Review Tribunal matters;
- reducing excessive paperwork and reporting requirements that are frequently ignored or not meaningfully considered; and
- ensuring adequate staffing and training so statutory deadlines can be met appropriately.
Currently, participants may urgently request a review, only to receive an automatic decline because NDIA staff were unable to assess the request within the required timeframe. This is not an appropriate or fair administrative outcome.
Rather than extending timeframes to the detriment of participants, the focus should instead be on improving staffing, training, and administrative efficiency within the agency.
Ministerial powers to make blanket changes
The bill proposes mechanisms that would allow broad changes to participants’ NDIS plans without proper consideration of individual circumstances.
This creates significant risks to participant safety, independence, quality of life, and ability to contribute meaningfully to society.
The proposed change represents a substantial departure from the original intent of the scheme as an individualised support model, and I am concerned about the far-reaching impacts this may have on participants.
Submission 1946
THERAPY Services
Additionally, no single minister, or small group of decision-makers, should hold such broad and largely unrestricted powers to make sweeping changes that significantly affect the lives of so many people.
National Press Club comments At the National Press Club, Mark Butler proposed additional changes that he anticipated may arise following passage of the bill. These included:
- removing approximately 160,000 participants from the scheme;
- broad cuts to social and community participation funding; and
- changes to provider registration and Administrative Review Tribunal processes.
Social and community participation funding enables participants to access essential activities such as:
- medical and therapy appointments,
- grocery and pharmacy shopping,
- regular appointments such as haircuts or banking,
- opportunities to develop social skills and friendships, and
- participation in their broader community. These are not optional aspects of daily life, and people with disability should not be expected to forgo access to them.
Reducing these supports would also place greater pressure on informal supports such as parents and siblings. This may reduce workforce participation among carers, creating additional financial strain for families during an ongoing cost-of-living crisis, while also reducing tax contributions to the broader economy.
I personally support the concept of provider registration. However, the current registration process is prohibitively expensive and burdensome for sole traders and small providers. As a sole trader myself, I could not reasonably afford registration under the current system.
I am also strongly concerned about proposed changes to the Administrative Review Tribunal that would remove its ability to make changes to plans. Participants require access to an independent third party capable of reviewing decisions objectively and providing oversight of agency decision-making. Removing this function risks further reducing accountability and may create additional internal administrative processes within an agency that is already struggling with efficiency.
If genuine consultation with the disability community is intended, the consultation timeframes must be extended, and authentic consultation processes must occur.