Submission to NDIS amendments:
To improve consistency and equity across the Scheme, the application of ‘reasonable and necessary supports’ must link to consideration of what is reasonable for the Scheme to fund. This means funding for some NDIS supports may be less than the actual cost of providing or acquiring the support. This Schedule is intended to provide clarification about what supports can be considered for reasonable and necessary funding.
The above paragraph from the EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM reads like a means-testing approach to ‘reasonable’ and I object to this both as it reads now and for what it may morph into in later amendments. I object to the ‘partial’ funding of supports. For many NDIS participants are already receiving ‘partial funding’ compared to their needs and those people already make hard choices on a daily and weekly basis on how they will ‘make do’. This does provide them with a marginal amount of choice and control, which the NDIS is based upon participants having over their lives and support so they can live full lives with dignity. Partially funding supports, in any category removes from the least able and those with least private means to supplementary fund supports without access to their communities.
“Functional capacity” The amendment seeks to add a definition of ‘functional capacity” however contained within that definition are unclear words in paragraph 9B(2) and (3)
(2) The National Disability Insurance Scheme rules may make 25 provision for determining any matter for the purposes of 26 subsection (1). (3) Without limiting subsection (2), National Disability Insurance 2 Scheme rules made for the purposes of that subsection may 3 prescribe: 4 (a) methods or criteria to be applied for the purposes of 5 subsection (1), including classifications or thresholds 6 relevant to an assessment of a person’s ability to undertake 7 an activity; or 8 (b) matters that may, must or must not be taken into account for 9 the purposes of subsection (1); or 10 (c) circumstances in which a matter relevant to the application of 11 subsection (1) is taken to exist or to not exist in relation to a person.
None of the above strictly meets the concept of a ‘definition’, it is wholly inconsistent with all other definitions in Section 9, which appear to all be actual workable, transparent definitions that provide a plain English meaning to words in appropriate context. These definitions do not meet this basic concept.
There is absolutely no transparency in either the above or explanatory notes. Uncertainty and obfuscation creates fear, anxiety and uncertainty in vulnerable people who rely or may come to rely on NDIS support.
While in theory a definition should clarify and be more transparent, this is only true if the definition chosen provides more clarity for PARTICIPANTS and APPLICANTS, which the above does not do. It literally states that BY DEFINITION
“Prescribe certain criteria”
What criteria? The original definition was clear and easily understood when interpreted as any other legislation in terms of what a reasonable person would understand. The addition of possible ‘criteria’ implies a concept of ‘not disabled enough’ which was not what was promised or legislated originally.
Limit unscheduled plan reassessments
If a participant who is a member of a class specified for the 8 purposes of paragraph (1)(a) requests a reassessment of the 9 participant’s plan under paragraph 48(2)(b), the CEO may give the 10 participant written notice that the participant is to have new 11 framework plans (even if the period specified for the purposes of 12 paragraph (1)(b) has not ended).
This appears to limit review requested by participants by forcing them onto a new plan when they may simply have a change in funding requirements to meet their changing need due to any number of critical life changes.
34A Determination reducing funding for groups of supports For the purposes of ensuring the financial sustainability of the 6 National Disability Insurance Scheme, the Minister may, by 7 legislative instrument, determine: 8 (a) a percentage (lower than 100%) that is the percentage by 9 which a funding component amount for a specified group of 10 supports is reduced while the determination is in force; and 11 (b) the old framework plans to which the determination applies 12 (which must be plans that come into effect on or after the day 13 the determination commences).
In making the determination, the Minister must have regard to the 8 safety of participants
Requiring Registration of Workers
While might have seemed like a good idea to large companies who promise efficiencies of scale, historic data has proven that smaller and independent providers are equally fit for purpose and in fact in recent informal surveys it is most often registered providers who rip off the scheme and participants, while independent support workers go above and beyond for their clients. In my case for instance, I hire support workers for their common sense as when using a Registered Provider when my child withdrew due to extreme social anxiety the support workers had no idea what to do despite being ‘trained’ and ‘qualified’ (usually students in Allied Health). However independent workers have common sense and can apply their real world knowledge to supporting. This kind of practicality which cannot be
‘trained into’ people with a ‘disability’ lens is so integral to providing appropriate support to a wide range of people with disability who may not require intensely therapy based or medicalised assistance but who validly do require practical human assistance to live a normal, full life in their community.
Owing to my own disabilities and intensely time consuming unpaid carer role I have simply run out of time to write more.
I urge more discussion for this and other proposed amendments, engaging directly with NDIS participants across a ranges and disability types and needs in a way that is more disability friendly such as targeted surveys, that also include open ended opportunities for direct feedback within a disability friendly achievable time frame and format, and media coverage of opportunities to engage.
My limited exposure and understanding of the ;engagement’ of people with disabilities recently is that it has heavily relied on the capacity of participants to be motivated and chase vague opportunities for input and appears to have heavily relied upon input from service providers and a smattering of other organisations.
Finally a word on fraud and mismanagement. Overall it is not participants rorting the system, or independent providers. It is registered providers who slip invoices through the NDIS system as ‘ongoing costs’ or for other charges excluded by NDIS (such as ‘onboarding costs’ which are a business expense, not an NDIS line item). I reported one such provider having billed my daughter’s plan for 1 hour and having automatically claimed an hour from my son via NDIA directly. When confronted as to what this was for their explanation was it was for a 30 minute meeting (so 15 minutes / child) to first meet them. When I refused to pay and explained this was not billable via NDIS and requested they cancel the invoice I later found out they did not cancel the invoice, but wrote it off as a bad debt. To date despite my having complained to NDIS, this provider still has the $80 from my son’s plan. In the end, frustrated with lack of follow up from NDIS I submitted a complaint to the ATO about this business. I am sure they are still operating, charging set weekly fees to all clients, essentially skimming from all the plans they ‘assist’ with.
Please rethink how these changes may affect people who are already vulnerable.