I am an NDIS participant living with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) and have no informal supports available to assist me with my daily needs.
I became an NDIS participant in 2020. Although I met the functional criteria well before then, I was not eligible to access the Scheme earlier because my condition was not considered permanent until it had persisted for at least five years. During this waiting period, my health deteriorated significantly, reducing my level of independence and increasing my support needs.
Until recently, I was also the NDIS Plan Nominee and primary informal support for my adult daughter. This has given me first-hand experience of the Scheme from both the perspective of a participant and as someone responsible for managing another participant’s plan.
This is my second part of the submission I uploaded earlier today.
I welcome the opportunity to provide this submission because I am deeply concerned that the proposed amendments will reduce flexibility, diminish participant rights and ultimately lead to poorer outcomes for people with disability while shifting costs to other parts of the health and social care system.
Parliamentary Scrutiny and Transparency
Issue
The Amendment Bill has been rushed through without sufficient time for proper consultation or independent assessment of its likely consequences. The short consultation period has not allowed participants, carers, disability organisations or experts to fully consider the practical and economic impacts of these significant reforms.
The Government has repeatedly referred to the need to reduce NDIS expenditure, but there has been little transparency about where the growth in spending has actually occurred. Without detailed financial information, Parliament and the public cannot determine whether savings are being made by reducing participant supports rather than addressing inefficiencies elsewhere in the Scheme.
The NDIS should publish expenditure in separate categories that already exist within its financial reporting, including:
- Direct participant supports (face-to-face services and supports).
- Administration and plan management costs.
- Costs of internal reviews, AAT matters and other disputes.
- Costs of fraud prevention, investigation and enforcement. Without this information, it is impossible to properly assess whether participant funding is being reduced to compensate for increasing administrative, legal or fraud-related costs.
Recommendation
Extend consultation on the Bill to allow adequate parliamentary scrutiny and independent economic analysis.
Require the NDIS to publicly report expenditure in separate categories, including participant supports, administration, dispute resolution and fraud management, so that future policy decisions are based on transparent evidence rather than aggregate expenditure figures.
Existing Participants Face Narrower Criteria and Fewer Rights
to Challenge Decisions
Issue
Under the PACE system, participant funding is now released quarterly. While this may assist some participants with budgeting, it significantly reduces flexibility for those whose support needs are not evenly distributed throughout the year.
Many disabilities are unpredictable. Participants may require substantially more support during one quarter because of illness, injury, deterioration in their condition or other unforeseen circumstances. Restricting access to funding in quarterly instalments may leave participants unable to obtain the support they need when they need it most.
The current approach treats all participants as though they have identical budgeting needs. Participants who have always managed their plans responsibly should not lose flexibility because some participants experienced budgeting difficulties.
Recommendation
Allow participants to access additional funding from later quarterly instalments where there is demonstrated need, or allow participants who have demonstrated responsible budget management to opt out of quarterly funding restrictions.
The Scheme should provide flexibility based on individual circumstances rather than applying a one-size-fits-all funding model.
Unreviewable Ministerial Power to Cut Funding Across All
Support Categories
Issue
The proposed removal of the ability to carry forward unspent funding between plans is likely to disadvantage many participants.
Many participants deliberately save funding for foreseeable but irregular expenses, major assistive technology purchases or periods when additional supports become necessary. Removing carry-over funding means participants will lose the ability to prepare for these legitimate future needs.
This also removes an important financial safety net. Without accumulated funding, participants experiencing an unexpected decline in health may be unable to obtain sufficient supports to remain safely at home.
The consequence may be increased admissions to public hospitals, delayed hospital discharges and greater reliance on aged care and other government-funded services. Rather than reducing overall government expenditure, these costs are likely to be transferred from the NDIS to the health system.
Recommendation
Continue allowing participants to carry forward reasonable unspent funds between plan periods.
Recognise that responsible saving should be encouraged rather than penalised, particularly where participants are saving for high-cost supports or unforeseen changes in their disability.
Before removing any funding flexibility, undertake an independent economic assessment of the likely impact on hospital admissions, delayed hospital discharges and broader health system costs.
Supports Cut Before Replacement System Is Ready
Issue
Reducing participant funding without ensuring adequate replacement supports are available risks leaving people without the assistance required to remain independent in the community.
Cuts to participant funding may appear to reduce NDIS expenditure, but they are likely to increase costs elsewhere across government. Participants who cannot obtain sufficient supports at home may require hospital care or other government-funded services that are considerably more expensive than community-based supports.
Cost shifting between government systems is not genuine reform and does not represent a true saving to taxpayers.
Recommendation
Do not reduce participant supports until replacement services are fully operational, adequately funded and independently shown to meet participants’ needs.
Require the Government to publish modelling demonstrating the whole-of-government financial impact of proposed NDIS funding reductions, including expected effects on public hospitals, aged care and other health services, before implementing these changes.