I am writing to you on behalf of my Wife, (Mrs ) as an NDIS participant, who has a serious neurological condition. Her condition presents with complex high care needs requiring round the clock support, mostly with the need for two carers.
These constant changes to the NDIA Act is clear evidence the Government is clueless how to address the systems faults; and for many with complex needs why not just offer them the Green Needle and put them to sleep. It would be far more humane than what is being proposed.
I acknowledge changes to reign in cost are needed but not at the expense of those most needing of the scheme. In supporting my wife I self-manage her plan, and as an ex General Manager involved with managing multi billion dollar projects, there are fundamental cost saving measures that are obvious and could simply be addressed,
I therefore implore you to work across parties and get amendments to the legislation to make this more manageable and humane. In the words of the great Joseph Merrick (the Elephant Man 1862 -1890)I”I am not an animal; I am a human being!), but the proposed changes suggest the opposite for disabled people. The Government would be wise to consider this when making changes to the scheme, especially as Section 34 of the NDIS Act, talks about choice, respect an independence.
My key issues and suggestions are as follows:
- First and foremost is this scare campaign regarding fraud, which is really Government double speak for leakage, which obvious includes errors too. Errors are not insignificant either as shown in my examples, which are being made by the people meant to be protecting the system.
a. I am aware of a major Plan Manager processing an account for $3500 twice, when the client advised the Plan Manager (as the receiver had phoned the client to advise) but instead of rectifying, they processed it a third time. Proof large Plan Managers lack quality control.
b. In my own example I processed a significant sum to the wrong code, advised NDIA several times but some 3 years later it is still not amended. This is clear evidence the money being wasted on Serco staff managing the call centre could be saved and address poor quality control measures inside NDIA.
- The majority of actual fraud being detected on a major scale is against large companies, yet proposed changes will see these large companies rewarded by pushing out more business to these few
-
The changes suggest the move to a one year plans. A one year plan is a waste of resources. The NDIA can’t even manage the workload now, and months ago they were looking at possibly moving to 5 year plans, which was more sensible. Complex care need participant need a system based on real medical evidence and continuity were circumstances are properly assessed, not the stress of a flawed annual review.
-
In February 2025, the ex-CEO of NDIA stated in a public interview that NDIA staff do not read professional reports received and the current processes of assessing lack transparency. Going forward the proposed process will give more powers to the staff and Minister, which is unacceptable and will be even less transparent
-
THIS IS CRUCIAL AND NOT NEGOTIABLE. Changes should not limit ART powers of review as this would remove the rights of natural justice, something our whole system of Government relies on. I would suggest this is because of the large number of losses of the NDIA at ART. Surely the changes should address the Department’s failing as opposed to remove ART from the process. I have spent almost 3 years fighting a matter through ART. The end result being their own independent home mods OT specialist totally sided with us. During that process I even received written statements from internal staff that were clearly slanderous. At the same time all this was happening, a plan change had resulted in no payments for almost 3 months, due to a computer glitch. I had to pay suppliers as they could not be expected to provide a line of credit to NDIA. Yet before it was resolved, it took approaching the media and a letter to the Minister and me being some $20000 out of pocket and struggling with my mental health/suicidal thought. If they cant manage the basics how will they manage change.
-
The issue of only considering one disability for assessment is wrong. In complex cases this is far more concerning and changes must consider all disabilities in the Functional Capacity Assessment. The proposed move to change to a Yes/No computer system for all participants is ridiculous. Firstly current AI is not sufficiently developed to work with complex cases. It may work with more stable conditions but the old style FCA remains needed for complex cases. This process stinks of a repeat of Robodebt. With so many unresolved issues it seems incredulous this is even being considered. It should never occur for complex cases and even for common cases it should have a trial alongside the old procedure, with success being measured against ART appeals and outcomes. Lets not repeat past mistakes.
-
Good and regular Support Coordinators is a valuable resource. I have followed our current one across several agencies. I have read Support Coordination is to be limited. A good support coordinator is invaluable.
-
Choice of plan managed , and self-managed needs to continue. For it results in lower costs to NDIA as I employ staff direct, they are regular, they know and are employed at rates well below the maximum published rates. Changes to NDIA would be better served by limiting the Admin cost on top of staff costs for Agencies as they are far greater than most commercial businesses. Also have a two tiered pricing system, where sole providers, rates are much lower.
-
Cutting social participation could be replaced with the Green Needle to put participants to sleep like a dog, as NDIA changes will push disabled people back to the dark ages.
-
No transfer of participants to the State Government for disabilities before adequate systems and quality control measures are in place, to manage them safely.
-
One of the biggest failings in this whole process is a lack of a proper economic impact assessment. I read in a recent study that almost 90 cents in the dollar is returned to the Government through employment and taxes and indirect business. Plus the health sector has been the fastest growing employment sector. If you suddenly take a knife to these sectors it will only lead to a drop in GDP and transfer the costs through smoke and mirrors to other Government welfare agencies where return on investment is far less. Eg Currently $50 million allocated only actually costs the Government $5 million in reality.
Thank You in advance for your support. We have moved so far in addressing the discriminatory practises for the disabled. We cant go back on our commitment to them