Concerns about functional capacity assessments and loss of individualised planning (Family or carer experience) | External submission

To the Committee Secretary,

Re: Submission to the Senate inquiry into the proposed NDIS legislation

I am writing as a Grand-mother and mother of participants to express my concerns about the proposed changes to the NDIS. I ask the committee to consider how these changes may affect people with disability, their families, carers, and access to necessary supports.

About me I am a Grand-mother and mother who cares for 5 participants who are current participants to the scheme.

The NDIS has been important to me and my family because their disabilities and needs are many, and too many for me to support. I have no partner, no close relatives nearby, and also have to assist my 93 year old mother. My carer load is a lot and the new legislation diminishes the role of informal care. The dilution in acknowledging and supporting this informal care could potentially force participants in vulnerable living arrangements to remain in dangerous, abusive or even life- threatening environments. The children’s father committed domestic violence so I had to bring them all to live with me. His whereabouts are unknown and he does not support them.

My main concerns

Ministerial power and rapid decision-making I am deeply troubled and concerned that the proposed changes give too much power to the minister or government to make decisions quickly, with limited participant input or oversight. This may reduce transparency, accountability, and confidence in the scheme.

Should the government change, I worry that those parties who didn’t want the scheme will dictate rules that totally undermine it and it’s intent. I ask that this be avoided at all costs and some guard rails or someone to oversee this is put in place.

Loss of individualised planning and participant control I am concerned about changes that reduce individualised planning, participant directed supports, and recognition of family and informal carers. These principles are central to making supports responsive, flexible, and appropriate to each person’s circumstances. Our situation is challenging to say the least. Each participant is unique and inflexible rigid planning are the antithesis of what the NDIS was supposed to address in the disability sector.

Functional capacity assessments and tighter eligibility I don’t trust computer systems to properly see what an individual has capacity for. E.g.

A teenager may identify a 5 Dollar note, but hasn’t the cognition to understand financial transactions. Computer collected information is only relative to the question asked and answered and does not delivery context, or the level of vulnerability.

I am concerned that changes to functional capacity assessments may make it harder for people to access support, or delay support until needs become worse. This may particularly affect people who cannot realistically access every possible treatment.The confusion about how these reports are generated is also making budgeting and planning decisions impossible.

Increased automation and rigid decision-making I am concerned that more automation in assessments and budgets will lead to more standardised decisions that are not reflective of each individual’s needs. Disability support should not become a one-size-fits-all system. I fear we are hurtling toward a robodebt situation.
No right of reply or amendment to decisions I am also concerned that participants may have no real right of reply or opportunity to request amendment when plan decisions, eligibility decisions, or plan amendments are made at short notice. Decisions that can drastically affect daily supports should not be imposed without a fair chance to respond, correct errors, or seek review before harm is done.

If these changes go ahead, I am concerned they will make it harder to qualify or requalify, reduce participant flexibility, and interfere with supports that are already working. They will also add more stress onto family and carers. Disabled participants should not be punished because the administration of the system is challenged. The administration system should be fixed without disabled participants bearing the brunt of the criticism.

In my experience, communication issues are at the forefront of participant frustration. Poor communication, lack of clarity, and short-notice decisions make it harder for participants and families to understand what is happening, respond effectively, and maintain confidence in the system.

Without appropriate support, the impact does not disappear. It may instead shifts pressure onto hospitals, mental health services, aged care, homelessness & DV services, or unpaid family care.

Limit no roll-over to just capacity The proposed legislative changes to cease the rollover of unspent funds at the end of a participant’s plan are likely to produce a significant unintended consequences. The providers will simply overservice at the end of the plan. This won’t reduce costs, it will move them to the end of the plan.

Core supports — which fund day-to-day assistance with daily activities, community participation, and consumables — are directly tied to fluctuating participant need and are the category most likely to carry legitimate unspent funds through no fault of the participant. Capacity building supports, are time-limited and goal-directed; unspent capacity funding at end of plan more commonly reflects planning or engagement issues that should be addressed through improved plan management rather than fund retention. Discontinuing rollover for Capacity Building funding could be implemented but preserving Core funding will not negatively affect the participant due to fluctuation in care e.g. hospitalisation which often results in increased care. What I recommend

Retain strong participant choice, control, and individualised planning in the legislation.
Ensure that the ministerial power and decision-making has a review board or oversight committee that is not politically aligned with challengeable processes.
Ensure the role of family and informal carers continues to be recognised appropriately.
Prevent eligibility changes from excluding people who still have substantial support needs.
Ensure early intervention remains available where it can improve outcomes or prevent deterioration.
Limit automated decision-making and preserve meaningful human review and accountability – NO ROBODEBT LIKE system.
Guarantee a clear right of reply, amendment, and timely review for plan decisions, eligibility decisions, and short-notice plan amendments.
Strengthen transparency and safeguards around ministerial or administrative powers.
Reconsider the roll over limitations to Capacity Building funding and preserve Core funding. This allows for any variation in participants needs to be supported. This limits overservicing by providers

Conclusion

I urge the committee to examine these proposed changes, arrange for more time for the disability community to respond. Also recommend amendments that protect the rights, dignity, and support needs of people with disability.

Thank you for considering my submission.