Committee Secretary Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs PO Box 6100 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 By email: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au Dear Committee Secretary

Submission in relation to National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 (‘the Bill’)

At the outset I state that I very much support the Government in needing to take strong measures to reduce the NDIS from its current annual expenditure of $50 Billion. I recognize that the Government needs to make radical changes but as far as possible, this needs to be done, in a manner that does not mean the Government is defeated at the next election anyway. Difficult path to tread.

My submission could be said to be characteristic of a disability Participant: there is repetition and poorly organized; time pressure has meant a strange arrangement. In fact, I talked with a Support Worker only in the last day or so, about my worry that a submission badly needed to be drafted, but I was floundering and not making progress. That Support Worker drafted a submission, and forwarded it to me this afternoon. Meanwhile, I have worked most of yesterday, all through the night, very much against my health to do so, and flat out today, to complete this submission to lodge it by 5pm, so due to time pressure, I have joined the two drafts together and barely touched on the provisions after Schedule 1.

Please be tolerant and bear with me in my submission.

Attempt Draft A.

Background

I have strong concerns that the amendments in the Bill will cause further and severe problems for participants, who already suffer enormous stress from being required to manage their own third-party service providers, with no help from the NDIC. The effective privatisation of the scheme in this way in the name of ‘freedom’ of participants may be convenient for the government but is a nightmare for participants.

It has also been a disaster for those not eligible for NDIS support, as the general care community (both public and private) has turned to focus only on paid services for NDIS participants, with local governments and private charities vastly reducing the free or low fee services that used to be provided across the board to all types of people with disabilities and to those with either temporary or permanent functional problems.

Problems with the proposed changes

1. Part 1 - Defining functional capacity

I do not believe that the proposed definition of functional capacity is fair. It seems to pay little regard to the possibility of future deterioration (effectively we all become more disabled as we age and the extent and rate of deterioration is likely to be higher with NIDIS participants who are already suffering from diminished functional capacity). This is also an issue under Part 3 (see below).

I am also concerned:

at the concept in the new section 9B of excluding the impact of the person’s environmental and personal circumstances; and
that under section 9B(3) rules made for the purposes of that subsection may prescribe: … “(b) matters that may, must or must not be taken into account for the purposes of subsection (1); or (c) circumstances in which a matter relevant to the application of subsection (1) is taken to exist or to not exist in relation to a person.”

It seems to me that any attempt to assess a person’s functional capacity outside of their real life situation (which the above provisions see to aim at) is totally unrealistic and a breach of their human rights not to be discriminated against by virtue of their disability. An individual’s function cannot properly be assessed theoretically and SHOULD never be assessed that way for the purposes of NDIS. Theoretical functional assessment might be helpful for ergonomics, economics or clinical medicine, but has no place in a system which is meant to respond to an individual’s needs. Theoretical functional assessment opens the gateway to predicting disease progression and functional decline using AI – a pathway which leads to disaster.

2. Part 2 - Limit unscheduled plan reassessments

Only participants, their plan nominee or guardian will be able to request an unscheduled plan reassessment.

This leaves participants like me who have no nominee or guardian without assistance if they need an unscheduled plan reassessment. My plan manager or my doctor should be allowed to ask for such an assessment on my behalf, particularly if my conditions worsen in a situation where I have reduced capacity.

3. Part 3 - Strengthen link between an impairment and need for support

Part 3 clarifies that supports will only be funded where the need for a support arises directly from an impairment for which the participant met the criteria for accessing the NDIS.

This seems to refer to the original impairment assessed at the time the participant was first admitted to the NDIS. How can this be workable when we all effectively become more disabled as we age? Or is this something that can be updated via a further medical assessment?

Since the NDIS was implemented, local governments and private charities have withdrawn a raft of services that were provided across the board to disabled people, The elderly, and those with temporary illnesses. This has been a disaster for people who were not sufficiently disabled to receive NDIS support. Now the idea seems to be that even an NDIS participant will not be supported through the NDIS in relation to functional problems which are not part of their original ‘core’ disability. Like non- NDIS participants, they will now have vastly reduced options for assistance in relation to those functional problems.

This seems aimed at addressing a structural problem of NDIS – that it provides a ‘pot’ of money which needs to be spent and is sometimes, from what I can see, spent in rather inventive ways. But that is not the way to address this structural problem. Auditing of correct charging for services would be a much better way to address this.

I had bipolar 2 and then after many years, I had a ruptured brain aneurysm with vasospasms, strokes and hydrocephalus, causing ABI.

Do the dys-functioning effects of the ruptured brain aneurysm, and complications, stay irrelevant for NDIS purposes?
Or does the cause of the change in functional capacity stand as irrelevant; with the only relevance being: for whatever reason, there has been a change in functional capacity?
What if this subsequent disability aggravates the first disability?

4. Part 4 - Support determinations

This will enable a Ministerial determination to reset participant support budgets for cocial, civic and community participation and capacity building daily activities.

Again, restricting the inventive ways in which some services are charged is not an answer to the structural problems of the NDIS and the groups of services described can all be valid and important services.

What is needed is the ADDITION of cost items for RELEVANT services such as legal advice on service contracts.

As a struggling NDI participant and ex lawyer, I understand better than most the

legal implications of contracts between me and various service providers under NDIS. It causes me enormous stress when I try to engage providers who:

(1) Don’t cite their ABNs or cite the wrong ABN;

(2) Don’t understand the legal structure they are using;

(3) Aren’t registered with NDIS;

(4) Misunderstand the NDSIS rules;

(5) Charge for incorrect items under the NDIS price list where the relevant service has not been provided

(6) Don’t understand their own template contracts;

(7) Refuse to negotiate the terms of the template contracts with me, in breach of Australian Consumer Law. Usually it’s “take it or leave it.”

Many managers do not understand the need to police these issues, often leading to unnecessary over - expenditure on my behalf without consultation with me.

NDIS provides NO support for me to hire a lawyer to help me negotiate these issues with providers. The price list allows payment of excessive amounts per hour to nutritionists, but NOTHING to lawyers.

So I can be covered by NDIS to be told the best kinds of food to eat while I suffer enormous and ongoing stress in trying to manage and negotiate difficult legal contractual issues on my own with people who have no idea about the legal consequences of the contracts they want me to enter into. No wonder it is easy for so many people to get away with fraud under NDI when the NDIs itself seems to aim to be a ‘law free’ zone. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Attempt Draft B of this Submission Schedule 1 – Access and Planning Measures

Part 1 - Defining functional capacity Part 1 establishes the legal framework for determining access to the NDIS based on substantially reduced functional capacity. It also provides a definition of functional capacity. This enables future access decisions to be based on a consistent, objective and evidence- based assessment of functional capacity. The threshold and assessment process for this will be informed by advice from a Technical Advisory Group and engagement with the community and states and territories.

Under the proposed Bill:

9B Definition of functional capacity

      (1) A person’s functional capacity, in relation to an activity, is the person’s ability to
         undertake the activity:
             (a) without assistance from other people, assistive technology or modifications; and

(b) in a context that excludes, as far as possible, the impact of the person’s environmental and personal circumstances.

      (2) The National Disability Insurance Scheme rules may make provision for determining any
         matter for the purposes of subsection (1).

      (3) Without limiting subsection (2), National Disability Insurance Scheme rules made for the
        purposes of that subsection may prescribe:
             (a) methods or criteria to be applied for the purposes of subsection (1), including
                 classifications or thresholds relevant to an assessment of a person’s ability to
              undertake an activity; Cor
            (b) matters that may, must or must not be taken into account for the purposes of
               subsection (1); or
             (c) circumstances in which a matter relevant to the application of subsection (1) is
              taken to exist or to not exist in relation to a person.

This is not a definition. It is again, more of “building the plane while it is flying” approach i.e. how we might come to the conclusion of: what is “functional capacity” for NDIS.

Surely, what needs to be defined for NDIS eligibility and reassessments, is what is “functional incapacity”.

There are various indices available e.g. MVA injuries & Worker’s Comp, but the purpose and nature & scope of the functional capacity / incapacity for NDIS is VERY different.

Disability is more idiosyncratic than any other cohort the government deals with.

Thus, it is least amenable for its work to be carried out by algorithms. Individual, person-to- person assessments may be ‘the longest way around, but the shortest way home.’

These means of tools and methods to assess “incapacity” should be in a section, separate from “Definitions”, although other relevant sections can be referenced under the Definition.

Seeking a definition: “functional incapacity” = a state of being state of being normal minus a state of being in an individual where there is serious variation of restricted or complete incapacity to function on an everyday basis in Australian society AND that variation must be due to a physical and/or mental impairment (See DSM V) which is not capable of cure with any medical treatment, such that it is a permanent – lifelong impairment at the time of assessment.

Need to provide for discoveries that become accepted with best practice evidence – that the steps required to alleviate or eliminate an impairment are not medical, but lifestyle or environmental or relationship behaviour changes?

Then in another part of the Act – not in “Definitions” - there can be a reference to other matters as to how to determine capacity/ incapacity.

Consider: in any case concerning the NDIS that went before the High Court for determination, the Court would be looking initially to the legislative definitions, but the definition as stated here is not a definition.

A person’s functional capacity, in relation to AN ACTIVITY, is the person’s ability to undertake THE ACTIVITY: (a)without assistance from other people, assistive technology or modifications;

As stated, the definition pertains to a single unspecified activity:

Note: that THE ACTIVITY may be just to go on breathing, requiring necessary equipment or assistance from others or whatever it takes to overcome the compulsion to suicide. Such compulsion can persist for months or years as part of mental illness: answer is not long-term institutionalizing mentally ill persons again.

(b)in a context that excludes, as far as possible, the impact of the person’s environmental and personal circumstances. It appears that there is perceived some potential camouflage in action, which can conceal, mask or disguise someone’s real functional capacity, but as it stands, it suggests that there would need to be some bare laboratory conditions, in which one must exhibit any functioning incapacity. Whatever the Minister seeks to eliminate, eeds to be spelt out or better described.

To gain a true assessment of someone’s functioning capacity, an assessor needs to have some information about “the impact of the person’s environmental and personal circumstances.”; otherwise, it require sconsideration of someone, sitting for an irrelevant reason in solitary confinement to be assessed.

The fact sheet states: This enables future access decisions to be based on a consistent, objective and evidence-based assessment of functional capacity. The threshold and assessment process for this will be informed by advice from a Technical Advisory Group and engagement with the community and states and territories.

It is likely that serious-severe, permanent disabilities are not going to be amenable to consistent, objective and evidence-based assessment. If it is not recognized that this cohort needs to be dealt with individually, money shall be wasted trying to fit Participants into algorithms, with disastrous outcomes – for the Participants, the Government and the Government debt. e.g. Participants with genetic impairments – each very different. e.g. Participants with co-morbidity. e.g. Mental Illness which relies on subjective reporting by patient and subjective skills of doctor, without any independent, objective means of testing for diagnosis, nor treatment.

e.g.

See: “Factors that influence participation in physical activity for people with bipolar disorder: a synthesis of qualitative evidence” in a Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD013557.pub2/full

e.g. Three deaf Participants present in extremely different ways as to their support needs, yet those needs can all arise from their disability of deafness.

Is it going to be necessary for there to be medically recognized impairment. The alternative would be to rely purely on self-assessment and that is not acceptable.

Human communication and understanding one-on-one needs to be sophisticated and nuanced to pick up relevant indicators for determination of functioning capacity.

It may seem counter-intuitive, but when we start to put an emphasis on consistent, objective and evidence-based assessment, we are immediately seeking ‘like for like’ in “functioning capacity” decisions, and this could prove massively skewed and be challenged in Courts as to it considering improper matters.

People seek certainty, standardization, but certainly assessment of human beings with disabilities are not compatible with this type of objectivity. There are not x-rays, MRIs, effective standardized mental tests, currently reputable, with which to assess various conditions.

Any hope that assessments could be determined by AI type tools would fall foul of true analysis. Questionnaires are greatly utilized, but extremely blunt tools, from which the interpretation of questionnaire studies can be hazardous and challenged.

It is worth noting comments made about difficulties in measuring “functional capacity” in the real world, in T L Patterson, BT Mausbach: “Measurement of Functional Capacity: A New Approach to Understanding Functional Differences and Real-world Behavioral Adaptation in Those with Mental Illness” in Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2010 Apr 27;6:139–154. hhttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3160788/

N.B. Digital sphere capacity as an essential element in “functioning capacity” There is presently a severe deficit around expectations of a person being a functioning person and their needs– as it remains set in the 1950s of housecleaning, grocery shopping, showering etc, when the most confronting aspect to life in 2026, from which one cannot escape, is one’s capacity to manage in the digital sphere. Please ensure that this is part of any assessment for “functional capacity”.

If a disability was to be assessed by algorithms: constantly situations would arise where the breadth, depth and alternative of needs would be way off the mark

============================================================

Part 2 - Limit unscheduled plan reassessments

Part 2 tightens the criteria for unscheduled plan reassessments. Only participants, their plan nominee or guardian will be able to request an unscheduled plan reassessment. Unscheduled reassessments will only be possible when:

there have been significant and ongoing changes to a participant’s support needs arising from changes in their functional capacity
there has been an unanticipated, significant and ongoing change in a participant’s living, education, work or informal support arrangements.

What is behind this proposed provision??

I. Who else has been requesting unscheduled plan reassessments?

II. If it has been Support Coordinators or Plan Managers, surely, they should only have been doing this at the behest of the participant?

III. If there was a conflict-of-interest element in Support Coordinators or Plan Managers utilizing/permitting use of a participant’s budget in such a way as the funds depleting to negligible before Plan expiration, this sounds like a form of systemic fraud – with reckless indifference to the timing of when, and how. funding is spent.

IV. It appears the answer lies more in Tightening up:

a. the expertise and ethics expected of persons appointed to the roles of Support Coordinator and Plan Manager; and b. enforcement of Support Coordinators & Plan Managers fulfilling their roles properly; c. Such enforcement should not be in requiring Reports – waste of money at both ends of this process. d. Being subject to spot-checks by very capable NDIA staff may improve things, remembering that consideration of Service Agreements are only suggested by the NDIS, so scrutiny of these is irrelevant – saving time and money for spot checks. e. They could be liable for such misuse in management of a participant’s funds i.e. not doing all things reasonable to oversee a Participant’s use of funds with expenditure to extend for the full period of the Plan, unless extreme circumstances arise, with a penalty on the Support Coordinator/Plan Manager of being named in a Register of Unsatisfactory Management of Participant’s Funding, available to the public. f. The NDIS operates in a tough marketplace: use market means to ensure proper services; but not in how Participants are dealt with by the NDIA.

Where was the rationality in doing that in the first place? Not thought through.

Time has come to announce that the original NDIS individual consumer empowerment model was utopian; but absolutely impossible to utilize financially.

Why is there not the legal imposition of fiduciary duties at least for Nominees and Guardians? This does not introduce a whole heap fo legal proceedings, but could be a weapon to prevent misuse of participant’s funding. And potentially Support coordinators and Plan Managers where these people are virtually fulfilling the traditional role of a ‘Case Worker’ or of Guardian.

How does the provision here sit with sit with the proposed definition given of “functional capacity” above.

there have been significant and ongoing changes to a participant’s support needs arising from changes in their functional capacity
there has been an unanticipated, significant and ongoing change in a participant’s living, education, work or informal support arrangements.

(1)A person’s functional capacity, in relation to an activity, is the person’s ability to undertake the activity: (a) without assistance from other people, assistive technology or modifications; and (b) in a context that EXCLUDES, as far as possible, the impact of the person’s environmental and personal circumstances.

The NDIS has fallen foul far too much with lack of clarity; contradictions; failure to spell out and enforce the way in which things are to be done; correct prices to be charged; etc.

Things should not be left to “subject to negotiations with Participant”. Abandon fuzzy-wuzzy notions of soft peddling things, on the false assumption that everyone working in the disability sector would behave honourably and arrangements could be made on the basis of ‘gentlemen’s agreements’.

It is hugely mischievous to assume that seriously-severely permanently disabled individuals are in a position to negotiate and make decisions, as expected within the NDIS. It is a waste of money mostly for Support Coordinators spending time assisting in this decision-making process, except for selection of Support Workers – either you click well and person is competent OR they do not click well – up to Participant to decide that + setting the Goals for Plan. Support Coordinator should have direct responsibility for use of Plan, compliance with Plan & Goals etc; i.e. organizing potential support workers (Not out-sourcing this to intermediary companies who saw there was a quick buck to be made, in finding people who

could get no other job, but could be employed in NDIS Support Work; receiving a pittance in pay, (And ‘You get what you pay for’ i.e. $40 per hour Support Worker, as opposed to a $70per hour sole trader worker.) with the intermediary company skimming off a nice profit & making all sorts of claims about cost of training, paying insurances and superannuation, which should all be properly audited e.g. at what income does superannuation even start to be payable with many support workers earning less than that amount.)

Part 3 - Strengthen link between an impairment & need for support Part 3 clarifies that supports will only be funded where the need for a support arises directly from an impairment for which the participant met the criteria for accessing the NDIS.

This provision gives rise for concern, if it means: that for the rest of the Participant’s life, he/she can only obtain through the NDIS, support relating to the originally recognized impairment(s).

In practise, how is it proposed to carve a person up in this way? For example, in 2018 I was found eligible to be a NDIS Participant on the bases of a mental illness and a physical condition. In 2020 I suffered a ruptured brain aneurysm with massive complications for which I received intensive medical treatment. After three weeks I was discharged from hospital with no further medical treatment to be had.

However, I have acquired brain injury, from surviving a ruptured brain aneurysm, which does not necessitate medical treatment, but various deficits present.

How is a person to manage if, and when other major impairments arise?

Part 4 - Support determinations Part 4 enables the Commonwealth Minister to make determinations to reduce funding for groups of supports. This will enable a Ministerial determination to reset participant support budgets for social, civic and community participation and capacity building daily activities.

My response also speaks to: Schedule 3 – Governance arrangements Part 1 - Decision-making on pricing • Part 1 makes the Commonwealth Minister the decision maker on NDIS pricing. • The NDIA will retain responsibility for conducting independent analysis and stakeholder engagement through its Annual Pricing Review to inform pricing advice to the Minister.

This is a measure moving in the opposite direction to the well-known NDIS Principle of Participant “choice and control”, but it is time to come clean and say, that Australia cannot afford that model.

One of the big problems in taking steps now to maximize the sustainability of the NDIS, is the reality of changes in the society whereby families want to minimize or eliminate responsibility for their disabled and elderly family members.

How can family involvement and support be re-invigorated and increased? I note current TV advertisements for Carer Gateway.

To achieve a reduction in NDIS spending, there is an urgent need for the Commonwealth Minister to make decisions clearing up the wastage within the scheme, in compliance with the disorder and contradictions and ambiguous directions in the Pricing Arrangements & Price Limits document.

It is not fraud – no one has the intention of fraud, but simply to maximize their income – especially as it is from Government money, which is often considered differently than ‘misappropriating’ private funds. Decisions need to be made by the Minister and steps taken to cease to pouring out money to support workers, for example, like Niagra Falls, without effectively being applied for the basic benefits of the Participants.

About 3 November 2025, I wrote to Minister Butler + NDIS Minister McAllister+ NDIA detailing problems of particular provisions in Pricing Arrangements & Price Limits document. My letter set out precisely, mastering my my past legal skills, as best I could and put in an enormous amount of time and effort to request what I was seeking: decisions by Minister on certain pricing issues that were ambiguous &/or so far out of the range of SCHADS Award, there needed to be re- calculation on these particular matters, wasting millions of dollars over many years, from what I gathered from various sources. I received back a lengthy waste of time answer from a NDIA staff member, repeating what I had set out – and hostility from the Minister’s office.

Allow me to refer to some NDIS history to ascertain where money-saving needs to be made by Commonwealth Minister decisions.

Original emphasis of the NDIS:

“Each participant accesses supports that promote, uphold and respect their legal and human rights and is enabled to exercise informed choice and control. The provision of supports promotes, upholds and respects individual rights to freedom of expression, self-determination and decision-making.” hhttps://www.ndiscommission.gov.au/rules-and-standards/ndis-practice-standards/core-module-rights-an

This emphasis of the NDIS was empowerment of consumers, except it turned out that about half of participants were children; arguably, with Carers being the main beneficiaries of the NDIS.

The NDIS replicated a societal trend that family members did not want to; nor were they to be expected; to provide care for the disabled and elderly; but rather, these vulnerable citizens were an Australian national responsibility.

Family involvement has been replaced by paid Support Workers.

Originally, we, participants were invited to ‘Imagine the best life possible for you if you had necessary supports’ We were invited to dream, and choose: -what we would like to do; -incorporate these wishes into our Goals in formulating our NDIS Plan, -with which the impact of our disability would be minimized or even expected to disappear, such that: there were expectations -that despite the eligibility criteria of serious-severe and permanent disability -participants would be up-skilled so much, -that they would be able to do all things necessary to manage their own participation in the NDIS i.e. equivalent to managing a small business; -with supports, related to our disabilities, -which would ensure that we would have an enjoyable everyday life, -just like other non-disabled people in the community; -and live happily ever after in our newly fulfilled lives, -contributing to the community through paid work, thereby off DSP, or volunteering – -assuming that the Australian community would open their arms to this sector of the community, which had largely been invisible until this time.

[See publication “Imagine” published by the NDIA & Aust Mental Health Council]

Much less attention was given to understanding and complying with, the following :

(I am really addressing here “Part 6: Reasonable and Necessary supports”)

“Under NDIS rules, all funded services must be “reasonable and necessary,” which means they must deliver value for money and be both effective and beneficial. To ensure cost- effectiveness, the government establishes maximum price limits and regularly enforces rules against price gouging. “The NDIS rules say all NDIS supports need to meet the reasonable and necessary criteria before we can fund them in your plan.

The reality that has emerged, is that disabled individuals were desperate for companionship, apart from their family members, if they have family, which, for example, I have no family and that would be true of many Participants.

Many people in the disability cohort had no friends and very limited capacity and opportunities to make friends. This is not a matter of up-skilling Participants. Australians are not only inclined to be racist (a la current big increase in popularity of One Nation); but Australians also do not care to be around individuals with any of the varied disabilities, in my personal experience and observations. Australians seek out those highly successful in sport, and spend hours engaged with their digital devices.

So, the NDIS has brought companionship to Participants, with Support Workers simply spending time with Participants. The Minister may not be happy with this – and want to eliminate this, as a poor use of huge amounts of money. Dilemma.

There was an original assumption that disabled people were sitting around spending their lives watching TV and this could be changed into Participants becoming contributing members of the community. As I have outlined, and for a million other reasons, this trajectory was dubious at least, and potentially malicious in its disrespect and lack of compassion for those with disability.

Minister for Health, Ageing and Disability and Minister for the NDIS: ned to clean up the practices and procedures of the NDIS, starting with the provision of proper clear instructions, consistent with what is in written documents; on the website; and information provided by phone calls to the NDIA of what is required in the various NDIS circumstances; and minimize reliance on negotiations with Participant (invariably uninformed choice and control) who, by definition of their NDIS Participant eligibility, she/he is highly unlikely to have the functioning capacity: to manage a small business, with all that is unrealistically expected of Participants; nor be able to negotiate prices etc with providers who can be million-dollar national corporations. What is urgently required is: Legal staff of the calibre of the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office i n drafting and editing NDIS material, to give increased accessibility and confidence in the provisions of the NDIS, thereby ensuring more efficient running of the scheme and removing provisions that enable Providers to charge top dollar for services that do not warrant that.

The Pricing Arrangements & Price Limits document is long, setting out a complicated model, with provisions that are ambiguous or even contradictory in parts, without ensuring that pricing operations do not open the door to charging within the terms of that document but allowing providers to charge in a maximum fashion, supposedly negotiated with a Participant who is so seriously and permanently

Page 14

impaired, that he/she would have negligible capacity virtually to run a business, of engaging providers; keeping records of what they do and for how long they do it; monitoring that claims being lodged were “correct” – requiring detailed knowledge of the current version of the “Pricing Arrangements & Price Limits” document and “NDIS Pricing Catalogue”.

Clarity and enforcement of NDIS provisions were given low priority; with the expectation that things would operate on trust – “gentlemen’s agreements’ – i.e. Service Agreements of dubious value as to being valid or enforceable contracts. The NDIA emphasized that it had no responsibility whatsoever, regarding these legal contracts, but Participants were expected to enter into many of these agreements, sometimes worth thousands of dollars, without any independent legal advice.

===============================================================

Part 5 - Plan renewal

Part 5 introduces a legislated end date for all participant plans. When a participant reaches their plan reassessment date, this will become their end date and a renewed plan will be created immediately after

Unspent funds from the previous plan will not be carried over to the renewed plan.

I understood that these were the practices that were supposed to be in place all along, but the problem was the inadequacy of NDIA personnel with sufficient expertise and training to conduct the Plan Reviews, & make decisions for any justified changes.

===============================================================

Part 6 - Reasonable and necessary supports

Part 6 clarifies factors that must be considered by the NDIA when determining what supports are reasonable and necessary to fund. The NDIA must consider Scheme sustainability and equity across NDIS participants, including participants with similar needs and circumstances.

I have addressed this above.

Part 7 - Plan suspensions

Part 7 allows the NDIA to suspend an individual’s plan when reasonable attempts to contact them have been made and a response or adequate response has not been provided. it also allows an individual’s status as a participant to be revoked if their plan has been suspended for at least 90 days when the NDIA has not been able to contact them.

No problem with this.

Part 8 - Tightening meaning of permanence to reduce access where an impairment can be treated

Part 8 clarifies the definition of permanence in the Act, specifying that access will only be granted when:

all appropriate treatment to remedy or alleviate an impairment has been undertaken
no other treatment is likely to materially improve the impact of the impairment
the impairment is likely to be lifelong.

There will be an instrument to outline circumstances where a participant has accessed all appropriate treatment.

These provisions raise all sorts of issues around medical treatment:

all appropriate treatment to remedy or alleviate an impairment has been undertaken
no other treatment is likely to materially improve the impact of the impairment

Under our legal system the patient or guardian must give informed consent.

“Medical consent is the legal and ethical requirement that a patient must voluntarily agree to any medical examination, test, or treatment after being fully informed of the risks, benefits, and alternatives. Valid consent must be given freely by a legally competent adult and can be withdrawn at any time.”

https://www.google.com/search?q=consent+for+medical+treatment&oq=consent+for+&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqDQgBEAAYkQIYgAQYigUyBggAEEUYOTINCAEQABiRAhiABBiKBTINCAIQABiRAhiABBiKBTIHCAMQABiABDIHCAQQLhiABDIHCAUQABiADBIHCAcQABiABDIHCAgQABiABDIHCAkQABiABNIBCTE0Mjc3ajBqN6gCCLACAfEFOR6VVQkq3GY&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Could this give rise to members of families trying to force someone, who is not under Guardianship, to undergo a legal procedure in order to be eligible; or remain eligible, for the NDIS?

What if a person consents to medical treatment under the duress, that ‘if I do not do this I shall not be eligible for NDIS’.

Will the NDIS be able virtually to enforce Participants to participate in new medical procedures or programmes, and only if these are unsuccessful, shall the person be able to maintain NDIS eligibility [In 1996, the Govt of the day, made a requirement like this, in order for patients to receive Medicare coverage for more than one psychiatry appointment per week.]

What shall be the position where medical research develops a treatment that was not available when a Participant accessed the scheme?

In Australia, medications are approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), which is part of the Australian Government Department of Health. [1, 2] Before any medication can be supplied or sold, the TGA assesses it for quality, safety, and efficacy, and enters it into the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG)

Medical Procedures

No such approval is required for medical procedures.

Whether or not a patient should proceed to have a medical procedure, even if it is recommended by a doctor, is subject to many considerations.

dr. norman swan frequently discusses how many common medical procedures—such as knee replacements, spinal fusions, or certain cancer screenings—often lack rigorous clinical evidence. He argues that these procedures receive funding without the same strict regulatory approval process required for new pharmaceutical drugs. [ABC Radio “Health Report”]

https://www.google.com/search?q=norman+swan%3A+medical+procedures+do+not+require+approval&oq=&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCQggECMYJxjqAjIJCAAQIxgnGOoCMgkIARAjGCcY6gIyCQgCECMYJxjqAjIJCAMQIxgnGOoCMgkIBBAjGCcY6gIyCQgFECMYYxjqAjIJCAYQIxgnGOoCMgkIBxAjGCcY6gLCAQozNjc1MzJqMGo3qAIIsAIB8QU7iQTEx6883Q&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Adam G Elshaug, Amber M Watt, Linda Mundy and Cameron D Willis: “Over 150 potentially low-value health care practices: an Australian study“ Med J Aust 2012; 197 (10): 556-560. || doi: 10.5694/mja12.11083 Published online: 19 November 2012

Issues would also arise around consent: regarding children: “Children and young people under 18 Most of the time, a parent or guardian can agree to treatment for a child or young person under 18. Children can make decisions about their own medical treatment if they are capable of understanding why the treatment is important.”

“Going to the doctor by yourself”

From 15 years of age, a person can apply for their own Medicare card & neither doctor nor patient disclosure to parents may occur.

========================================================

Part 9 - Eligibility based on access to other services Part 9 clarifies where an individual is not eligible for NDIS if they access other service systems. Applicants will need to disclose if they are eligible for or accessing supports from a workers’ compensation or motor vehicle accident scheme for relevant impairments.

No problems with this.