Executive Summary

I submit this evidence to highlight systemic inefficiencies in the current NDIS access process. My experience illustrates how the interaction between the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) and Local Area Coordinator (LAC) partners can create procedural barriers, resulting in delayed assessments, unauthorised data retention, land outcomes that do not reflect an applicant’s functional capacity.

Key Systemic Issues Identified

A. Inefficiency in Direct Lodgement Processing

The current system appears to automatically route direct access requests to LAC partners for “completion,” even when the application is verified and complete. This creates a duplication of effort and delays the statutory 21-day assessment period. In my case, a valid application lodged on 5 February was treated as incomplete by the LAC partner on 17 February, leading to unnecessary meetings and data re-collection.

B. Misalignment of Process and Applicant Expectations

There is a lack of clarity and consistency in how LAC partners communicate the purpose of meetings. My experience suggests a discrepancy between the applicant’s understanding (attending an Access Request assessment) and the administrative classification (a Community Connection meeting). This misalignment resulted in the creation of a document (Community Connections Plan) that I did not request and do not consent to.

C. Data Retention and Privacy Concerns (APP 11.2)

Despite my identity being verified electronically via Centrelink (as confirmed in the 5 March decision letter), the LAC partner collected and retained scanned copies of my identity documents (including a Marriage Certificate requested via unsecured email) and medical records. Under Australian Privacy Principle 11.2, entities should not retain personal information longer than necessary for a lawful purpose. As the NDIA already held verified electronic records, the retention of these physical/digital copies by the LAC partner appears inconsistent with data minimisation principles.

D. Assessment of Functional Impact vs. Diagnosis

The access decision cited “asthma” as a barrier and claimed treatment was not exhausted, despite medical evidence of permanent fixed airflow obstruction (FEV1 25/17%) and ineligibility for further pharmacological intervention. This suggests the assessment process may be overly reliant on diagnostic labels rather than the statutory requirement to assess permanent impairment and functional impact. The creation of a low-intensity “Community Connections” plan for an individual with high-intensity needs (wheelchair dependence, daily nebulisation, full carer support) further indicates a mismatch between the outcome and the applicant’s actual functional capacity.

Recommendations for the Bill

To improve the integrity and efficiency of the NDIS, I recommend the Committee consider the following amendments or operational directives:

• Mandatory Processing of Direct Requests: Legislation or guidelines should require the NDIA to process all direct access requests within the statutory 21-day timeframe without mandatory referral to LAC partners for “completion” when the application is verified and complete.
• Explicit Consent for Community Plans: Clear legislative safeguards should be introduced to prohibit the creation of “Community Connections Plans” without explicit, written, and informed consent from the applicant, separate from the Access Request process.
• Data Minimisation Enforcement: Stricter enforcement of APP 11.2 for LAC partners, specifically prohibiting the retention of identity and medical

Functional Impact Training:

Mandatory training for all access decision- makers and LAC partners to ensure assessments are based on functional impact and permanent impairment evidence, rather than diagnostic labels or assumptions about “exhausting treatment” when specialist evidence confirms otherwise.

Conclusion

My experience suggests that the current partnership model, while intended to provide local support, can inadvertently create bureaucratic barriers that delay access, duplicate data collection, and misinterpret applicant needs. I urge the Committee to ensure the proposed Bill includes robust safeguards to protect the rights of applicants to have their direct submissions assessed fairly, promptly, and based on accurate medical evidence.