Submission on the NDIS Amendment Bill
Name:
I am a disabled person who is an NDIS participant. I am also a clinician; a psychologist who delivers NDIS-funded supports.
Introduction / my connection to this issue
I am an adult who lives with multiple disabilities, and I require support in order to live a fulfilling life with dignity. My disabilities have been impacting me my whole life, but I have only recently been able to access support through the NDIS, which has been positively life-changing for me.
I am also a psychologist who delivers NDIS-funded supports. I work with many people who are disabled and who are on NDIS. I closely witness the struggles and challenges that NDIS participants experience, and the work I do with these wonderful humans contributes directly to their improved capacity & positive outcomes. NDIS is vital to my clients being able to flourish and live full lives.
My overall position on this Bill
I have serious concerns about this Bill.
I am very concerned in the lack of consultation with disabled people or Human Rights Commission throughout the decision-making process for this Bill.
I am seriously concerned about this Bill withdrawing supports from people who rely on them to stay alive & live tolerable lives, and I am worried that many people will die by suicide or attempt suicide in response to their supports being withdrawn. I am seriously concerned that this Bill contributes to eugenics and the systemic destruction of disabled people.
I am seriously concerned that this Bill opposes the well-documented data which shows that every $1 invested into the NDIS has a return of $2.25, indicating that continued investment into the NDIS would further support Australia’s economic success.
My key concerns
My key concerns about the Bill are: loss of supports, administrative burden, changes to assessments & eligibility, and automated decision making.
Loss of supports provided to disabled people: The current structure of the NDIS means that most people already do not have sufficient support through the NDIS, and that only a very small minority of participants (under 10%) have overly costly plans. This means that many NDIS participants are already “making do” with minimal budgets, picking which supports to access instead of others that they need, and not receiving the supports they need to improve their capacity. Cutting funding from
people’s plans would further decrease their access to support, and decrease their ability to live good lives. Removing people from the NDIS without having already established alternative systems to continue supporting them, is going to cause harm.
Administrative burden on participants: I agree the administrative process of NDIS is flawed and needs redesigning. As a participant, it is incredibly unclear what is needed for accessing & using my NDIS plan, and the administrative supports provided have not been helpful for clarifying what is needed. As a provider, the administrative requirements are constantly changing without clear updates about what is required & permitted. On both sides, it feels like jumping through invisible hoops, performing at a circus with a blindfold on. While change is needed, increasing the amount of administrative work that participants must do to engage with NDIS is not disability-informed. It places vulnerable people at risk of being taken advantage of, and places providers in the position of having fewer resources available to actually provide supports to participants.
Changes to Assessments & Eligibility:
The proposed new assessment process using the I-CAN assessment is deeply concerning. It is well known within the scientific field that modifying an existing assessment makes it empirically invalid and unfit for use until further research has been done to demonstrate the modified assessment remains valid & accurate. The I-CAN assessment is being modified and implemented without empirical testing, so there is no way to know if it is an accurate assessment. It is seriously concerning that this is invalid assessment is being used to determine eligibility to the NDIS. Additionally, the people conducting the I-CAN eligibility assessment are not trained clinicians, and they are not trained to clinically assess level of disability; this further invalidates the accuracy of the assessment. This will impact participants because the assessments will not accurately describe their needs, and their supports may be reduced or removed due to the outcomes of an inaccurate assessment.
Automated Decision Making:
The AI-powered tools being proposed for use within the NDIS for decision-making are well-documented to be biased against disabled people, unable to accurately assess an individual’s situation, and frequently generate false or misleading information. As a result, the use of these tools is not appropriate for determining any individuals’ needs in their NDIS plan. It is concerning that these tools are being implemented without safeguards or protections. It is extremely concerning that requests for review or reconsideration of the automated decision-making outcomes will not be permitted, given that the tools themselves are likely to be inaccurate. These tools are likely to be discriminatory towards disabled people and they will not be able to tailor plans to suit any individual need; as a result, these use of these tools would be a violation of anti-discrimination act.
What I want the committee to understand If NDIS participants are removed from the NDIS or have their funding reduced during a cost-of-living crisis, many of them will die. The NDIA, the Labor government, and the commission must be held responsible for this.
If NDIS participants are unable to access their supports due to plan cuts or increased administrative burden, they will become unable to live their lives with dignity. Their capacity will reduce and they will require more support from their families/friends/partners/unpaid carers, many of whom will have to leave their own workplaces to provide support. If this happens, disabled people will become an even larger burden on the economy, and Australia will lose valuable non-disabled employees that support the economy. NDIS work roles make up a huge portion of the Australian economy currently, and many providers will be forced to leave the workplace if participants are not able to fund supports through the NDIS. This will leave a huge portion of the non-disabled Australian workforce with reduced income, increased financial strain, and increased unemployment. The economic outcomes of reducing funding to the NDIS are enormous & disastrous.
Many of these proposed changes in the Bill may risk violating of the Human Rights Act and Anti-Discrimination Act.
What needs to change or be protected I ask the committee to please:
-
Involve disability advocates and the Human Rights Commission when reviewing this Bill.
-
Work towards making NDIS more accessible for disabled people to access, and to increase protections so that disabled people are not being taken advantage of for the profit & fraudulent spending of malicious providers.
-
Complete rigorous empirical testing of any tools, assessments, or processes before they are implemented, to ensure they are safe & accurate for use with disabled populations & individuals
-
Protect the existing supports that are provided to NDIS participants
-
Ensure that transitions & their impact on real humans are clearly communicated to providers & participants well in advance, to ensure a safe transition when changes must occur
Final statement
This Bill proposes changes that are seriously concerning and harmful to disabled people and the Australian economy. I urge the committee to please consider my experience and the experience of others when reviewing this Bill.