Joint Standing Committee on the National
Disability Insurance Scheme ,
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Phone: +61 2 6277 3083 Fax: +61 2 6277 5829 ndis.sen@aph.gov.au
Friday 6th September, 2019
Inquiry into the NDIS Planning processes
Dear Committee Members,
I speak as a person with a disability and an NDIS participant since 2014. Through creating an
information sharing group on social media, I have observed common threads in participant
frustration with the planning process, in particular with Assistive Technology requests. I write this
submission to address these references in the inquiry:
a. the experience, expertise and qualifications of planners c. the ongoing training and professional development of planners e. participant involvement in planning processes and the efficacy of introducing draft plans i. the incidence of appeals to the AAT and possible measures to reduce the number In 2016, I requested funding for an Assistance Dog to be included in my NDIS plan at review.
I knew of two other participants who had not previously had an Assistance Dog but requested
funding for a new prospect (dog in training) and the evidence they provided were a few letters from
GP and/or psychologist. A small amount of maintenance funding was granted. These dogs were
funded for psychosocial disability as the primary diagnosis.
Page 1 of 4
With only this information, I went into my planning meeting armed with my supporting
letters. It was a decision I had discussed thoroughly with my treating professionals. I had even
moved to a new house to ensure the Assistance Dog would have a suitable yard for their best life
whilst not working. I took my decision seriously. The planner told me they didn’t fund assistance
animals, and when I mentioned other funded participants, they asked me to provide further
information – but no clear guideline of what was expected. I provided further letters to support my
case, but my claim was rejected.
The internal appeals process was lengthy, approximately six months for a response. It was
then taken to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) where, in just over 18 months total, my
matter was finally settled the day before the hearing. It was an excellent outcome through a very
complex process.
I’ve joked that going through the appeals process and to the AAT was ‘capacity building’. I
learnt a lot about the NDIS Act, how to request, collate and present legal documents and reports,
spent hours strengthening my research skills and I really had to use my voice for what I needed. In
reality, there were many times it almost broke me. My disability became unstable trying to keep up
with the guessing game of what information the NDIS needed to see to be satisfied. I see the same
happening to others, too.
A large part of this is fixable – by providing participants clear guidelines of what information
they are expected to provide when they request a specific form of Assistive Technology, such as an
Assistance Animal – and educating Planners and LAC’s that the NDIS don’t “only fund Guide Dogs”.
This causes frustration, distress and delays on a participant’s request for Assistive Technology being
considered fairly.
I acknowledge that the Scheme has evolved over time as it has rolled out nationally, and that
there is far more information available on the website now than there was in 2014. I appreciate that
the NDIS was designed to take a different approach from previous models and focuses on the
individual’s right to ‘choice and control’ to achieve their unique goals. I wholly support this, but I feel
that by not providing participants, their families and carers to clear planning information for
Assistive Technology support requests (such as Assistance Animals), it is not allowing us the right to
exercise control within our planning meetings. We cannot be prepared to meet the requirements for
supporting documentation if we do not know what they are.
I speak specifically of the internal document requested under the Freedom of Information
Act in late 2018 titled ‘Practice Guide - Assistance Animals: Guidance for Planners, LACs and
Page 2 of 4
Delegates’ [attached to this submission]. This document shows clearly and simply what a participant
needs to provide if requesting an Assistance Animal. It astounded me that this information was not
readily available for participants who could then adequately prepare for the support request. This
has a flow on effect of:
-
Participants submit an internal appeal, which takes additional NDIS resources to process
-
If the participant is still unaware of the required documents and thus has not provided these in the internal appeal, the case may proceed to the AAT
-
In my experience, it is only during the AAT process that the participant becomes aware of the types of further documentation required, and the areas of evidence required for report
writers (therapists, etc)
-
This leads to a double up in report writing and additional time taken for supporting professionals to write supplementary supporting material
-
It also leads to confusion and frustration for participants as they are unclear of the requirements and are ‘drip fed’ requests for additional documentation
-
The time the participant spends appealing the decisions and going through the AAT process detracts from their focus towards their goals in their current plans. It can also impact their
health and well-being, as it did mine
The current available document on the Assistance Animal section of the NDIS webpage
(https://www.ndis.gov.au/participants/home-equipment-and-supports/assistive-technology
explained/choosing-assistive-technology/assistance-animals) titled ‘Assistance Animals Guidance’
provides very little guidance on what supporting documentation is required, especially when
comparing the FOI document titled ‘Practice Guide - Assistance Animals: Guidance for Planners, LACs
and Delegates’ which is an NDIS internal document available and written for Planners and LAC’s.
The current Inquiry reference points can be addressed by:
a. the experience, expertise and qualifications of planners & c. the ongoing training and professional development of planners Page 3 of 4
➢ Educating planners and LAC’s about the range of Assistive Technology that have a unique
line item, including Assistance Dogs, so that participants are not subjected to “we don’t fund
that” attitudes during a planning meeting. Making requests in the planning process can
already be a daunting or stressful experience.
e. participant involvement in planning processes and the efficacy of introducing draft plans & i. the incidence of appeals to the AAT and possible measures to reduce the number ➢ Creating publications of clear and easy-read guides of what supporting documentation is
required for complex or high-risk AT requests, such as a participant/carer/therapist guide of
the ‘Practice Guide - Assistance Animals: Guidance for Planners, LACs and Delegates’. This
will allow the participants to come prepared with their request, likely creating
comprehensive requests from participants and a reduction in the number of appeals and
progressions to the AAT on the basis of lack of supporting documentation.
➢ Providing clear guides such as ‘Practice Guide - Assistance Animals: Guidance for Planners,
LACs and Delegates’ empowers the participant to be involved in their planning process.
Without this document, the participant relies on the advice from others which may or may
not be accurate.
➢ Updating the Assistive Technology template for therapists to include all Assistance Animals,
not only Guide Dogs (https://www.ndis.gov.au/providers/essentials-providers-working
ndia/providing-assistive-technology). This form in its current state is limiting to only those
with vision loss or impairment and does not account for other types of abilities or Assistance
Animals (eg: Hearing Assistance Dogs, Mobility Assistance Dogs, Psychiatric Assistance Dogs,
etc). The general assistive technology assessment does not meet the requirements of the
‘Practice Guide - Assistance Animals: Guidance for Planners, LACs and Delegates’ and
without this specific information, a therapist is likely to write an insufficient report.
Thank you for taking the time to consider these matters in the Inquiry.
Kind regards,
Page 4 of 4