NDIA Accountability Project

Requesting Assistance Dog Funding and Appeals to the AAT

‹ PrevPage 1 of 4 · Source p. 1Next ›

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 dis.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.

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

  • 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-technol) 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

  • 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” 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- dia/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.