“Parliamentary Changes Making Life Harder For Disabled”

Fundamental changes to the NDIS that could see dramatic changes in the lives of of many people with disability, have been poorly communicated to the Scheme’s Participants and the Disability Community in general.

The “Getting The NDIS Back On Track” Bill came into effect on the 3rd of October this year and has irrevocably changed the fabric of our disability system, a system in which thousands of Australians depend upon.

When the NDIS was established by the Gillard Government in 2013, it was meant to provide a fresh approach in the way services are provided to people with disabilities.

The main objective of the NDIS was to give people with disabilities “Choice and Control” over their lives.

But recent changes to the NDIS have seen everything, but Participants having choice and control over their own lives.

Although the NDIS can be described as far from perfect, the scheme has had a positive impact on the lives of many Australians, who live with a disability.

After 11 years of service, improving the lives of many people with disability , the NDIS is on the verge of being scaled back, to the point where it is being virtually dismantled.

In contrast to the simple, pugilistic talking points of NDIS Minister Bill Shorten – rorts and frauds, stop the waste, economic sustainability – the changes evoked by the NDIS Bill are complex and myriad. They threaten to slash the number of participants in the scheme, dramatically reduce plan budgets, restrict the nature of supports participants can utilise, eliminate the independent support participants receive to navigate the scheme, raise debts against participants, remove the right to independent review and even enforce group homes for high needs participants.

Budget forecasts 27,000 fewer participants would join the scheme over the four years, with Shorten indicating the bulk of those will be individuals with a psychosocial disability who may be better supported outside the NDIS. Autism has also been named by Shorten as a target for entry to the scheme, bolstered by research conducted by an NDIA actuary which conflates correlation – of autism diagnosis rates and the existence of the NDIS – with causation.

What about those already on the NDIS? Currently, any participant may undergo a process known as eligibility reassessment, during which they may be removed from the scheme if they are determined to no longer meet eligibility requirements. Moving forward, certain “cohorts” will now be required to undergo eligibility reassessments, but who this will affect is uncertain.

Individualised plan budgets, based on each participant’s needs, therapist recommendations and disability, are gone. Instead, participants will now meet with an NDIA employee – qualifications to be determined – for a needs assessment, using a tool apparently so refined it can determine the disability needs of every single disabled individual in Australia. It also doesn’t exist yet.

Much like Senator Linda Reynolds' canned independent assessments, this assessment will place participants in a category with a set level of funding. Although the funding itself is not reviewable, a participant may request a new needs assessment if they feel they have been misrepresented. The actual right to appeal is unclear.

What is hard to fathom is that when Scott Morrison’s LNP Government was in power and tried to introduce Independent Assessment, Labor was strongly opposed to the idea-so why are they trying to introduce similar assessments now?

The lack of a clear right to review brings the NDIA's recent failings into sharper focus. Usually, the NDIA is bound to a certain timeframe for its decisions, such as 21 days for plan reviews. Wait times have blown out to months or even years, leaving participants to go without supports, sometimes tragically leading to their death. Currently, there are nearly 50,000 participants awaiting the result of a plan review. If the right to appeal ceases to exist, then so do these reviews.

This punitive approach carries through to debt collection. The NDIA can now raise debts against participants they accuse of fraudulent spending. It seems this right was exercised early by the agency. In April of this year, adjunct professor Hannah Friebel, 27, died by suicide after the NDIA hounded her for a nearly $28,000 debt. Despite being warned of her fragile mental health and distress at the weekly phone calls from the NDIA, they insisted on pursuing her for what they claimed was fraudulent spending, only retracting her debt after her death.

Paternalism is woven throughout the Bill. Instead of participants having the discretion to choose supports suited to their individual needs and circumstances, there is now a Byzantine definition of “NDIS support” accompanied by a list of approved and proscribed supports.

More concerning is the approach to high support needs individuals. Disability services were rightly deinstitutionalised decades ago, yet the Government is proposing forcing all high-needs participants into a 1:3 arrangement (staff:participant). In practice, this means group homes — and another era of abuse and neglect.

These are dark times for the disability community. It is a dark time for every Australian — the NDIS generates $2.25 for every $1 spent. These changes could be described as penny-wise and pound-foolish, or just plain mean. Participants who remain in the scheme will have to make do with less while spending more on approved disability-specific services. They may be forced into group homes, or lose all the independence the original NDIS granted them.

The social contract Julia Gillard made with the disability community is broken and as both major parties voted for the new Bill, it is unlikely to be restored.