Stephen Bates (Brisbane, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.1) Bill 2024. The Greens see that this bill threatens the future of the NDIS and the rights of disabled people in Australia. The National Disability Insurance Scheme was designed to help. Its goal was to provide funding to eligible people with disabilities to gain greater independence, to access new skills, to be more immersed in their communities and, ultimately, to improve quality of life. Unfortunately, as time has gone on, we have seen more and more delays, with participants ending up in some dire situations.

Before delving into this bill, I would like to share the experiences of some of my constituents in the Brisbane community.

One constituent recently reached out to my electorate office for support with her NDIS application. After sustaining a new permanent injury last year, this constituent lodged a change-of-circumstances review in January to flag that she would require significantly increased support, particularly with physiotherapy, podiatry, support worker hours, assistive technology, home modifications and other allied health services. At the same time, this constituent had already been experiencing mishandling from her plan manager, including having invoices not paid on time, making it seem like she had more funding than was actually available. Her increased support needs, the reported misconduct of her plan manager and the significant delay it took for the NDIA to assess the change-of-circumstances request meant that her plan ran out of funding earlier this month. This constituent followed all the correct and available methods of escalation but was left in a dire situation without any formal support. She has been unable to feed and shower herself since May. This is unacceptable.

After multiple interventions from my office with the members and senators contact office, this constituent finally received a new plan, but of course it was not up to scratch. This new plan didn't consider any of the requests made in her change-of-circumstances review request and seems to be punishing her for reporting her plan manager's misconduct. The new plan also means she is unable to access her existing support team, so essentially she is still without any formal support.

I'd like to detail some of the discrepancies in the outcome of her review request because we are seeing this time and time again. Firstly, the plan was moved to NDIA management. This constituent's existing support team, including her allied health supports, her psychologist and her support workers, are not NDIS registered. Switching her plan to NDIA management has meant she has no ability to access her existing support teams, depriving her of her choice and control. We've seen this with cases very often. Participants have no other option than a slow and costly process to establish new supports.

Secondly, the new plan cuts back on supports she was previously funded for. Most notably, funding for assistive technology was slashed by more than half the previous amount. The new plan seems to deem this constituent's home unsuitable because of modifications required, failing to take into account the very obvious fact that, due to her disabilities, no home is going to be suitable without modifications. Critically, it also blatantly ignores that this constituent is a survivor of domestic violence and she needed to choose a safe location where her abusers were unlikely to access her. The new plan declined her assistive technology requests, which were supported by an occupational therapist, and home modification requests.

Lastly, this new plan restricted my constituent's ability to travel as part of her work. This again runs counter to core pillars of the NDIS: choice, control and support to pursue goals and participation in the community and in employment. This change will prevent her being able to continue her work in an important nonprofit, another area that was clearly stated in her goals but seemingly ignored.

Ultimately, this is just one of many stories my team have dealt with. What is especially concerning is the escalation in both the number of cases and their intensity, with wait times that seem to blow out further and further.

While advocating for our constituents, my office and staff have encountered a number of other issues with the NDIS. Delays seem to be absolutely rampant. We have seen participants and their support networks applying for NDIS change of circumstances and other reviews with plenty of time to spare. This includes providing a plethora of evidence for their support needs and expensive reports from experts in their care, all timely and all in order. And yet many have had to wait so long for a response from the NDIS that their funding completely runs out, leaving them in the lurch. In many instances, this means they have to rely on either pro bono support from providers or on family, many with their own full-time jobs and their own responsibilities to manage, or ultimately be left completely alone, unable to feed, dress or shower themselves and maintain basic hygiene. Unfortunately, this often means these people are left in imminent danger of self-harm or causing harm to others due to heightened behaviours when unsupported.

The NDIS have clearly not been taking a substantive view of all evidence supplied to them in reviews and initial applications into consideration. We have had planners say to our constituents, 'I had to google your diagnosis; I'd never heard of it,' and participants be told they're overspending, as if it is some sort of shopping spree. This is the experience of too many who have extensively evidenced their need for relevant support in their plans. The NDIS is so difficult to navigate, especially at the appeals and review stages. It is so difficult, in fact, that there are dedicated community—

See this speech in context