Analysis of new Amendments to the NDIS Amendment Bill

More amendments have dropped. These ones are poorly written and seem to deliberately obfuscate rather than clarifying. You can read it here.

Here is a quick and dirty analysis of the Amendments. Please let me know if you see anything that is of concern or which is a change which addresses the issues raised.

The proposed amendments to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 in light of the serious concerns raised by people with disability and our supporters, do not go far enough. Whilst the amendments do address some specific issues, they fail to fundamentally resolve the core rights violations and risks to people with disability that the Bill presents.


Here is a detailed critique of the amendments:


Amendment (1) allowing First Ministers to agree to NDIS rules is a procedural change that does not substantively impact participant rights or address the serious issues identified. The concentration of rule-making power remains problematic.
Amendments (2)-(5) and (13)-(14) introduce some clarification and safeguards around CEO information gathering powers, such as requiring requests be in writing and providing guidance on assessing reasonableness of non-compliance. However, the core issues of overly broad powers, lack of sufficient protections for vulnerable participants, and risks of losing access for failure to respond in crisis situations are not adequately mitigated. The amendments tinker at the edges but do not resolve the fundamental power imbalance and jeopardy participants face.
Amendments (6)-(12) attempt to clarify that needs assessments will be "whole of person" and consider interactions between qualifying and non-qualifying impairments. However, the language remains ambiguous about the ultimate scope of funded supports. Basing funding only on impairments related to NDIS access still risks underfunding whole-of-person support needs.

The amendments do not ensure co-design of assessment tools and leave key details to future rules. Transparency and legal rights around assessment reports are still lacking.

Overall, these amendments provide marginal improvement but core issues with the new assessment model undermining choice and control remain unresolved.


Amendment (18) requiring a "consultation statement" for legislative instruments is a positive step for transparency but does not guarantee the robust co-design and collaboration required for such major changes. It does not address the lack of hard requirements in the Bill itself to develop rules and assessment tools in partnership with people with disability.


In summary, whilst the package of amendments shows the government has noted some of the concerns raised, it does not change the fundamental architecture of the Bill which gives the NDIA sweeping new powers while reducing participant rights, autonomy and control over their supports. The core issues remain:


  • The NDIA retaining broad discretion to determine "reasonable and necessary" and what supports are "in or out", undercutting choice and control
  • Participants at risk of losing access and funding through rigid request processes not adapted to complex needs
  • Assessments and funding decisions based on opaque tools and rules developed without mandatory co-design
  • Concentration of power in the NDIA and Minister to make critical decisions about the scheme with diminished transparency and accountability
  • Insufficient protections against conflicts of interest and provider/NDIA misconduct causing harm to participants

The limited amendments do not resolve the fundamental philosophical shift in the Bill away from the original NDIS vision of empowering people with disability with choice and control over our lives. The scheme still moves towards a heavily NDIA-controlled, top-down, cost-cutting model that deprioritises individual needs and rights.
There are no meaningful changes to address:

  • The explicit enshrinement of Co-design and UNCRPD obligations in the legislation itself
  • Stronger oversight and appeal rights over NDIA decisions
  • Hard limits on CEO powers to overturn planning decisions or cut off participants
  • Guarantees of sufficient support for participants to engage with NDIA processes
  • Robust provisions to ensure culturally appropriate assessment and planning
  • Mandated funding for systemic and individual advocacy to rebalance power

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Broken Window In A Kalgoorlie Courthouse

Image
Aboriginal children on the roof of a police car during a protest The details are sketchy.  A fourteen year old Aboriginal child is dead.   His body is found lying in the bush. A fifty five year old man is charged with manslaughter, and the details are cautiously outlined.    The man who was arrested is the owner of a motorcycle, the same motorcycle which was allegedly stolen at the weekend.   The same motorcycle found by the body of the boy.  The man is also the owner of a Nissan Navara utility.   The same car that left tyre tracks along the route that the teenager took from the road into the scrub.  The police won’t say how the Nissan made contact with the motorcycle, other than to say that the man has been charged with manslaughter.  That should be the story.   That a man in a big car allegedly ran down a child on a motorcycle in a vigilante attack.    Instead, it is not.   And the outrage from the public is not ab
Read more

Why We Must Not Go Gently Into The Night

Image
You can see the look of strain in Glenda Lee's eyes as she prepares to meet with media.  There are cameramen bending down to wheelchair height to clip microphones onto her brightly coloured scarf.  Her power wheelchair is wedged into an artfully arranged cluster of manual and power chairs. 'This is the last thing I will do,' she says.  'I'm sick of fighting.  I've been doing this for forty years.' The other women nod in agreement.  They are not anti euthanasia activists - they are disabled women who have flown or traveled to protest the South Australian assisted suicide bill from a disability and human rights perspective.  Half are South Australian.  Others are from NSW, Victoria and WA.  One by one, they've been admitted through a side door and ushered into a small lift to hold a press conference in a courtyard at Parliament House. 'It wasn't accessible at all until a few years ago,' says a staffer brightly.  The women look unsurpr
Read more

The Apartheid of Mainstream Feminism (or when is a woman not a woman?)

Image
When is a woman not a woman? When she’s disabled, of course. It’s been a sad week for women with disability who are battling for inclusion in feminist circles. But it’s nothing new. In 2013, Stella Young wrote an article about ‘The Politics of Exclusion’, in which she recounted a story of her contact with Destroy the Joint, a feminist group who aims to make sure women are included in public participation. Destroy the Joint had set up a website where people could take a pledge. It read, in part: I want an Australia where girls and women, where men and boys, can take part in our society without enduring discrimination, sexism and violence. I want an Australia where we respect each other; an Australia where no person experiences hate because of their gender, race, religion or sexualit y. And I will challenge anyone who uses sex, race, religion or sexual orientation to incite hatred or to demean or vilify any of us. I will not stand by and let others do so without speakin
Read more