NDIS

[Rorschach]

NDIS must be sorted now to be effective and viable
The Australian
12:00AM May 18, 2018

Australians with severe disabilities need the security and support the National Disability Insurance Scheme provides. The scheme must be affordable for taxpayers, however, which is why the agency running the NDIS is right to resort to legal action to fight off appeals from clients for more money in their support packages or to get into the scheme. More than 750 such appeals have been made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal since the scheme began. And in just two months this year, the National Disability Insurance Agency has been forced to revise plans for three clients by $200,000 a year after the AAT judged they had been underfunded.

Future legal action, as Rick Morton writes today, is likely to come from applicants diagnosed with conditions such as chronic fatigue, mental health problems and autism who want to join the scheme. However responsible the NDIA is being in trying to limit access to the scheme from such applications, it has lost 40 per cent of the cases it has fought so far, incurring legal costs of up to $10 million a year. In its submission to the ­Productivity Commission review last year, the NDIA noted that its risk exposure from the result of legal cases was “potentially extreme”. Decisions by the AAT or the Federal Court, it said, had the potential to vastly ­increase the scope of access and what was considered “reasonable and necessary support’’ to clients, even while the NDIA challenged some decisions.

The basic problems date back to Labor’s rushed, incompetent establishment of the scheme under Julia Gillard: first, the lack of clear boundaries for what the NDIS could provide and for whom; and second, the commonwealth shouldering 100 per cent of NDIS cost overruns while allowing the states equal say and equal control over implementing the scheme.

The time to resolve those problems is now, before the NDIS reaches full rollout next year, when it is likely to serve about 475,000 people and its projected cost is $23.6 billion for the first full year of operation. At the start of this year, the scheme was serving 140,000 clients, of whom almost 38,000 — or 29 per cent — had autism as their primary disability. An equal number had intellectual disabilities and 7 per cent had psychosocial disabilities.

From the surge in legal cases and their outcomes in the past year, it is clear the ultimate scope and cost of the NDIS will be shaped by court and tribunal decisions. Social Services Minister Dan Tehan was right when he said on yesterday’s front page that such decisions “will be critical to the future sustainability of the scheme”. That’s why he needs to act. The COAG Disability Reform Council is not due to review the NDIS legislation until 2021. That process must be brought forward to provide the NDIA with flexibility to set boundaries and limit its clientele to focus on its core constituency: those with severe disabilities. The states will be reluctant to give up the cushy deals they were handed by Ms Gillard. But it is in their interests to help ensure the NDIS remains viable.

The NDIS as devised is a money pit. It needs to be restructured and its parameters set in concrete. At present in its present form it is totally unsustainable.

[Outlaw Yogi]

NDIS like every other Rudd-Gillard era project is a complete failure ... but then that's the Fabian's/communist's/socialist's method for crippling the Westernised world in their destruction of capitalism agenda. By creating unnecessary costs and red tape.

[mellie]

NDIS isn't perfect, and flaws need ironing out, but it's been fantastic with assisting my L2-ASD daughter , So can't complain.

[Outlaw Yogi]

NDIS isn't perfect, and flaws need ironing out, but it's been fantastic with assisting my L2-ASD daughter , So can't complain.

Assuming L2-ASD is level 2 autism/aspergers, it might interest you to know of a report in the Weekend Australian about a secret intention that was accidentally published online and then taken down, that the NDIS staff are removing level 2 autism/aspergers from eligibility by redefining its diagnosis.

[mellie]

Level 1. Not L2

Furthermore, this applies to future applicants, not those already receiving therapy.
Do you have a link?

I agree many L1s are being over funded, so an adjustment is due.

NDIS should be reserved for those who need it most.

[Outlaw Yogi]

Level 1. Not L2

Furthermore, this applies to future applicants, not those already receiving therapy.
Do you have a link?

I agree many L1s are being over funded, so an adjustment is due.

NDIS should be reserved for those who need it most.

Sorry no link.
The article in question in paper version of the Weekend Australian specifically stated Level 2, and that the NDIS staff took down the publication from their site and were busy assuring stakeholders it's a mistake. According to the article the intention to disqualify L2s is genuine, to save money, but they're worried about the public flak they'll get for it.

The article gave the impression L1s weren't eligible anyway.

[Redneck]

NDIS isn't perfect, and flaws need ironing out, but it's been fantastic with assisting my L2-ASD daughter , So can't complain.

In what way have they been helpful mellie?

I have a family member also with a similar disability but am not sure in what way they would assist.

I also feel like all these government subsidised programs they are just cash cows for private companies to make money.

[sprintcyclist]

The NDIS is just another expensive idealistic failure from the labor party

[Redneck]

The NDIS is just another expensive idealistic failure from the labor party

Agree but!

I seem to recall the rightards also voted for it, strange you forgot to mention that!

Arseholes both of them!

Should we vote greens.................OMG ................That is not worth even thinking about!

[sprintcyclist]

The NDIS is just another expensive idealistic failure from the labor party

Agree but!

I seem to recall the rightards also voted for it, strange you forgot to mention that!

Arseholes both of them!

Should we vote greens.................OMG ................That is not worth even thinking about!

the rightys might well have voted for it.

It's still a failure of an idealistic dream