DOCUMENT 1
FOI 25/26-1463
From:
s47F-personal
Daniel
priva
on behalf of media
To:
Cross, Julie; media
Subject:
RE: Media request, deadline Tuesday 5pm. [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Date:
Thursday, 27 November 2025 3:48:36 PM
Attachments:
image003.png
Hi, Julie.
The NDIA does not use algorithms in developing or approving plans.
Regards,
Dan.
//
Daniel s47F-personal privacy
Senior Media Officer
Media, Marketing and Digital Communication Branch
National Disability Insurance Agency
M s47F-personal privacy
E daniel.s47F-personal xxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
The NDIA acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of Country throughout Australia and
their continuing connection to land, sea and community. We pay our respects to them and
their cultures and to Elders past, present and emerging.
Note to media: all information contained in this email is on background and should
not be attributed unless specified otherwise.
From: Cross, Julie
Sent: Thursday, 27 November 2025 2:36 PM
To: media
Subject: Re: Media request, deadline Tuesday 5pm. [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Hello,
Can I just check this line: The NDIA does not use an algorithm to approve a participant's
plan.
My question was does the agency use templates or algorithms to produce plans for people,
not approve plans?
Can you answer this question please, ideally by the end of the day?
Thank you,
Julie
Page 1 of 16
FOI 25/26-1463
Email: lauren.
@ndis.gov.au
s47F-persona
The NDIA acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of Country throughout Australia and
their continuing connection to land, sea and community. We pay our respects to them
and their cultures and to Elders past, present and emerging.
Note to media: all information contained in this email is on background and should
not be attributed unless specified otherwise.
From: Cross, Julie <xxxxx.xxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx>
Sent: Monday, 24 November 2025 2:39 PM
To: media <xxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx>
Subject: Media request, deadline Tuesday 5pm.
Hello,
Please see attached submission in regards to this request.
I would like a comment as to why there were so many missed opportunities and failures
by the NDIA to correct Stevie Lang Howson's plan?
He believes he is the victim of an algorithm? Does the agency use templates or
algorithms to produce plans for people?
Can you explain how TAPIB got this case so wrong?
Will TAPIB be responsible for training the new asessors for the I-CAN tool?
How much did the agency spend on lawyers / barristers fighting Mr Howson's appeal?
My deadline is Tuesday at 5pm.
Thanks,
Julie
JULIE CROSS
Social Affairs Reporter
2 Holt Street Surry Hills NSW 2010
GPO Box - GPO Box 7002, Sydney 2001
M +s47F-personal privacy
E xxxxx.xxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential
information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee
indicated in this message or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee,
you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you
Page 3 of 16
FOI 25/26-1463
should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the
sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments which does not
relate to the official business of the sending company must be taken not to have been
sent or endorsed by that company or any of its related entities. No warranty is made that
the e-mail or attachments are free from computer virus or other defect.
This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential
information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee
indicated in this message or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee, you
may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should
permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply
e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments which does not relate to the
official business of the sending company must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed
by that company or any of its related entities. No warranty is made that the e-mail or
attachments are free from computer virus or other defect.
Page 4 of 16
Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament
Submission 3
DOCUMENT 2
FOI 25/26-1463
Submission to Joint Standing Committee on the National
Disability Insurance Scheme
Dr Stevie Lang Howson
1. My name is Stevie Lang Howson and I am 34 years old. I have a 9 year old son and
live in Armidale in rural, north-western NSW.
2. I am Autistic. I was diagnosed with Autism in 2019 as an adult. I did not seek NDIS
support in 2019. I did not think I needed it. I believed NDIS support should be
reserved for the people who need it the most.
3. When I was a child there were issues that should have received attention. For
example, I could not jump. The way I ran attracted attention and teasing from other
children. I did not smile as a small child, I had another expression I would make with
one eye closed. I was very uncoordinated.
4. My parents did not understand that this might have signified an issue that needed
support. They accepted me for who I was, but didn’t seek medical help for me.
5. Despite the increased effort it took me, I have been committed to exercise and a
healthy diet since I was 14 years old. I believe this allowed me to delay the current
impacts of my physical disability.
6. After I turned 30, I experienced progressive issues with pain, fatigue, balance and
mobility. I sought medical advice and was diagnosed with Ehlers Danlos Syndrome
(hypermobile type). This is a genetic condition affecting the connective tissue.
Connective tissue is found throughout the body including in the joints and muscles.
7. Ehlers Danlos Syndrome (hypermobile type) affects more women than men.1 The
condition is considered under-researched and under-recognised.2 Some people are not
severely affected by it. Others are. They don’t yet understand why this is exactly. I am
severely affected.
8. More people are realising they have issues associated with hypermobility. The
relationship between hypermobility which can be a normal variation and hypermobile
Ehlers Danlos Syndrome is not entirely clear.3 However, because of increased
awareness about hypermobility, some people now think EDS is a ‘trendy’ diagnosis
and don’t take it seriously.
9. Something being considered ‘trendy’ and having a wide range of presentations from
relatively mild to severe does not mean that people with severe presentations who are
disabled by a condition do not need help. Many conditions, including well known
1 Demmler, Joanne C., et al. "Diagnosed prevalence of Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and hypermobility spectrum disorder in Wales, UK:
a national electronic cohort study and case–control comparison."
BMJ open 9.11 (2019): e031365.
2 See above.
3 Wang, Tina J., et al. "Fascial Pathophysiology in Hypermobility Spectrum Disorders and Hypermobile Ehlers–Danlos Syndrome: A
Review of Emerging Evidence."
International Journal of Molecular Sciences 26.12 (2025): 5587.
Page 5 of 16
Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament
Submission 3
FOI 25/26-1463
disabling conditions like cerebral palsy range from mild and invisible to severe and
noticeable impacts depending on the individual.
10. Before I was diagnosed, when the challenges I was facing were in their earlier stages,
I purchased a property with a partner in 2021.
11. Due to my increasing physical issues, I was not able to get around our property easily.
12. I was in a lot of pain. I was spending a lot of time in bed. I was not able to be
independent, for example, I couldn’t go to the shops or cook food.
13. I was still working at a desk job, but it was really hard to have the energy to anything
else.
14. I had to stop living on the property due to my mobility challenges. I rented a house in
town that was easier to get around. This caused financial strain for me.
15. I applied to the NDIS in September 2023 so that I could get the help I needed to live
alone, without a partner.
16. I had just gotten my first wheelchair because I could not remain standing or walking
long enough to get my child ready for school or make his lunch in the morning. I
bought it second hand, with the guidance of an occupational therapist.
17. When I applied to the NDIS, I was still working four days per week. I was using a
wheelchair. I had paid for occupational therapy and physiotherapy privately. I had
been to see a range of specialists and doctors. They told me that I would need ongoing
support and access to equipment, and in particular, physiotherapy.
18. When I applied to the NDIS I wanted help to get a wheelchair that was fitted for my
body and suitable for my condition to allow me to be more independent.
19. I needed enough support worker help to ensure that I could manage my
responsibilities as a parent and I also wanted help to move into a home that was
wheelchair accessible.
20. I needed some psychology support to manage the impact of my Autism on my
relationships and help me develop more insight to have better friendships and be a
better parent. I also needed psychology support to deal with the shame and distress I
was experiencing about my physical disability.
21. I also needed physiotherapy. This was very important as my mobility was getting
progressively worse. Physiotherapy is a key tool for managing Ehlers Danlos
Syndrome.
22. I thought that the NDIS might offer me ‘early intervention’ supports to get me back on
my feet, with the equipment and support I needed to stabilise my disability and be
independent.
Page 6 of 16
Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament
Submission 3
FOI 25/26-1463
23. In November 2023 I had a planning meeting with two representatives of UnitingCare,
who are the ‘Local Area Coordinator’ in Armidale.
24. At the planning meeting the UnitingCare staff were very kind. We developed a plan
that included most of what I needed. I felt confident and happy that things were going
to be worked out and my life could get back on track.
25. However, after the planning meeting, one of the staff from UnitingCare called me.
She said that the NDIA had told her that I could not have the supports that we had
discussed.
26. She said that I was only on the NDIS for Autism and that if I wanted support for my
physical disability, for example, physiotherapy or assistance accessing a wheelchair, I
would need to apply to the NDIS again. I asked how could I apply to the NDIS again,
as I am already a participant, she said she didn’t know. She also seemed confused and
distressed by what had happened.
27. I did get an NDIS plan, however it looked like it had been written for someone else,
not me. I received the following funding that I did not request, or need. This included:
• Speech therapy $3879.80
• Behaviour support plan and training $15,240.51
• Occupational Therapy $5819.70 – this was for a functional capacity
assessment. I had already paid for a functional capacity assessment less than
six months prior.
28. I suspect this plan was generated through automation. It was not relevant to me or my
life circumstances.
29. The funding for a behaviour support plan was particularly distressing to me.
Behaviour support plans manage behaviours of concern and the use of restrictive
practices. I was an adult without behaviours of concern, parenting and working in a
mainstream job. When I went to see a behaviour support practitioner, she said:
“Despite a thorough assessment, no restrictive practices were found to be, or have
been, in use, and no Behaviours of Concern were identified… Stevie’s dignity and
quality of life are not impacted by his behaviour, but rather by deficiencies in
disability supports, particularly around mobility challenges.’
30. I later found out the cost of the behaviour support plan would have covered an
appropriate wheelchair.
31. It came to my attention that this issue arose because the NDIA had listed my ‘primary
disability’ as Autism. In their view, this meant that I could not be supported for Ehlers
Danlos Syndrome, despite it being a more significant cause of disability for me at the
time.
32. This Joint Standing Committee has previously stated that: ‘The NDIA's distinction
between 'primary disability' and 'secondary disability' has no basis in its governing
legislation or the reality of participants' lives’ and that ‘it can result in participants
Page 7 of 16
Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament
Submission 3
FOI 25/26-1463
being denied supports for impairments that the agency determines are not related to
their 'primary disability'.’4
33. This Joint Standing Committee has also stated: ‘The distinction between 'primary
disability' and 'secondary disability' would therefore seem to raise the prospect that an
applicant might be excluded from the scheme, or a participant might be denied
reasonable and necessary supports, where particular impairments, or the totality of
their impairments, could not be readily attributed to their 'primary disability'.’5
34. This committee has recommended ‘that the National Disability Insurance Agency
assess people according to the totality of their disabilities and no longer require
participants to nominate a 'primary disability' and 'secondary disability'.’6
35. This Committee has described the NDIA’s distinction between primary and secondary
disabilities as an ‘administrative convenience’ with profound negative impacts for
participants.7
36. The law was later amended to support the NDIS’ distinction between eligible and
ineligible impairments.8 But, at the time, this was not the law. The NDIA should have
considered the combined impact of my disability as recommended by this committee
and as provided for in their governing legislation and the legal precedent at the time.
This Committee has previously stated: ‘Legal precedents confirm that there is no
legislative basis for distinguishing between 'primary disability' and 'secondary
disability'. It would, therefore, appear to be an artificial distinction that the NDIA has
introduced and imposed.’9
37. I did a participant information request and found out that Ehlers Danlos Syndrome
was listed on my file, but there was an end-date applied to the listing. I don’t know
how a disability can have an end-date. No one could explain why this had happened. I
asked a lot of different people in the NDIA.
38. I did an internal review (appeal to another staff member in the NDIA) of my plan.
They affirmed the decision to give me behaviour support and no assistance with my
physical disability.
39. I applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (now Administrative Review
Tribunal) in March 2024.
40. The early intervention team who review external reviews told me that the decision to
give me behaviour support was wrong. I later found out through an FOI request that
this early intervention team member had suggested resolving my matter in a way that
would have been satisfactory to me at the time, avoiding the need for an appeal at all.
4 Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS,
The Culture and Capacity of the NDIA, (Report)
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary Business/Committees/Joint/National Disability Insurance Scheme/CapabilityandCulture/
Report, 2.29.
5 As above, 2.35.
6 As above, 6.11.
7 As above, heading section 2.30.
8
National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) s 34(1)(aa).
9 Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS,
The Culture and Capacity of the NDIA, (Report)
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary Business/Committees/Joint/National Disability Insurance Scheme/CapabilityandCulture/
Report, 2.30.
Page 8 of 16
Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament
Submission 3
FOI 25/26-1463
41. However, her advice was overruled by the ‘TAPIB’ Technical Branch at the NDIA.
They didn’t give many reasons why, stating only that Ehlers Danlos Syndrome was
complex.
42. The NDIA engaged lawyers to represent them. I was very fortunate that Legal Aid
ACT took on my case. This meant that I also had a lawyer. This is unusual and I was
very lucky that my matter was listed in the ACT and was able to access this support as
most people are unable to access Legal Aid for NDIS matters.
43. Throughout the appeal, the NDIA lawyers said that I could not receive support for
‘impairments associated with EDS.’
44. They said that these impairments were not permanent, and that they did not cause
significantly reduced functional capacity but they did not explain why they thought
this. It is very hard to become a wheelchair user in your thirties and be told this is not
a significant impact by the NDIA.
45. Changes to the NDIS were announced around this time. At first I was excited, because
the then-Minister Bill Shorten said that this would end the reliance on primary and
secondary disability, as the NDIS review recommended and as this committee has
recommended.10
46. However, once the new legislation was introduced to parliament it became clear that it
legislated an idea of eligible and ineligible impairments.11
47. In the context of the new legislation, impairments are supposed to be broad
categories, things like ‘physical’ or ‘intellectual.’ The new legislation said we were
supposed to get a clear ‘Notice of Impairments’ that would allow us to review the
impairments we have listed with the NDIA.
48. However, the NDIA did not give me a notice of impairment. Throughout my appeal
they proceeded as though I had an eligible
diagnosis – Autism, and an ineligible
diagnosis – Ehlers Danlos Syndrome.
49. In my experience, the NDIA has used the terms impairment, diagnosis and disability
interchangeably. This is confusing. It also does not seem to comply with the NDIA’s
governing legislation. It reinforces a medical concept of disability by equating a
disability with a diagnosis. It orients the NDIS towards fixing or compensating for
diagnoses, rather than including people.
50. In July 2024, I was able to access a better wheelchair through the JobAccess program.
I was assessed by a JobAccess OT, who prescribed me a custom manual wheelchair
designed to be easy to travel with. My job at the time required some travel. As I was
only assessed by the OT in my workplace, the wheelchair I was prescribed does not
meet the needs I have living in a rural area.
10 Minister Shorten’s Second Reading Speech stated ‘we won't distinguish between primary and secondary disabilities any longer.’
https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F27626%2F0059%22
11
National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) s 34(1)(aa).
Page 9 of 16
Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament
Submission 3
FOI 25/26-1463
51. Using a wheelchair that is designed for travel and city life in a rural area has caused
injury to my hands and shoulders. I also still can’t go on grass to a park with my son
or take my dog for a walk. It is the wheelchair I needed for my job, not the wheelchair
I needed to be independent across my life.
52. In August 2024, the NDIA asked me to do a functional capacity assessment with an
OT they had chosen. They thought this would get better information. The OT came to
my house. This was very stressful to me. My lawyer assessed this report as
demonstrating that I had significantly reduced functional capacity in the domain of
mobility. The assessor said I needed physiotherapy and a review of my mobility aids
as she had concerns that the wheelchair I was using would place too much strain on
my shoulders and upper limbs. This concern has been borne out, and I have
experienced deteriorating hand function over the course of the appeal. Despite
commissioning this report, the NDIA did not fund physiotherapy for me until almost a
year later. The NDIA commissioned this report, but did not end up using it much as it
identified that I have a lot of physical challenges and didn’t talk much about my
Autism. The NDIA held the position that I could not receive support for my physical
impairment.
53. I asked my own professionals to do more assessments. During 2023 and 2024 I had
four functional capacity assessments. They all said relatively similar things. Being
assessed this many times was really hard for me.
54. In November 2024, I had a conciliation with the NDIA in the Administrative Review
Tribunal. The NDIA case manager and lawyer seemed confused and apologetic. They
thought maybe a mistake had been made. They said they needed to get technical
advice about adding Ehlers Danlos Syndrome to my participant file.
55. They got the technical advice from the TAPIB. The lawyers told me Ehlers Danlos
Syndrome could not be added to my file. They did not explain why, just saying that it
did not align with the access criteria.
56. I later accessed this TAPIB advice through freedom of information request. It was a
very distressing document to read.
57. They made a lot of mistakes in their ‘advice’ because they never spoke to me. For
example, they thought that I had only been to a physiotherapist eight times, because I
had been seeing a specialist physiotherapist in Brisbane. I was travelling to see her at
my own expense because she is an expert in the management of Ehlers Danlos
Syndrome. I was also attending a local physiotherapist and doing weekly small group
physiotherapy. I was paying for most of this myself, with my own money.
58. The TAPIB stated that they couldn’t consider my disability permanent because I had
not trialled ‘second-skin’ garments to manage my disability. My physiotherapist told
me these garments cost thousands of dollars. They are usually something funded by
the NDIS. They had not been recommended by my medical team.
59. They also said some weird things, like that I was independent with a task (putting
away shopping) because I could do it when my support workers were there. That’s not
independence.
Page 10 of 16
Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament
Submission 3
FOI 25/26-1463
60. They said that my wheelchair was ‘not evidence based’ despite being prescribed by an
occupational therapist. Throughout the advice they said that a lot of things are
‘unclear’ that could have been clarified by speaking to me or my professionals. They
based the judgement that I do not need a wheelchair off my diagnosis alone, without
meeting me, or adequately considering my own allied health reports.
61. By this time I needed my wheelchair for all my mobility outside the house and also
most of my mobility inside the home. I was using a custom manual wheelchair, which
is an assistive technology item that can only be accessed through allied health
prescription.
62. Telling me that my wheelchair was not ‘evidence based,’ despite being prescribed,
while I was adjusting to the identity challenges that come with becoming more
disabled and the access issues that are presented by wheelchair use was so hurtful.
63. I was very ashamed of needing to use a wheelchair as a young person. I already felt
like people would think I was doing it ‘for attention.’ I felt unattractive and broken.
64. The TAPIB advice made me question myself even more, wondering if I had made
this all up and was losing my grip on reality. I raised this over and over with my
medical team. They did not agree with the NDIA. They said I was genuinely disabled.
No one could quite understand why the NDIA were treating me like this.
65. I would like to make a complaint about the allied health professional who wrote this
advice about me. Because of this advice, my appeal was not resolved at the
conciliation stage in November 2024.
66. I became very depressed. For the first time in my life, I had thoughts about taking my
own life. I started thinking that I hated myself and that my child deserved a better
parent than me, and that I will never be able to have a fair go at life because I will
always need to fight the NDIS for the things I need to move around my home or
community. I have never had thoughts like this before. I have never experienced
depression before. I felt completely hopeless and alone.
67. Over this period, I conservatively estimate that I spent more than $20,000 on
physiotherapy, aids and equipment, specialist appointments, home modifications,
travel from my rural location to Sydney and Brisbane for specialist appointments and
other things I needed to manage my physical impairments, provide evidence for my
NDIS appeal and continue caring for my son at home.
68. If it were not for having the responsibility of being a parent and the support of Legal
Aid ACT, it is my opinion that I would have been at high risk for completing a suicide
attempt as a direct result of the appeal process.
69. I left the ongoing job that I had. I was very passionate about that job and I was well
supported there. I couldn’t cope anymore. I took many weeks off work entirely. Then
I took a lower paying, fixed-term job that had less responsibility. It was all I could
handle.
Page 11 of 16
Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament
Submission 3
FOI 25/26-1463
70. Legal Aid paid for me to have a medico-legal assessment with a very experienced
physician. He said: ‘my assessment based on the relevant experience of 60 years is
that Mr Howson’s functional disability is in the highest 2 – 3% of the community.’
71. A hearing was scheduled in the Administrative Review Tribunal on the 23rd July 2025.
72. On the 2nd July 2025, the NDIA offered to settle my matter in full.
73. They accepted that Ehlers Danlos Syndrome met the disability access criteria for the
NDIS. They increased the value of my funded supports by more than $100,000. They
resolved the matter entirely to my satisfaction, offering more than what I agreed to
settle for at the conciliation in November.
74. The NDIA were not able to organise Terms of Agreement until the morning of the
hearing. This in itself was stressful.
75. I was very relieved I did not have to go to hearing, but I was also really upset. It was
July 2025. I applied to the NDIS for help in September 2023. I felt like I had lost two
years of my life and two years of my kid’s childhood.
76. The plan I have now is helpful, but because I was stuck for two years fighting for the
support I needed in 2023, this plan doesn’t fit my current needs. My disability has
progressed further and I now have some mental health issues I didn’t have before.
77. I am now only able to work two days a week, almost entirely from home and with a
lot of accommodations. I don’t know if I will be able to keep working. It’s also only a
temporary job and I don’t know what will happen at the end of the contract in
February.
78. My medical team have suggested that I apply for the Disability Support Pension. I
want to emphasise that when I became disabled and applied for the NDIS, I was
working in a secure job with some leadership responsibilities and a career path.
79. I no longer have the independence of driving around. Using inappropriate equipment
and my inappropriate living situations has caused a lot of damage to my hands. I can’t
get my wheelchair in and out of the car anymore.
80. I still don’t have grab rails in my bathroom or shower. I have to have baths because I
have fallen in the shower, even with a shower chair I purchased myself, and am afraid
of it happening again. I have to pull myself out of the bath and it’s hurting me. To get
up off the toilet I have to pull myself up using a window sill. It is hurting my hands
and they are getting worse and worse.
81. The ramp to access my house is made from plywood. It was made for me by a friend.
82. I have been assessed as needing a power wheelchair because of my hands, but I’m
only just at the beginning of this process. I am very afraid of what will happen when I
make this request. I fear that the NDIA will not have added Ehlers Danlos Syndrome
to my participant file, and that they will say I cannot have a power wheelchair because
I am still on the NDIS ‘for Autism.’
Page 12 of 16
Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament
Submission 3
FOI 25/26-1463
83. The NDIA are entirely in control of what is listed on my participant record as a
diagnosis. They can change it at any time for any reason. There is no procedural
fairness. This makes me feel powerless and misunderstood.
84. I still do not have an impairment notice.
85. I have worked in a number of professional roles, in the Australian Labor Party, in
higher education, in the private sector and in a trade union. I have dealt with many
different government systems. I have never experienced the level of profound and
systemic dysfunction that I have seen in my dealings with the NDIA.
86. Every individual staff member I have dealt with, from planners, to enquiries team
members, to Ms Rebecca Falkingham herself has been kind, generous and empathetic.
However, the systems and rules they operate within seem to be unfit for purpose and
not grounded in an understanding of disability.
87. I also have significant concerns that the TAPIB has outsized power, with almost no
accountability. I see this as contributing to devastating results like the one I
experienced. The person who wrote the ‘advice’ that delayed the resolution of my
matter, caused a severe depressive episode of six months will never know me, and
never know the impact that they had on me.
88. It appears to me that the TAPIB reinforces ideas about disability that are based in
discrimination and prejudice. I would like to see careful examination of their work in
relation to bias against women, gender diverse people, and people with less visible or
less understood disabilities. I suspect that they often issue advice that diminishes the
disabling experiences of women and gender diverse people and people with the types
of disabling conditions most likely to impact women. I have no means of raising these
concern about discrimination, or making an individual complaint about the allied
health professional at the TAPIB who injured me. I would like the committee to
investigate this and provide a clear complaints pathway for injured people. If the
individuals working in TAPIB are allied health professionals, we must be able to
complain to their regulating bodies and APRHA.
89. The concept that the help people need can be decided by a ‘primary disability’
reorients the NDIS away from inclusion and towards a segregationist model of
disability support. It is also something that this committee has previously raised as a
concern with the operations of the NDIA.
90. While the governing legislation has now been amended, the law says that impairments
that meet the access criteria can be funded. At the moment, the NDIA has not told me
what my impairments are. Throughout the entire ART process, we talked about
diagnoses - which diagnosis was eligible for NDIS support, and which was not. I am
not sure whether this approach has a basis in law.
91. The roll out of impairment notices has been significantly delayed. These notices were
supposed to give people like me clear review rights when the Agency makes poor
decisions about the nature of our disability. Without an impairment notice and the
Page 13 of 16
Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament
Submission 3
FOI 25/26-1463
review rights it facilitates, I have questions about how section 34(1)(aa) can function
lawfully.
92. We don’t need help to make our bodies and minds ‘normal’ according to an arbitrary
definition. We need help to be included. This means looking at a person as an
individual and trying to work out what barriers are preventing them from being
included. When I applied to the NDIS in 2023, I was losing the basic ability to move
around the community and my home. This is a huge potential risk to inclusion.
93. I mistakenly thought that the NDIS would support me when I needed it, build my
capacity and get me the right equipment and support to continue to be an independent
person. Instead, the NDIS wanted to give me expensive supports that would not help.
If I had used these, that would have been a waste of government money.
94. I am now much more dependent than I ever have been. My hand function and
mobility have declined a lot. I am more mentally unwell than I ever have been before
in my life. This has coincided directly with my NDIS appeal and the delays in
accessing appropriate support and equipment. I now rely on support workers for a lot
of things.
95. The NDIA have caused profound harm to me. I have lost earning capacity, possibly
permanently. I have lost years of my life to an appeal process that could have been
resolved more than a year ago without intervention by the TAPIB.
96. My child was 8 when this started and soon he will be 10. My mental health has been
improving since the appeal ended, but when I think about having to deal with the
NDIA, for example, to apply for a power wheelchair or home modifications, I become
very afraid and I experience despairing thoughts again.
97. The idea that the NDIA will soon be doing ‘support needs assessments’ and that these
staff will not be allied health professionals, but the same planners making the
decisions today fills me with panic. I am very concerned about the NDIA’s use of
automation and suspect that automation is the reason I received my first, disastrous
NDIS plan that was not tailored to my needs or circumstances.
98. I want the NDIS to change too, but I don’t think the NDIA can do this safely and
competently without oversight, transparency and accountability.
99. I don’t want ‘special treatment.’ I am nearly 35 years old. I want what most people my
age want. I want to live in a house that is relatively safe and comfortable, where I can
hop in the shower and meet most of my basic needs without hurting myself . I want
my kid to have the best life possible. I want to go outside with my dog and watch him
run around. I want to have friendships and be in love without having to burden my
friends and partners with caring for me all day.
100.
I do not believe that the NDIS is being run in a way that supports these goals.
They spend a lot of money, including on me, without asking questions about what is
going to be the best support to have someone be included in the community and have
a life worth living.
Page 14 of 16
Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament
Submission 3
FOI 25/26-1463
101.
Thank you for reading and considering this submission. I have made some
recommendations on the next page.
Page 15 of 16
Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament
Submission 3
FOI 25/26-1463
Recommendations:
Recommendation 1:
The NDIA immediately provide current participants with a ‘Notice of
Impairment’ and a team be set up specifically to amend these impairments at the
internal review stage to avoid an unprecedented volume of Tribunal matters
initiating simultaneously.
Recommendation 2:
That the work of the TAPIB branch undergo independent review, with the input
of Disability Representative Organisations, to evaluate whether their operations
have been subject to bias or discrimination, in relation to disability type, gender,
sexuality, Aboriginality or any other form of bias. That staff at the TAPIB
receive diversity training, that the work of individual TAPIB staff be carefully
monitored for compliance with the UNCRPD, and that participants be enabled
to make complaints to APRHA about the conduct of these allied health
professionals.
Recommendation 3:
That all automated systems used by the NDIA to determine plan funding be
open to democratic scrutiny through parliament.
Recommendation 4:
That the committee closely monitor the operation of these automated systems to
ensure they are not based on diagnostic categories, but
impairments, conceived
broadly e.g. physical, cognitive, neurological. Diagnostic categories cannot be
the basis for support planning in a Scheme oriented towards inclusion of people
with disabilities.
Recommendation 5:
That an inquiry be undertaken into the NDIA’s conduct as a model litigant in the
Administrative Review Tribunal.
Recommendation 6:
That the NDIA’s expenditure on external legal firms be capped to motivate early
resolution of matters and ensure tribunal matters are only taken forward with
reasonable chances of NDIA success.
Recommendation 7:
That the salary of the NDIS CEO and senior executive salaries be reduced
substantially, with a bonus available but linked to the success of NDIA matters
in the Tribunal and the minimisation of legal expenditure against people with
disabilities.
Page 16 of 16
