The Senate inquiry exposed deep anger over the NDIS reform bill but failed to produce a retreat by government. Demands for specific amendments have been lost in the clamour and noise of the bigger protest.

The Senate inquiry into the NDIS reform bill has done what it was designed to do: let the anger out.

People with disability, families, advocates, providers, lawyers and state governments used the last three days to explain the same thing in different words. The bill is too broad; the timetable is too fast. The ministerial powers are too large; the promised supports don’t exist.

The federal government insists it needs the money now and just wants the bill passed through Parliament before it rises for the winter. The committee reports on Tuesday. Numbers, not the evidence, will decide what happens next.

This makes the real issue specific amendments, not outrage or pleas for consultation.

The inquiry has isolated the pressure points: delaying commencement dates until supports are in place, narrowing the minister’s budget-cutting powers, doing more with the states, and stopping automated decisions.

Now the fight moves to the floor of parliament.

[continued from the abilityNEWS newsletter]

___________________________

The bill is sweeping.

With a stroke of the pen the minister can reduce funding for specified supports, change access rules, introduce pricing powers, strengthen compliance and fraud powers, and permit automated administrative decision-making. The inquiry matters.

But - despite the attempts of a few submissions - it has not revealed possible compromises or specific amendments.

That’s where the disability community has lost.

It’s been great to see and hear advocates describing their worst fears while they’ve pleaded with government to stop the bill. This has been highly emotional and intensely harrowing.

It’s also been a completely pointless exercise in terms of achieving change to the bill.

Labor was never going to pull the whole thing or re-think it. Its - Australia’s - finances depend on the ‘reforms’ going through. It’s already spent the savings from the cuts on other things.

Achieving anything depends on isolating specific amendments and concentrating on those in particular. So what are the most egregious issues?

The most important arising so far are the following.

Firstly, delaying any access changes until foundational supports or alternatives are operational. PWDA and other Disability Representative Organisations argue continuity-of-support protections must be embedded before people are moved out of the scheme.

Secondly, restraining ministerial power. States and territories have warned they have made no agreement to provide “like-for-like” services for people pushed off the NDIS. They want the bill amended before Canberra uses its power to shift costs.

Thirdly, softening the new “directly” linked impairment test. Disability legal and advocacy groups argue this risks fragmenting people with multiple disabilities, psychosocial disability, degenerative conditions or complex support needs.

Fourthly, protecting plan reviews. The 21-day decision timeframe for unscheduled reassessment requests should be retained, rather than stretched to 90 days. This is a simple and vital ask that should not add complexity to anybody other than the NDIA.

Fifthly, placing safeguards around debt, records and late claims. The Growing Space submission proposes exceptions where missing records or late claims are caused by disability, coercion, provider failure, hospitalisation or other justified circumstances.

And finally, constraining automated decision-making, at least in some way. The bill cannot simply digitise power and call it efficiency and, let’s face it, the Minister is not going to be making these decisions anyway. They will end up being decided by overworked clearks with other things to do and imposing their own ideas on the fate of others.

The NDIS does need reform. These hearings should have been an argument about how to build a safer disability system. Unfortunately, the simple, clear reforms that have been articulated have been submerged beneath the broader pleading to retain the system intact.

Labor has made it clear that’s not going to happen.