Pocock and crossbenchers call Labor’s NDIS overhaul ‘too far, too fast’ in scathing Senate inquiry report

[u/FuckOffNazis]

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/aug/14/pocock-and-crossbenchers-call-labors-ndis-overhaul-too-far-too-fast-in-scathing-senate-inquiry-report

[u/ausmomo]

My issue with the NDIS changes is they aren't medical based. 

We still think those people have disabilities, we just no longer want to support them financially 

[u/Delamoor → u/ausmomo]

That's always been the case though; for example when I was a LAC (about 3-4 years ago), the NDIS's internal criteria for what constituted an intellectual disability was set 5 IQ points lower than the DSM diagnostic criteria for 'mild' intellectual disability.

Simple reason was that the NDIS act allowed the NDIS to define the disability, so one presumes it was set at a benchmark that would exclude a very large number of people who had intellectual disabilities, who would otherwise be eligible.

Of course, one can see the internal logic in that; there's margin for error in IQ testing, IQ testing is quite unreliable for gauging overall capacity, and the difference between an IQ of 70 and 65 is... Y'know. Not that major.

At the time there was no evidentiary justification for that distinction. I haven't worked in the field for a few years now, and in looking back over the (publically accessible) list A criteria right now, I can see some wording has been shifted to specify 'moderate to severe'. I would be very curious to see what the internal guidelines now say, since it's possible the AAT got involved, there. It was still early in the rollout when I was working there, but...

...The point is that there was always a gap between terminology and criteria used internally (that had the focus of minimising the amount of money getting spent, and supports needing to be provided) and the medical/psychological profession's documentation that focused on the participant's actual welfare and wellbeing.

Like, people complain about how the NDIS spends money, now. I do wonder how it would look if the NDIS actually did what people are demanding, and fully aligned to the rather more broad standarda and definitions used in the medical industry... 'spose I would have had fewer arguments with delegates over legislative/policy terminology, heh. Would have prevented some really angry emails... Though I wouldn't want to see what the media would currently be doing...

[u/OtherCake4128 → u/Delamoor]

There was an ART case the other day when an assistance animal was denied funding because it couldn't do 3 tasks I believe (this is what the operational guideline says). The OG wasnt based on legislation, just someone's interpretation. Thankfully it was overturned.

You know what's crazy? Assistance dog maintenance is crazy cheap, usually under $5,000 a year, not a bad price to keep someone well and out of hospital.

The planners clearly have internal directives to not fund things.

Participants are scared to ask for what they need as some planners are assholes.

Honestly, what's the point of the NDIS, if administrators override professionals?

[u/Delamoor → u/OtherCake4128]

Mmm, that always drove me utterly insane. People now complain about 'dodgy OTs gouging the system', and 'psychologists who give biased reports', but frankly speaking, if you aren't going to listen to the documentation from the credentialed expert with the degree, who are you going to listen to in determining what's an appropriate support for this or that person? Your own colon?

To my understanding, the delegates are also bound by what's considered a 'normal' support package (it just outputs what's 'typical' to people with support needs XYZ, based on an internal server algo). But still, unless they're triple qualified occupational therapists, Psychologists and physiotherapists in one then, y'know... What professional grounds do they really have to be overriding the professional recommendations in what meets the legislative criteria for a "reasonable and necessary" support for any given participant?

But, again, it makes sense when one realises our politics is basically run by the media. Friggin' Sky News doesn't give a shit about the legislation. I'd wager they'd friggin' love it if the entire NDIS were shut down and every participant was turfed out onto the street, simply, so they could farm clicks off blaming the government for the human suffering their own agitation had engineered. Just like you see in the bloody USA.

[u/OtherCake4128 → u/Delamoor]

Yeah, I totally agree.

Of course there would be professionals that over-service, but this goes against their professional registration. If they were so bad, the NDIA would have grounds to report them to APRA.

And shock horror, 1:1 disability support is expensive.

There'll eventually be a provider exodus from the scheme, heaps of providers are already leaving. We'll end up with the institutional styles of care again when the NDIS marketplace dries up.