The former chair of the National Disability Insurance Agency has warned proposed changes to the NDIS pose an "enormous risk" to the scheme's future.
The changes, introduced last month to parliament, include a number of uncontroversial reforms - such as placing time limits on decisions and setting “strict service standards”.
But disability advocates and policy advisers have expressed widespread concern the laws also contain an overreach of power.
This centres around reforms that would give new powers to the chief executive of the National Disability Insurance Agency to vary or change a participant’s funding plan.
These fears were expressed by several witnesses who appeared before a Senate hearing on Friday.
Professor Bruce Bonyhady - who was the original chair of the NDIA - said the proposed laws marked a significant departure from the “careful” and “considered” advice of the Tune review.
“Participants are being asked to support the rushed introduction of a bill which would fundamentally change the NDIS,” he told the hearing.
“This simply does not stack up.”
The government maintains the changes are needed to allow responses during an emergency such as the need for additional support to be provided following a participant's hospital visit.
It also says the amendments are consistent with powers already in the act held by the NDIA, but would ensure “less disruption” to the process of reviewing a participant’s plan.
NDIS Minister Linda Reynold has said this is because current rules require an “entire plan” to be reviewed rather than specific variations to be implemented.
But Mr Bonyhady said it is “simply not true” to suggest the proposed legislation was as "straight forward and consistent” as the government suggested.
“I can see vary few positive benefits from this legislation and enormous risks to the vision of the NDIS,” he said.
"The proposed changes in this bill are the most significant since the NDIS commenced."
The Department of Social Services and the NDIA said the powers could only be used where they maintained regard for a participant's “goals and aspirations” and were considered “reasonable and necessary.”
National Ethnic Disability Alliance senior research and policy officer Blanca Ramirez said the laws had failed to outline clear restrictions over the use of the powers.
“We are deeply concerned about the proposed power of the CEO to vary a participant's plan,” she told the hearing.
“The act itself does not set out limitations to the CEO’s power.”
Patrick McGee of the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations also said the limited four-week consultation period had only deepened the sector’s distrust with government.
“What are they hiding - we don't have enough time to [do the] review,” he said.
Similar concerns were raised by Damian Griffis of the First Nations Disability Network, who said the community had not had enough time to consider the bill’s impact on Indigenous communities.
“We still don't have any confidence at all that the NDIA understands the lived experience of First Nations people with disability,” he said.
La Trobe University law professor Dr Darren O’Donovan said while the “bones of a good bill” were there - its current state was undermined by “vague rules” and “unhealthy discretion”.
Maurice Blackburn lawyer Tom Ballantyne also said the reforms would effectively give the agency "unconstrained power" to change the support funded in a participant's plan.
