Reposted by Liam Thatcher
Today there is (yet another) senate inquiry hearing that will receive evidence about the extraordinary harm caused by compulsory income control programs.
We know the government has no evidence that people want to be forced to use the BasicsCard. If the evidence existed, they would publish it.
apcentre.substack.com
Labor rewrites history on cashless welfare as it quietly traps people in income control programs
The Antipoverty Centre is disturbed by Labor's comments regarding the failure to deliver on the government’s promise to end compulsory income control programs such as the BasicsCard and SmartCard.
![Post from Darren O'Donovan on LinkedIn:
Nice to see the government remove the 'other treatment' drafting error from the NDIS Bill [items 89 and 91]. Doing so also removes the reversed onus of establishing that a treatment is 'unlikely' to noticeably improve or alleviate your impairment.
Item 92 is untouched and is now the ball game. Its contents can be moderated by later rules. But:
People are expected to undertake any treatment that can 'reliably be expected' to materially improve, reverse, or alleviate the impact of, the impairment or impairments.
People know my views on how a low bar like "noticeably improves" or marginally alleviates your impairment may see people parked into risk and waiting rooms. And trigger cycles of arguing over marginal treatment or habilitation options that don't really touch the sides of their lifelong need for disability supports. It's not outcome focused. We need to stop putting new rows into statute, and work to designed solutions. Approaching the treatment requirement this way goes way beyond what the agency argued for in Davis. We need a mature, well worked tackling of the upstream health drivers of NDIS access.
Another drafting error, randomly referring to a new, narrower category of 'medical' treatment in the provision allowing refusal for 'medical reasons' seems to have survived.
I'm also not sure about the Greens' amending note referring to public funding. Clearly, they weren't allowed amend the main body definition of treatment that is 'regularly undertaken' in Australia. But the note would read stronger if it said 'only' if public funding is available. Or adopted the prescriptive framing of the following note on restrictive practices. As currently drafted it risks being read as some kind of deeming observation, rather than interpretive guidance setting limits on the broader phrase.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:6s3wct5yksm4wljhfrqmchlo/bafkreihqnffz2sej6rhynswlpuzw23n422zhifdhfflniboa2dhuaslqqe)
