Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, I present the committee's report entitled Progress report, September 2017.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—This is the first progress report of the committee in the 45th Parliament. It covers events from 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017. The committee is of the view that the NDIA is under considerable pressure to meet bilateral estimates and ensure that the scheme remains within budget. Nevertheless, the fact that it is still running almost 20 per cent behind estimates for participants is a matter which is of deep concern, particularly in the early-childhood intervention cohort.

As the scheme ramps up and substantially increases in complexity and size, the committee is concerned that quality and individualisation of plans may be compromised. In conjunction with the reduction in satisfaction ratings, the litany of issues raised by participants, providers, families and carers with respect to how the planning process is being experienced by those the scheme is supposed to help is evidence of a downwards trend. The committee accepts that some of these process and administration issues will be worked through and remedied in time. However, evidence received during the committee's recent public hearings seems to be indicative of a culture developing in the NDIA that is not placing the participant, and those who support them, at the centre of the scheme.

People with disability should not be facing delays in accessing services under the NDIS, yet the time between an access request being granted and a planning meeting being scheduled can be several months long. The committee finds this unacceptable and considers that the delays in access to services can be attributed to early issued faced by the NDIA at the commencement of the rollout, which affected the agency's ability to meet its bilateral estimates.

The overall communication ethos underpinning the planning process appears to exclude participants and those who support them at crucial stages. The option for a participant to view and comment on their plan before it's finalised is, in the committee's view, a procedure that could alleviate concerns and stress. It could also serve to avoid potentially resource-intensive reviews of relatively minor adjustments, allowing the NDIA to focus its efforts elsewhere.

The committee acknowledges that the agency is currently investigating the ways in which it can improve its participant and provider experience. In light of communication issues raised and the agency's pledge to improve its performance, the committee expects that the pathways review currently being undertaken will be published and made accessible to all those involved in the scheme. Areas identified as requiring improvement should be incorporated into the agency's quarterly reports, and progress against targets should be tracked over time.

With regard to the issue of transport, particularly in relation to the provision of transport to and from school, the committee suggests that the NDIA strongly and urgently engage with transport providers, participants, parents and the disability sector on transport market issues to prevent the potential danger that participants of the scheme will be left with reduced transport options.

As discussed in previous committee progress reports, it is very difficult for the committee and any other stakeholders to properly assess the effectiveness and progress of the scheme if the same measures of performance are not carried through each quarterly and annual report. Furthermore, the committee is concerned that changes in terminology cover substantial policy shifts, such as the apparent decision not to continue with the 'first plan' approach. There's been no official announcement that the NDIA has changed its policy. The change is only evidenced by the change in terminology in the most recent quarterly report, from 'first plan' to 'initial plan'. If this is indicative of a policy change, all stakeholders deserve to be made aware of it, rather than a simple change of wording from one quarterly report to the next.

A further example of terminology being altered, thereby increasing confusion in the sector, is the introduction of the term 'ordinary life' alongside the criteria of 'reasonable' and 'necessary' to assess the provision of supports. While the committee acknowledges that there is documentation available to stakeholders that explains the term, it does not have the same legislative basis as the terms 'reasonable' and 'necessary'. The committee is therefore frustrated that the use of the term 'ordinary life' in decision making has introduced unnecessary confusion for stakeholders.

The committee has made five recommendations reflecting the matters which I have mentioned in these brief remarks. The committee withholds further, detailed recommendations in relation to planning until the results of the pathways review are available. I thank the secretariat and all those who have participated in our inquiry to date for their contributions.

See this speech in context