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

I am pleased to join the discussion initiated by the honourable member for Lindsay about what is a very significant and important topic—the rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The scheme is now in its second year of transition and there is a long way to go because, if you look at the numbers, as of December 2017 over 140,000 Australians with disability were enrolled in the scheme, but this has to reach an estimated number of almost half a million—about 460,000—in the next couple of years or so. So the work which is undertaken by the National Disability Insurance Agency and by state territory and Commonwealth governments to bring about a full and proper rollout of the scheme is quite substantial and will be significant in the years to come.

There are a number of issues which arise from the operation of the scheme. Along with the honourable member who moved this motion, and another member here in the chamber, Mr Wallace, we are part of the joint standing committee which oversights the National Disability Insurance Scheme. In this parliament, we've issued a number of reports looking at various aspects of the operation of the scheme, including: early childhood and early intervention; a second report on people with psychosocial disability related to a mental health condition; and a third completed report on transitional arrangements. The committee is currently undertaking a number of inquiries into general issues relating to the scheme. One is into market readiness, which is a huge issue right across the country, particularly in those areas where there are, to use the cliche, thin markets—in other words, large areas, usually, without the same distribution of services that you would find in a major metropolitan city. There is also an ongoing inquiry, which we hope to see the fruition of soon, in relation to hearing services.

I think it's fair to say that, in common with all who have looked at this, regardless of what side of the chamber we happen to sit on, there are a number of issues that are ongoing in terms of the work which needs to be done by the agency and, in some cases, by the state, territory and commonwealth governments. One is in relation to planning, and, particularly, the process of planning. The general view is that plans that have been entered into and created over the telephone are not as good as plans which are done in person. And related to that is the question of communication, particularly between planners and participants in the scheme and, more generally, between the agency and participants.

That leads to a second area of ongoing challenge, and that relates to reviews of plans. I'm not necessarily speaking on behalf of the committee, but it does seem to me personally that if there's an opportunity for face-to-face planning and there's an opportunity for those plans to be reviewed by the participant and their family prior to the finalisation of the plan, it's more likely that two things will result: firstly, the plan is more likely to meet the needs of the participant, having had the opportunity to actually review it, and, secondly, if that's the case, then it cuts out or reduces substantially the number of reviews that need to be undertaken. It would seem from a point of simple bureaucratic efficiency that this would be a better way, not to mention the justice that I believe would flow from a better process.

There are also issues in relation to the involvement of providers and their appropriate input. And while there are always issues in this regard about conflicts of interest, nonetheless in other areas of public policy we've been able to resolve the conflict of interest and allow for the appropriate input of providers, and that should appropriately be the place in relation to the NDIS as well. Also related to providers, there are questions of pricing that are being looked at by the agency at the present time as well as the timeliness of payments to providers. If payments are not made in a timely way, if tens of thousands of dollars are outstanding to providers, then what we're placing at risk is the actual provision of services, and that would be a worse outcome for those who have disabilities than it is at the present time.

As I said, this is a work in progress. I welcome the specific measures that have been announced by the government in relation to the Early Childhood Early Intervention gateway, the introduction of typical support packages to benchmark the amount of support for participants with specific characteristics, the increases in risk-based quality assurance of the access and plan approval, the very necessary increase in staff training, and the redesign of the participant pathway to look at goals and sustainability in relation to participants themselves. It's a work in progress, but a very valuable scheme. (Time expired)

See this speech in context