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 The provision of hearing services under the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

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

by leave—The committee has considered issues around the provision of hearing services in the NDIS for a considerable time. Initially it was a relatively straightforward inquiry, with the focus on how a reportedly successful, low-cost and efficient program could be adapted to meet the needs of the NDIS. However, the inquiry has exposed what the committee believes are fundamental issues within the scheme, specifically in relation to the provision of hearing services that go to the very design and operation of the scheme more generally.

The development of a scheme like the NDIS will require adaptation and modification over time. No new scheme—recalling that the NDIS is the first of its kind in the world—is immutable to change. It is important to recognise, as early as possible, where change is required and to implement it. Such is the case with hearing services.

In this report, the committee has examined a number of issues relating to the provision of hearing services, including guided pathway packages.

The committee is of the view that the scheme should be adapted to suit participants, rather than the other way around, and that the continuing pursuit of a model of 'choice and control' may be at the expense of participants' outcomes. Considering that the lack of a guided pathway has the potential to cause lifelong disadvantage to children, it would be negligent of the agency to not provide families with a guided pathway. Introducing a guided pathway would not preclude families from choosing to divert from the pathway if they so desired, but it would ensure that, for those who desire prompt access to services, any unnecessary delays due to poor knowledge or uncertainty are mitigated.

Guided pathways are intended to help newly diagnosed families with limited knowledge about disability understand their available support options and empower them to make informed decisions.

The committee is not proposing to dictate a pathway to a particular provider. The committee wants to ensure participants have access through an honest independent broker to the information and the resources (adequate plans) to undertake transdisciplinary therapies to achieve the best possible outcomes with a specialist provider of their choice that is operating in their area. The National Disability Insurance Agency has the resources to undertake due diligence of the 10 or so main providers.

In the committee's view, the agency's reluctance to carve a preferred pathway from the scheme is unreasonable. Implementing a preferred pathway at this time would not preclude the NDIA from refining it in the future, but the approach would at least guarantee that children with a hearing loss today are given the best possible chance to attain acceptable outcomes in the interim. The committee does not want to wait until the evidence that the new processes are delivering worse outcomes than the previous system until changes are made.

The evidence for the effectiveness of the previous model is compelling. Outcomes data published annually by First Voice member centres demonstrates that children in members' organisations regularly match or surpass their peers, with over 70 per cent achieving age-appropriate results by the time they commence school. The results show that the majority develop into independent, contributing members of society, with high levels of education, social participation and full-time employment.

The committee has made three recommendations in this report:

I commend the report to the House.

See this speech in context