Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) there are real issues with consistency and fairness in NDIS access and planning decisions but there is not enough information available about the Government's recently announced NDIS Independent Assessments (IA) to conclude it will address issues with consistency and fairness;

(b) mandatory IA are not well supported (as the Government claims) by the findings of the 2019 Tune Review and the original Productivity Commission report;

(c) there has been outcry about the lack of consultation and information available about IA among people with disability and disability advocates; and

(d) there is evidence that IA may be a cover for the Government to restrict NDIS access and limit participant plans, and privatise the NDIS 'by stealth'; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) listen to participants and immediately pause the rollout of the current IA program;

(b) hold a genuine, transparent consultation process to confirm what the issues are and trial different options;

(c) co-design the solution best supported by evidence with participants, families, carers and the sector; and

(d) make public all modelling, actuarial advice and evaluation reports used to support the chosen program, showing numbers of participants whose NDIS funding or eligibility will be impacted.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme is a world-first scheme. It aims to improve the independence and quality of life for hundreds of thousands of Australians with disability and their loved ones. Labor, tens of thousands of ordinary citizens, myself—many people—worked hard to create it. It is very important, which is why I now wish to talk about this government's recent changes to the way in which Australians with disability will be able to enter the scheme and remain on the scheme.

In September this year the Morrison government moved to introduce a process it's calling independent assessments to the NDIS from next year. This is a change from a system where a person with disability would seek to prove their eligibility for funding under the NDIS using expert reports from their usual doctors and their treating allied health professionals, and where successful the NDIA approved their entry. It's going to be a change to a system whereby a private national panel, commissioned by the government, will see all applicants, and existing participants on the scheme, and assess them. Australians with disability will essentially be asked to audition before a panel of strangers, private contractors to the government, in order to be able to get on to the scheme and remain on the scheme.

There are many immediate and obvious reasons for concern with these changes, which threaten to degrade the whole process and fabric of the NDIS. For some types of disability the prospect of facing up to strangers for a one-hour interview to be judged will be utterly terrifying and unreasonable. Many in the disability community fear that this will be used, like last year's budget cuts, as a way of squeezing people out of the NDIS in a covert savings drive. There are concerns in the disability community that members of particular groups of disabilities, such as those with autism or psychosocial disorders, could find themselves officially, or in effect, excluded from the NDIS.

The basis for introducing independent assessments, according to the government, was as a response to the 2019 review of the NDIS Act and rules by respected former public servant David Tune, known as the Tune review. The Tune review made a single carefully qualified recommendation for independent assessments following the completion of a pilot program to be introduced through amendments to the NDIS legislation. The Tune review said the pilot program was limited to a small number of people and did not consider all types of disabilities, culturally and linguistically different groups and Indigenous communities and complex needs. This pilot program also was discontinued halfway through this year. That's right, it was never actually completed. We don't know, one way or another, how it would work. In the meantime, the government steamed ahead with the announcement. We presume that Mr Tune meant there should be a completed pilot, not an uncompleted pilot.

The government's response to the Tune review cited independent assessments as a solution to no less than four of the Tune review recommendations. It announced that independent assessments will be mandatory. The absence of proper evidence to support the introduction of this scheme, though, is frightening and creating anxiety among 400,000 participants. Labor has heard from many people with disabilities—carers, service providers and their representative organisations—that the government has not consulted before introducing this scheme. It contravenes the principal of the NDIS Participant Service Guarantee, which says decisions will be transparent. Labor shares concerns that independent assessments could be a stalking horse to take away support from disabled participants in the scheme by unfairly restricting access and limiting planned funding.

Labor agrees with the finding that there needs to be greater consistency in the scheme and fairness, but it will be unfair to simply put a person who is seeking to be in the scheme in front of someone who has no knowledge of the history, the set of circumstances, and this decision could become vital to whether the participant is successful or not. There is potential for positive outcomes if the government stops and listens to people. So Labor puts this position: the NDIS needs to be fair and more consistent; people with disability need fewer hopes to jump through, not more. But we say of the government: withdraw the tender. Listen to participants. Pause the rollout of the new assessment process. Hold a genuine and transparent consultation process to find out the issues and trial different options. Co-design an evidence based solution with participants' families, carers and participants. Make public all the modelling, all of the evidence used to support the chosen scheme. Do not have complexity, do not have dodgy plant reviews, do not have delay, do not ignore treating experts. Do not cut the scheme.

See this speech in context