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

It is fitting that we are discussing the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS's final report on planning on this day. Today is the International Day of People with a Disability, an annual event which was started in 1992 by the United Nations. It's a day which is about promoting the dignity, the wellbeing and the rights of people with disability, and awareness. I said earlier, at an event in the Mural Hall, that there is much that we can celebrate about disability in Australia, and that includes the formation and creation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. But we can't merely assume that, because the NDIS has been created, that is sufficient in and of itself. It is not.

I take issue with the coalition's management of disability in the Labor-created National Disability Insurance Scheme across a range of areas. It is a great achievement. I want us to be the best in the world at disability, and the NDIS should be the best scheme in the world and proof of Australian exceptionalism. People with disability have been making the best of the NDIS that they possibly can. It was the result of a grassroots campaign by those in the Australian disability movement and their carers and the people who love them. It was a demand for a greater slice of resources and, indeed, of power. In the last number of years, disability has continued to further emerge from the shadows of invisibility. So, today, there is much to support, but more can be done.

We have to take stock today—and this report is also an opportunity—of the unfinished business that remains to improve the lives of people with disability. One in five Australians reports as having a disability. The situation isn't as good as it should be. There are the deaths of NDIS participants by neglect in their own homes, and that is not good enough. Treating the NDIS as an automatic teller machine and ripping billions out of the scheme is not good enough. The failure to properly listen and consult with the disability community about the proposed rollout of independent assessments is not good enough. Omitting people with disability entirely from COVID-19 planning is not good enough. Australians with disability being, in the words of the royal commission, '"neglected" and "left feeling invisible and ignored" during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic' is not good enough. The management of plans by the NDIS within the NDIS, my focus today, is not good enough.

Might I just pause, though, as I say that on these fundamental issues the government's performance is not good enough. I should acknowledge members of the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS from both the government and the opposition. Those individuals are taking their responsibility as legislators rather than servants of the executive very conscientiously. With 42 recommendations for improvement on plans, this report is a good report which puts the executive of the government on notice from all sides of the parliament of Australia that the NDIS's plan administration is not good enough at this point. The report states, correctly, that 'planning, when it works, changes lives for the better', but it also confirms what has been felt by too many of the 400,000 and their families in the scheme, that the planning process is broken.

Under the current Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Stuart Robert, the NDIS, which has had $4.6 billion ripped out of it, is too dysfunctional and too chaotic on too many occasions. Plans and planning are no exception. I make no criticism of many of the staff of the National Disability Insurance Agency—they're conscientious—but the sum of the parts which is the National Disability Insurance Agency is less than the contribution of everyone in the world of disability. Something is not working. There is a pathology of maladministration, of chaos, and that is seen all too often in plans. Planning is the process which defines a person's relationship and life on the NDIS. Once someone is granted access to the scheme, a planner decides how much funding is needed for the person to live a life of choice and control as set out in their goals.

This 319-page report finalises evidence gathered over 18 months since the inquiry was established in July 2019. It makes no fewer than 42 recommendations following the publication of 157 submissions to the inquiry from individuals and organisations. It echoes the findings of the 2019 review of the NDIS Act and Rules by David Tune AO PSM. Mr Tune concluded:

Consultation feedback suggests the NDIA is not making consistent decisions during planning. Some participants with similar disability support needs reported they received very different types and values of supports in their plans, where the differences did not appear to be linked to their goals and aspirations or their informal supports. This was particularly evident in cases of young siblings with the same disability and similar levels of functional capacity.

Planning determines the support provided under the scheme. It determines the quality of life for those profoundly impaired Australians who rely upon the NDIS. Their life is effectively in the hands of a planner making these momentous decisions. One submission to the report stated:

Planning determines so many things about my life and NDIS has absolutely control. This can never not be terrifying for anybody who is severely disabled.

The consequences of the dysfunctional planning process have been well documented. Who can forget the story of brothers Jordan and Logan Weir? They suffer exactly the same rare genetic condition, but one of them received $100,000 more in support than the other.

It's a tough thing for Labor to have to watch on as the world-class and vital NDIS is left to fall into levels of disrepair after seven years of government absentee management. The planning report details these issues, including that in some cases planners listed a person's disability incorrectly or incorrectly reported the goals or what other support was available to them. Planners were sometimes unaware of participants' disabilities and relying on internet search engines for their information—NDIS by Google! Planners may be ignoring or changing expert recommendations provided by treating allied health practitioners about the supports which are appropriate for the particular participant who they have been treating for years.

The NDIS Minister Robert has responded to the inquiry's report by spruiking the government's latest reforms. The reality is that the reforms so far announced are based on shaky evidence and do not necessarily promise a fix for the problems with consistency and fairness in planning that are outlined and required by this report. Most significant of these, independent assessments have sparked outrage, anxiety and fear amongst participants when they were blindsided by the surprise announcement in September. Only last week did a little bit of the pressure start to bleed out, when the government backflipped on the announcement to introduce them from the start of 2021, to defer implementation until the midyear. The pressure is mounting on the government but the fight is not over.

It is understandable that vulnerable Australians have trust issues with a government that unleashed the $1.2 billion unlawful robodebt scandal on 400,000 vulnerable Australians who relied on the social security safety net. Many fear that the government is really using independent assessments to lower the bottom line of the NDIS by controlling eligibility and plan size. This is a familiar tune from a government who went after the vulnerable on robodebt. The government has also failed to test independent assessments in the planning process. They had a pilot of 500 people, self-selecting, opt in of only some disabilities, and only 140 replied to the survey on the pilot, and only 100 of the 140 liked it. This government is rushing to change a system based upon the reports of a self-selecting sample of 100 out of 400,000.

This report is a valuable addition to the knowledge of the government. It is a valuable contribution. This report, in my opinion, shows that the parliament can work. What we see on the committee are legislators, regardless of their political affiliations, thinking about the parliament and its responsibilities to the parliament rather than simply going cap in hand, meekly serving the executive. The recommendations on planning are good recommendations. They do deserve serious consultation and listening. Today, International Day of People with Disability, is a fine day to restart the process of reform, but reform based on that eternal principle of the disability movement—'nothing about us without us'.

See this speech in context