Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) Early Childhood Early Intervention (ECEI) approach is an evidence-based, best practice approach to early childhood intervention for children aged zero to six years with developmental delay or disability, and there have been some challenges with rolling out the ECEI approach;

(2) welcomes the Government's announcement to reduce delays and backlogs in delivering early childhood early intervention supports through the NDIS; and

(3) notes that:

(a) a six-month recovery plan to be implemented by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) will include working with ECEI partners to secure additional resources to ensure children are able to receive early childhood supports in a more timely manner;

(b) the NDIA will provide a standardised interim six-month plan for children who have been found eligible for the NDIS, but who are experiencing significant waiting periods for a plan (that is, where the period between an access decision and getting a plan is greater than 50 days) and that these interim plans will be replaced by a full NDIS plan no later than six months after being issued;

(c) new participants who are not categorised as complex and who are not transferring from an existing Commonwealth, state or territory disability program will be given a standardised interim plan for $10,000;

(d) participants who are transferring from an existing Commonwealth, state or territory disability program, their interim NDIS plan and funding package will reflect their existing support levels, however, if that amount is lower than $10,000 they will also receive the $10,000 standardised interim plan for up to six months; and

(e) participants with complex support needs, will immediately be streamed to an NDIA early childhood specialist to develop their plan and appropriate funding package.

The Early Childhood Early Intervention approach, which is called the ECEI approach, is part of our National Disability Insurance Scheme. It supports children from birth to six years of age who have a developmental delay or a disability, as well as their families and carers. I emphasise family and carers, because it's very important that we give them support as well. Often the best way that we can help Australians with disabilities is to make sure we are supporting their families and their carers, because they are, ultimately, the ones who give people with disabilities the most support.

The NDIS is engaged with early childhood partners around Australia to deliver this approach, as the early childhood partners are experienced in providing early childhood intervention. However, we must be honest: there have been some challenges rolling it out. If we are going to fix things in this parliament, we have to admit where there are problems, so we can tackle them. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is probably one of the largest projects undertaken by governments in our nation. We want to give those with disabilities—which they are, unfortunately, either born with or which they have acquired through some injury or catastrophic event—the support that they deserve. This is a massive scheme. There's a lot involved in it, and there are teething problems. As the government, we admit that. But we also say 'We're going to get those problems fixed. We acknowledge them, and we're going to get them fixed.'

Therefore, this motion welcomes the government announcement to reduce delays and backlogs in delivering the Early Childhood Early Intervention supports to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We note four specific things. Firstly, a six-month recovery plan, to be implemented by the NDIA, will include working with the Early Childhood Early Intervention partners to secure additional resources to ensure children are able to receive early childhood supports in a more timely manner.

Secondly, the NDIA will provide a standardised interim six-month plan for children who have been found eligible for the NDIS but who are experiencing significant waiting periods for the plan—that is, where the period between an access decision and getting a plan is greater than 50 days. These interim plans will be replaced by a full NDIS plan no later than six months after being issued. We do that because we have to also understand that every single child is different and, therefore, every single plan has to be individualised.

Thirdly, new participants who are not categorised as complex and who are not transferring from an existing Commonwealth, state or territory disability program will be given a standardised interim plan for $10,000.

Fourthly, for participants who are transferring from an existing Commonwealth state or territory disability program, their interim NDIS plan and funding package will reflect their existing support levels. However, if the amount is lower than the $10,000, they will also receive the $10,000 standardised interim plan for up to six months.

We've looked at this and we've acted. We understand participants with complex support needs. We want to make sure that they will be immediately streamed to an NDIA early childhood specialist to develop the plan and make sure that they receive appropriate funding.

The first way to fix the problem is to acknowledge it exists. Many of my constituents have come to me with issues with their NDIS plans and delays. We acknowledge their concerns. We acknowledge that more work has to be done. This is an example of the coalition getting on and doing the job. But we must remember that, ultimately, the only way we can continue to finance this into the future is if we have a strong and robust economy that can underwrite the NDIS plans and can underwrite what we are doing in early childhood early intervention. We can have all these programs, but unless we have a strong, vibrant economy we simply cannot have these programs in our nation. That is why I commend this motion to the House.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a seconder for the motion?

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

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's no way I'd want to second this motion. Once again, we're living in this Orwellian world where the government somehow thinks it should be congratulated for the mess that it's created with the NDIS. The member who spoke before me, the member for Hughes, wanted a pat on the back for this interim plan—he is leaving the chamber now. This is how the plan was welcomed by the sector:

Disability advocates say the Morrison government’s new plan to reduce lengthy delays in the national disability insurance scheme should only be a stopgap measure.

So for all the fanfare and all the carry-on by this minister, we are seeing advocates—the people who represent people with disability—say it's a stopgap measure. You bet it is. We would not be congratulating the government for the mess that they have created in rolling out the NDIS.

There is no doubt that the NDIS was a landmark initiative for this country. It was developed and introduced by a Labor government. Sadly, it's been neglected by three successive coalition governments who have, among other things, played political football with NDIA funding; placed on it a stifling staff cap, restricting the ability of the NDIS to service Australians; and, most recently, underspent on the NDIS claiming 'a lack of demand'.

The member for Hughes has good intentions in putting forward this motion, but he said, in his own words: 'There are teething problems. There have been some challenges with the roll out.' Is he kidding? Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, are you kidding me? He should take a good look at the government he is a member of, because that's exactly where the problem lies. There is no shortage of residents in my community telling me on a weekly basis just how much of a debacle the NDIS has become under this government, and the people who suffer the most are the people who need the most help.

A fortnight ago I sat on the couch in the living room of a mother whose son suffers from several disabilities and severe behavioural and learning challenges. Not long into the conversation, she broke down in tears at the frustration and challenges she has faced, trying desperately to get the help her son and her family needs. This is not good enough. I felt almost helpless as I listened to her heart-wrenching and gut-wrenching story about how much she loved both her sons but had struggled to find the help she needed through the NDIS. She told me of the endless paperwork trails, the lack of accountability and transparency and the constant changing of the people she had to talk to just to find the simplest of answers. In the days following, she sent me a list of other problems she'd encountered, including funding being cut without any explanation to families, portals not showing breakdowns of funding allocations and no explanation of how the funds were calculated, and a severe lack of training for NDIS staff to understand her situation and her needs.

Just last week, my office received a visit from two other local residents who shared similar experiences with the NDIS. Their feedback included the exploitation by companies and service providers who dramatically increased prices to people on NDIS plans and a lack of transparency in understanding the practices and procedures of the NDIS to help their disabled sons. This sort of feedback is being received by every single member of parliament. I have no doubt that all members—everyone—on this side and the government side are hearing this. I welcome the announcement by the government and the minister of a 'stopgap' plan to resolve delays and backlogs for children with disability in accessing ECEI, or Early Childhood Early Intervention, support through the NDIS, but this is too little too late. Reports say that on average it currently takes 127 days for a child to receive a plan. That is more than four months. Most parents don't have four months to wait for the support they need. Once again, it is left to Labor to show the leadership required in this space. That is why the first thing I did upon being re-elected as the member for Oxley was to hold an NDIS feedback forum with the newly appointed shadow minister, the honourable Bill Shorten, to hear residents firsthand about what the concerns are. We could have held this forum over several days, so much was the feedback from residents. Following this, I wrote to the member for Fadden, the minister responsible for the NDIS, seeking a meeting to table this feedback and work in constructive ways to solve the many problems I had. But I have not had one response from the minister. If a member of parliament is writing to the minister responsible and they're ignored, what on earth is happening out in the sector? It is not good enough. I want to meet with the minister and put those concerns directly. If they want to fob me off to a departmental officer or even a ministerial staff member, I'll take anything. I know the minister's office will be listening to this speech today. Listen clearly: people want to meet with your office to ring the alarm bells and raise the concerns. Pick up the phone and start listening to people. It's not good enough that when members of parliament raise these issues they're completely and utterly ignored by this government.

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

I'm pleased to be able to second the motion from the honourable member for Hughes and say some words in support of it this afternoon. The reality, as we all know, is that the National Disability Insurance Scheme is a work in progress. About half the total number of expected participants are on the scheme. That means that there's going to be a huge ramp up in terms of participation over the next 12 to 18 months. There are challenges that we all recognise in relation to this. I say this from the perspective of having chaired the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme in the last parliament—I want to refer to one of those reports in a moment—but also of having had the privilege of being elected to chair that committee in this current parliament. I mention the committee because since the inception of that committee it has worked in a bipartisan manner. In the last parliament, all of the recommendations that came forward from the committee came forward with the support of all the members of the committee, regardless of their political background in this place. I pay tribute to the deputy chair in the last parliament, Senator Alex Gallacher, the Labor senator from South Australia, and other members, including the member for Fairfax, for example, the former member for Jagajaga, Senator Siewert and Senator Carol Brown, who will take over as the deputy chair in this current parliament. I mention them across the political divide because that's an indication of the extent to which, when a committee is sat down and looks at the challenges involved with the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the setting up and operation of the agency, we've been able to work in a very constructive and bipartisan manner.

I mention that because one of the first reports in the last parliament, tabled in December 2017, dealt with the very topic which the honourable member for Hughes has brought before the chamber today, namely the question of early intervention and early childhood services. It was clear that there was work to be done in that regard, and I commend the government's announcement in relation to the matters which the honourable member for Hughes has mentioned in this place today. The committee made some 20 recommendations in that report, all of which were accepted by the government and some of which we see in the matters brought before the chamber by the member for Hughes being implemented by the government in relation to the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

We can certainly all agree on one thing: early intervention is significant, early intervention is critical, early intervention works. In that context, prevention is always better than having to deal with the consequences of failing to put prevention measures in place. When we're dealing with children, the earlier that those intervention measures can be put into place, the more likely is a successful outcome. You sir, Mr Deputy Speaker Gillespie, would know that from your professional experience in a past life, a different life before coming to this place. We all know that intervention is important and that prevention is important. Often it is the poor cousin in terms of the services which are provided, but where we can intervene from a very early age, that have important consequences. Take, for example, a child with hearing loss: the sooner services can be provided for that child with hearing loss then the more likely that that child is going to be able to function in their childhood, in their adolescence and, indeed, in their adult life in a way which is commensurate with anybody else within the society in which we live.

The measures which have been announced of putting additional resources into early childhood supports, of funding this with interim plans so that early intervention can take place from the very earliest time is very important in the matters which are before the parliament at the moment in this motion and which were examined in some detail by the parliamentary committee.

I won't go through in the time available all the recommendations, which were made in a bipartisan manner in relation to this subject by the parliamentary committee, but we're all pleased that they were adopted in principle by the government and we see in the interventions by the government to improve the policy now to ensure that the National Disability Insurance Scheme works in a way which we want it for. There is enormous goodwill for the scheme. It is a work in progress. There are still a great number of challenges to meet, but if we can work together in the way in which the committee has, and the government has done in this announcement, then we can bring about a better outcome for people with disability in Australia.

Emma McBride (Dobell, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The only response to the motion of the member for Hughes is that this government is failing children and families through its maladministration of the NDIS. It is about time this government took proper responsibility for the distress and anguish it is causing parent carers. The early childhood intervention approach described in the motion doesn't resemble in any way, shape or form the experience of parent carers in communities across Australia. The NDIS continues to be one of the top reasons families seek out my assistance, and I know this is the case in electorate offices across the country. Many of those crying out for help are the parent carers of young children, who, thanks to this government's NDIS failure, are struggling to secure the support their child needs now. Let's just recount this government's NDIS failures to date: underfunding the NDIS to the tune of $1.6 billion to prop up their own budget position; refusing to lift a staffing cap that is causing delays and barriers to access; and marginalising those with disability who should be at the centre of the NDIS.

Today I will share the experience of one family in my electorate on the Central Coast of New South Wales. This case is yet to be resolved. I'm hopeful that these new measures will go some way to help Sophie and her parents, but they are not optimistic. Sam Stasinowsky has decided to speak out in the hope that sharing her story will help others. Three years ago, her daughter Sophie was born with complex congenital heart disease requiring open heart surgery. Complications resulted in Sophie's vocal cords being paralysed, causing issues with feeding, breathing, speech and sleeping, and endocarditis, a bacterial infection in her heart. In February this year, Sophie was diagnosed with global development delay and, more recently, with autism and an intellectual disability. Sophie's preschool and speech therapist encouraged her mum to call the NDIA to ask for an access request form so she could be assessed for the NDIS. Sophie's mum said she spent hours on the phone, but NDIA staff refused to provide the access request form. She left her details with a service provider, who told her they had a 12-week waiting list for the access request form. In July, she found out that no-one had even looked at her application. The NDIA contact centre said she would have to wait two more months to be eligible to make a complaint. Sam says:

We had spent all our savings and everything we could spare on reports and therapies. We had run out of money and had to cancel Sophie's speech therapy and preschool days.

This was when Sam, in frustration and despair, came to seek my help. Sam's worried that many carers unable to pay for the therapy sessions and reports required to even apply for the NDIS will not get access to the early intervention they desperately need. Many others have to give up work to care for their loved ones while waiting for NDIS plans and services.

Sam says it is important for people to know how hard it is. She said:

The part that has been hugely frustrating is that they didn't give me the correct information or explain the steps clearly when I first called in February. Now I have received the official brochure and the first step in it says "call the NDIA to complete an access request form over the phone" but, back in February, I called two centres and both told me "No".

Last week, Sam received notice from the NDIA that Sophie would receive some basic funding while her full plan was being assessed. That's the good news, but, unfortunately, this family is still being made to jump through hoops due to the maladministration of the NDIS. Sophie's parents decided to apply for equipment that her preschool had recommended for use at home. The NDIA said they needed an occupational therapist report before they could even assess her need for the equipment. The OT report cost another $170, and then the NDIA said no to everything. This young family spent another $170 they could not afford only to be told no once again. They will review the decision, but that will take more time and resources that they don't have.

My question to this government is: what happens to people who can't scrape the money together to pay for the reports and assessments that the NDIA is requiring? What happens to children who don't have someone to speak up for them? Who will advocate for them when the system says no? Even with the early intervention measures outlined, the government's handling of the NDIS is punishing parent carers and will continue to do so until the government addresses the delays and backlogs in the NDIS; lifts the staffing cap, which is causing delays in accessing urgent services; ensures there are enough qualified workers in the sector so that people get the support and care from people well trained to be able to step them through the process; fixes the plagued IT system with its known problems; and appoints a new CEO who has knowledge or lived experience of disability.

This is urgent for Sophie, for Sam and for children like them across Australia and it must be fixed.

Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always distressing to hear stories of people who had bad experiences with the NDIS or Centrelink, especially when it involves a child. The contribution of the member for Dobell to this debate was very moving and, if there is anything that I could do to assist that family, I would be more than willing to try. I don't know that I would succeed, but what has happened to them is not good enough.

Having said that: the people working at the NDIS are doing the best they can. This is an audacious program and an audacious system that we have set up. It was the idea of those opposite and came out of a Productivity Commission report, but what it is trying to achieve is a national scheme that looks after some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in our society, whose vulnerabilities and disadvantage are specific to each case. This was one of the bravest things that any federal government has attempted to do, and I am proud of the efforts of this government, whether it be under the Abbott prime ministership or the Turnbull prime ministership, to bring the scheme into being. It was announced by those opposite, but it has fallen to those on this side to bring it about.

In that regard, I congratulate the member for Hughes and the member for Menzies for their contribution to this debate. I also wish to note the contribution of the member for Oxley, who has always given his full-throated support advocacy to those he represents; and the member for Dobell, who brought so much passion and a personal story to this chamber. No doubt the member for Lalor will later give us her usual self-effacing contribution to this debate, and we look forward to that, as is appropriate.

Today the member for Higgins gave her first speech in the main chamber. She is a paediatrician. She has seen some of the hardest and toughest cases that our society has to throw at any doctor. She made this point that stuck with me. As a doctor—I know that in a previous life you too were a doctor and I am sure you share the sentiments—she never wanted to stand at the bottom of the cliff, waiting for the bodies to arrive. She would much prefer to be at the top of the cliff, stopping them from falling off. And I think that's what the government's program in early childhood intervention is all about. It's about keeping people away from the edge. This approach is evidence based. It's not new. The analogy is the best I have heard, but the approach is evidence based and not new. It is best practice. It is the best-practice approach to early childhood intervention for children aged zero to six years with development delay or disability. The member for Hughes and the member for Menzies both spoke at length about the contribution that any program can make when they reach someone before the problem escalates. The member for Menzies pointed to someone whose hearing may be impaired and noted that, if we can observe that sooner rather than later, we as a community and as a society can help that person live the fullest life that they can possibly have by early intervention.

There have been some challenges—there is no doubt about that—and many members in this chamber have spoken of them. There have been some challenges with rolling out the ECEI approach. In some areas, there have been longer than ideal wait times for children. These wait times are obviously unacceptable. We as a government have made it a clear priority to turn this situation around, and it is being turned around. We have started work on a six-month recovery plan, announced by the minister on 26 June, with key initiatives, including working with partners to secure additional resources to ensure children are able to receive early childhood supports in a timelier manner. For children who are experiencing significant waiting periods for a plan—that is, where the period between an access decision and getting a plan is greater than 50 days—the NDIA will provide a standard interim plan for six months. These initiatives are what will make this better.

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not often that I pay homage to the member for Hughes, but today I rise to support the member for Hughes and to thank him for his advocacy in this particular space around early childhood education intervention and its relationship with the NDIS. The intervention, so to speak, is important, and I welcome the new approach. I say that, however, having seen over the last eight months, in the last area for the NDIA rollout in Victoria, that lessons learned five years ago were not addressed and that in the west of Melbourne, we have had to live the same experience as those who have gone before us in this rollout. This is particularly upsetting for me as an educator when I think about those children who have been getting intervention through state based programs who find themselves approaching school and find that everything is going to be ripped away from them and their families at the most important point—when they're accessing formal education in our school system.

So, as much as I welcome this new approach, it would be lax of me not to point out that this government is, to say the least, tardy. To say what I really think: they are absolutely cynical in their approach to the NDIS and in their lack of care, or their carelessness, about the intervention for our youngest Australians who are living with a disability and trying to transition into our education system. I say that because—and you've heard the stories—we're all living with the inconsistency of the rollout. We're all living with the inconsistency in the way people are being treated. To give you an example from my electorate, I sat recently with a family of an adult male who suffered a stroke. He is paralysed down one side and has major cognitive issues, obviously. Rehabilitation got him to a certain point. That has plateaued and is likely to degrade over time. He has been rejected on his NDIA claim. Even though his report clearly stated that there were short-term memory issues, it was rejected on the basis that he didn't answer a telephone call to his mobile phone. I sat with another family who have a child with cerebral palsy whose paperwork clearly says the child is non-verbal who were asked to present at the office. The man with the stroke was never asked to present—if he had been, people would have been able to see his incapacity—but the child with cerebral palsy, who is wheelchair-bound and non-verbal, is asked to present so that they can hear what she's got to say about her situation. This is appalling, and it is incumbent on this government to get their mind in this game and get this fixed.

In terms of the early childhood intervention, I met earlier this year with Noah's Ark. This is an independent organisation providing early childhood intervention services to children with disabilities, and other additional needs, and to their families and carers. It's the largest early childhood intervention service in Victoria, operating from 19 centres across metropolitan and regional Victoria. To say that they were enraged by the fact that the western suburbs of Melbourne were faced with exactly the replicated problems that they had seen across the rest of the state is putting it mildly.

I was pleased to be able to assist in that process to ensure that the solutions that have been found for other parts of the country were again found for the western suburbs of Melbourne. But we shouldn't have had to take that action. The lessons should have been learnt. If this area had had a minister with their mind on the job and across the detail, we would not be seeing this issue after issue after issue replicated time and time again, as we try and implement what can only be described as a life-changing policy.

This government has been careless. This government has been inconsistent. This government has been cynical. It has held the NDIS to ransom over budgetary processes. It has underfunded things. But worse than all of that, it has not allowed the NDIS rollout to deliver to the people in our communities to whom it was promised—promised by the former Prime Minister Julia Gillard, promised by the member for Maribyrnong and promised by the former member for Jagajaga. This government needs to get on and deliver it.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.