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

Trent Zimmerman (North Sydney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Katie Allen (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the motion moved by the member for Maribyrnong. The Morrison government recognises that the NDIS, the largest social reform since Medicare, will require work to ensure we get the balance right and guarantee the future success of the scheme. As the Morrison government has always said, the NDIS is demand driven and fully funded. We are committed to rolling out a scheme that is fair, equitable and efficient. The Morrison government is attuned to NDIS participants' concerns and committed to supporting people with disability to achieve their goals. We are committed to continual improvement of this new and very important program for the Australian people.

We now have more than 400,000 participants in this world-leading NDIS, an increase of approximately 100,000 participants over the past 12 months alone, and more than 175,000 receiving supports for the very first time. This is something we can all be proud of. The reform package announced by Minister Robert includes implementation of the Australian government's response to the 2019 independent review of the NDIS, the Tune review, and the new NDIS Participant Service Guarantee. These reforms will help deliver on the promise of the NDIS to provide people who have a permanent and significant disability with true choice and control over a flexible support package to achieve their goals. At the same time, these reforms will safeguard the integrity of the scheme.

It is important to listen to participants, and that is why we have a Participant Service Charter. This charter stipulates that the NDIS is committed to offering a service that is transparent, responsive, respectful, empowering and connected. These five principles are at the core of these important adjustments to the scheme being introduced by the Morrison government. Assessing a person's function has always been part of the NDIS planning process. However, current arrangements heavily burden the participants' doctors, can be complex and costly and, most importantly, inconsistent. As a medical practitioner, I understand the complex nature of the doctor-patient relationship. Sympathy bias is a real thing. As a doctor you always strive to get the outcome for your patient. It is critical that the integrity of this relationship is not compromised. For this reason, the Morrison government is introducing independent assessments. Independent assessments were first recommended by the Productivity Commission in 2011, at the scheme's inception, and more recently by the NDIS Act Tune review.

The member for Maribyrnong is not right. We have developed an independent assessment framework after talking to academics, allied health professionals and other experts in disability. They have provided valuable input as we fine-tune this approach. Over the coming months, we will release more information about independent assessments. This will involve continuing to talk to participants. It's not a set-and-forget policy. It's important that families and carers, peak bodies and disability organisations are all involved in ensuring these assessments have the best quality framework.

Independent assessments are conducted by allied health professionals and they are completely independent of the person being assessed. This means that health professionals, GPs and others with past treatment and support responsibilities for the person would not undertake assessments. These will be completed by internationally-recognised evidence based and consistent assessments which will provide an up-to-date and complete assessment of functional capacity as well as the environment of the disabled person. The independent assessors will be able to factor in each person's health, home life and goals. It's so important for the benefits of the individuals that they have a framework, and it's so important for the system that we have independent assessors. This will lead to more consistent decision-making and will shift towards a whole-of-person assessment that considers a variety of factors, not just the disability. This is a very important set of reforms and I support them.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an important motion which calls out the governments latest efforts to privatise the NDIS, cut funding and force participants into a one-size-fits-all scheme which is set to be run by a multinational company. Australians may well say: 'I haven't heard about this. Where did this come from?' The government has innocently named these changes the 'independent assessment regime', but it is privatisation of the NDIS by stealth, and the government's trying to sneak this through. They buried it deep in the budget papers, and it will hurt nearly half a million vulnerable Australians in the coming years if it is not stopped.

The changes will deprive Australians living with a disability of the dignity they were promised when the NDIS was legislated by Labor: access to individual, tailored and goal-orientated support, giving people living with a disability the fair treatment, the recognition and the dignity they deserve. Individual, tailored and goal-oriented is what people were promised. But, under the government's independent assessment regime, prospective and current NDIS participants will be forced to have their eligibility status and their current entitlements assessed, not by their own doctors, but from a government-approved list, for a limited time, to undertake a complex assessment. Just imagine that for 10 years the same doctor has helped you manage your complex set of disabilities—they are a person you know you can trust and someone who knows your conditions—only to be now told by the government that they know your disability better than you and your doctor. Even worse, these independent assessments are set to be undertaken by a private multinational company. Currently, it's the NDIA's job. The NDIA is not perfect. The government has staffed it mainly with casual labour hire workers. But I believe the government's full privatisation of assessments to a multinational company is fundamentally wrong. Citizens should have a right to have these assessments performed by accountable government agencies in the Public Service.

We've seen repeatedly that privatisation doesn't save money and that service quality suffers. One thing it does do, though, is help the Prime Minister avoid his responsibilities. He loves the announcements and photo-ops but never takes responsibility for what actually happens. Just like in aged care or bushfires, privatisation of the NDIA assessments will allow the government to say: 'Hey, it's not us. It's just the independent assessor in that private company who cut your plan. We've just got to follow what they say.' That's how these changes will work. An Australian with a complex disability and multiple practitioners supporting them will have their plan come up for review. That happens regularly. But now the NDIA will say, 'You must see this doctor on this date for two hours.' The assessment will come back and, using the government's outsourced standardised assessment tools, the anonymous practitioner will cut $70,000 from their plan. The NDIS participant will complain to the NDIA and—you can hear it now—they'll say: 'Sorry, that's the independent assessor's job. It's not ours. We can't do anything about it.'

What this one-size-fits-all privatisation plan of the NDIA boils down to is that disadvantaged people will suffer while the government avoids accountability. We saw it before with robodebt—'It wasn't us; it was the algorithm.' We saw it in aged care—'It wasn't us; it was the nursing homes and the states.' With bushfires and home quarantine, they said, 'It's certainly not us; it's the states.' Whenever vulnerable Australians come into contact with the government, they end up worse off.

This is just the government's latest attack on the NDIS. Since coming to office over seven years ago, they've constantly chipped away at its funding and integrity, stripping $1.6 billion to help build their fake paper surplus, which didn't even happen. But the truly outrageous thing, as we heard from the previous speaker, about their privatisation plan is that it's based on a big, fat lie. The government are pretending that the Productivity Commission and the Tune review recommended these changes. They didn't. That's not true. The Tune review found that the NDIA should not restrict the number of medical practitioners able to provide assessments. The Productivity Commission recommended a strong oversight and appeal process, not privatisation and dodging of responsibility. The government's one-size-fits-all privatised independent assessments will destroy the very essence of the NDIS—individualised, tailored support to help every Australian achieve their goals and potential and live in dignity.

The privatisation of public services must stop. The government should put these plans on hold, withdraw the tender and go back to the drawing board, making transparent the evidence that they say is there to support these changes.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are times in this chamber when, of course, we come together on important issues of public policy because we all care about not just the future of the country but particularly the most vulnerable of Australians. Then we sometimes come in here and we have—let's face it—somewhat hysterical motions put forward by the opposition so they can fill the Notice Paperand so that they can alarm vulnerable Australians and try to convince them that they are their ally or their friend. That's precisely what this motion is about.

We had the member for Maribyrnong and the member for Bruce come in here and clearly demonstrate to the parliament but, more critically, to the people that they have not learned the lessons of either the 2016 election or the 2019 election, rhetorically claiming all sorts of absurdities and unnecessarily alarming vulnerable Australians to whom the government is providing critical support. Frankly, that should embarrass them, because what the government have done is made sure that we have the proper support mechanisms in place to support people with a disability in getting the assistance that they need.

We now have more than 400,000 Australians on the NDIS receiving support to manage often complicated and multiple conditions, as the member for Bruce correctly outlined. In the wonderful electorate of Goldstein itself, we have 1,579 people receiving support and assistance through the National Disability Insurance Scheme as individuals, of course, but also through collective support groups and organisations like Marriott Support Services and Bayley House in the Goldstein electorate.

The evolution of the NDIS has been a continuum of refinement and getting the system right. When you implement one of the biggest social services programs that this country has ever seen, where we've taken responsibility, often from the states, it's important to get it right. It's critically important not just for those who need the assistance and support but also because we are the custodians of taxpayers' money. When it is given to people, we need to make sure that it's properly targeted and delivered so we get the outcomes that the individual client seeks, and it is also important that we identify any fraud, or people who would take advantage of them—because the billions of dollars that have been poured in by this government ultimately become attractive to someone who would like to take advantage of some of our most vulnerable Australians.

So credibility matters, accountability matters, having proper processes in place to be able to account for public money matters—and that's the basis on which this government implements reform. We have done it by making sure there's sufficient funding. We provided a further $3.9 billion for the NDIS after the opposition left government with all the promises but none of the funding. But we've continued to fine-tune support mechanisms so that the money is getting to the people who need it, and, importantly, to bring the NDIS into alignment with the original vision for it around individualised care and support, consistent with proposals put forward by the Productivity Commission and of course the Tune inquiry.

What the government have been doing hasn't been just by us but by agencies, particularly the National Disability Insurance Agency, in consultation and collaboration with over 40 peak health and disability bodies around the country to ensure they understand what needs to be done. We're not seeking to do anything to people with a disability; we're seeking to empower people with a disability. I note the point that the member for Higgins made, correctly—that the foundation of liberalism itself is about empowerment of individuals, and that is the basis on which we seek reform, because we want clients to get the help they need. Tragically, what the opposition is seeking to do is scare people with a disability from getting the help they need. I don't know how that could possibly make them proud. Having individualised plans that work to address the issues that people have as they continue through their life stages is critical to empowering them to live their best lives.

Ged Kearney (Cooper, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Skills) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] I'm pleased to support this motion moved by my colleague the member for Maribyrnong today. I thank him for his passion and commitment to the thousands of people who are on the NDIS, which is such a vital support for so many in my community and in communities across the country. The NDIS is a great legacy of a Labor government and was created to provide a better life for people living with a disability. But we know the reality of the NDIS under this government is far from what Labor envisaged. The system as it stands has a number of glaring issues.

People living with disability haven't forgotten the $4.6 billion which was ripped out of the system last year, which this government attempted to spin as an underspend. They haven't forgotten, because this so-called underspend isn't just a buffer to this government's bottom line, it's a real cut to the funding provided to NDIS participants and to the level of care they receive. People in my community have become housebound for months waiting for a piece of equipment to be approved. People's conditions are worsening while they wait for support. The member for Maribyrnong will remember well the heartbreaking story we heard when visiting the Northern School for Autism, in my electorate of Cooper, of a family forced to relinquish care of their child after being denied the respite care they so desperately needed.

Then there's the issue of flexible and tailored plans. All too often I hear stories of people having to justify the slightest change to their plan or an expense that falls just outside what the person on the other end of the phone actually needs. Ask anyone about the delays to have plans reviewed. For many people, their disability doesn't fall neatly into a category. Their situation is complex and it's intricate, and they need support that is directly tailored to their individual and family needs. Individualised, high-quality support plans were at the core of what Labor envisaged the NDIS to be, and they have been sacrificed under this government.

So in 2019, when a review into the system was undertaken by David Tune, there was hope that perhaps there would be some action to address these issues. The review found that it was worth looking at how assessments work and that to do so the government should run some pilot programs of an independent assessment system. This is reasonable. You trial alternatives, you consult with the sector and you see how a different approach may benefit participants in the functioning of the system. So when the government announced they'd be proceeding with independent assessments, you'd be forgiven for expecting they must have completed some pilots, just as the Tune review recommended. But again they've cut corners and gone their own way, ignoring expert advice. The government announced two pilot programs, the first of which was unrepresentative on just about every level you could imagine and the second of which ended early due to COVID. So they've failed to successfully trial this new system for assessments, but not only have they failed to trial it, as recommended by the review, they've failed to consult.

I recently held a virtual forum with the member for Maribyrnong, where we got to hear from people living with disability and their carers, support workers and advocates. I can tell you the confusion and fear around independent assessments is palpable. They don't know how it will work. They don't know what it will mean for their plans or what effect it will have on the support they have available to them, and, rightfully, they are fearful it will mean less support. They know that this government has real form on that. As it stands, we won't even get the chance to get answers to these questions here in parliament. Rather than introducing these changes through legislation, as the Tune review recommended, the government plans on sneaking them through in regulatory changes.

When there's so much at stake, NDIS participants at the very least deserve these changes to be properly scrutinised and, if necessary, challenged by this parliament. So much for transparency being the key to this government's approach. Where is the fair period of consultation? Where are the assurances that services won't be cut, that barriers to access won't be raised, that people won't be worse off? The government refuse to provide these assurances. So I echo the words of the member for Maribyrnong to those opposite: pause the rollout of the independent assessment program; properly consult with people living with disability and their families, their carers and the sector; and be transparent about how these changes will affect their lives. NDIS participants deserve to be involved in changes to the system. They deserve transparency. They deserve to be heard.

Angie Bell (Moncrieff, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The NDIS is very important to the good people of Moncrieff and to our nation, as we know. In fact, as of June 2020, 1,681 people in Moncrieff were being supported by the NDIS. People with a disability and their carers deserve to see the NDIS delivered in line with Productivity Commission recommendations, and that is exactly what this government is doing through the reforms announced in August 2020. To summarise those recommendations: assessors should be independent of the person being assessed to reduce the potential for sympathy bias, assessors are to be approved or appointed by the NDIA for the purpose of conducting NDIS assessments and their approaches to assessment have to be aligned with the objectives of the NDIS. A common set of eligibility criteria with entitlements to individually tailored supports based on the same assessment and genuine choice over how needs are met. Assessors should not have a longstanding connection to the individual. Needs should be periodically re-assessed with a focus on the transition points in people's lives and establishing a tool box for assessors to utilise to do their jobs well.

The Morrison government reforms also draw on the Tune Review of 2019. To summarise those key lessons being applied: they include standardised functional capacity assessments to improve the quality and consistency of NDIA decisions, reduction of the administrative and financial burden felt by both prospective participants and participants to provide evidence to the NDIA and clarity around the requirements for information required to support decision-making on both the use and the form of the information. The NDIA must have access to the best and most relevant evidence related to a person's functional capacity.

The government has consulted widely, I say to those opposite. The National Disability Insurance Agency has worked with more than 40 peak health and disability bodies. The government made the decision to announce the introduction of independent assessments early. This was done so that there would be time to work through the detail in close consultation with people with a disability and representative organisations.

The NDIA has been consulting extensively since the announcement and prior to independent assessments commencing in 2021. The NDIA will engage widely with participants, families, carers, peak bodies, disability organisations and peer and family networks to explain the new independent assessment process at the access and planning stage. The NDIA will shortly release an engagement and consultation schedule to support the implementation of independent assessments. Sessions will be conducted in urban, regional, rural and remote areas by email, by phone and by virtual and face-to-face engagement. Information sessions will be aligned to COVID-19 restrictions. Specific activities will be conducted to ensure independent assessments work for people from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds and culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds as well as people with complex needs and psychological disabilities.

The NDIA is resuming a second pilot that was paused due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This will continue to help the NDIA understand how independent assessments will work in practice. As part of the second pilot, the NDIA will offer independent assessments for up to 4,000 existing NDIS participants. with all disability types, on a voluntary basis. The NDIA paper has released a paper on the evaluation of the first independent assessment pilot and will release further information after the second pilot has resumed for the remainder of 2020. Over the coming months the NDIA will continue to share more information on the NDIS website about how the assessments will work.

Labor, those opposite and the member for Maribyrnong should stop spreading fear and misinformation, Mr Deputy Speaker. Claims that independent assessment are a cover to restrict NDIA access and limit participants' plans are unfounded and simply untrue. There are some important reasons why independent assessments are being introduced for all participants, and applicants for the NDIS—all people regardless of the situation or where they live—should have the same access to internationally recognised evidence based arrangements.

If it's time for a participant to transition out of the NDIS, an independent assessment will give them confidence in the significant gains they've made in their functional capacity as a result of capacity-building or early intervention supports. NDIS participants have reported they have spent thousands of dollars chasing assessments to show their functional capacity, and some Australians cannot afford the same access to professionals as others. Access to the NDIS should not be limited to those who can pay the most for a report.

Libby Coker (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] I stand to support this motion because it gives voice to people with disability who have grave concerns about the introduction of independent assessments. I thank the shadow minister for bringing in this motion. It exposes the gross failure of this government to properly engage with the disability community in making this change. The government is causing great fear and anxiety. The government must pause the rollout of independent assessments and engage in real consultation with NDIS participants and the workforce.

Now, it is important we recognise there are challenges to delivering the scheme fairly and consistently. Like cases should be treated alike. This is a fundamental principle of justice. The 2019 Tune review found that the NDIA was not making consistent decisions during planning. Some participants with similar disability needs reported they received very different plans—like the Weir brothers, who suffer the exact same genetic condition but receive drastically different levels of support—and this is unacceptable.

Inconsistency is a problem. The Labor Party stands ready to work collaboratively with the government to find a solution, but ramming through independent assessments with little community consultation is not the answer. The issue is that the government's chosen plan for solving this problem is more harmful than the problem.

So far we know surprisingly little about how independent assessments will work. We know they will take between only one and four hours, but what we don't know is how much the introduction of independent assessments will cost. And, even though there has been an incomplete voluntary pilot program, we don't know how participants experienced the pilot because requests for evaluation reporting have been denied by the government. This is unacceptable. The government must come clean. A lack of transparency is holding the NDIS back from being the scheme it needs to be. Despite serious concerns being raised by many, including the Australian association of psychiatrists, Every Australian Counts, People with Disability Australia, Women with Disabilities Australia, the Rights Information and Advocacy Centre and Synapse, the government has chosen regulation over legislation on independent assessments in order to avoid greater scrutiny.

It does not surprise me that organisations have expressed serious concern with the government's plan. Every day, I speak with people who have been mistreated as a result of the government's fixation on cutting the cost of disability support. And who can forget the $4.6 billion NDIS underspend? Rachael, a disability advocate in Geelong, told me it was shameful the NDIA had not consulted people with disabilities. If they had, they would hear what Rachael is hearing: 'Anxiety, fear and distrust. Participants turn to us, feeling traumatised about receiving a robotic letter stating they have only 28 days to provide more evidence on their disability or they will be removed from the scheme. Participants fear these independent assessments will not be about consistency but are about cost-cutting by stealth.' Rachael went on to say, 'The NDIS is supposed to be about choice and control, but this process is taking away the control. This is not the person-centred NDIA we fought for.'

In my electorate of Corangamite, I have formed an NDIS reference group to help me in my work on the parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. This group includes advocates, carers, members of the workforce and participants, and their message is clear: they fiercely oppose independent assessments.

The Morrison government must immediately pause the rollout of independent assessments and engage in genuine, transparent consultation with the sector. We need to build a pathway to meeting the challenge of inconsistency that isn't more poison than antidote. Since 2013, the coalition has viewed this scheme primarily as an expenditure line. It is failing to run the NDIS because it is putting cash before care. Labor stands for choice and empowerment for NDIS participants and the workforce. The very first step in that commitment is an open conversation about how the system should work. They should withdraw the tender. This is a flawed process without compassion and care for those that the scheme should serve.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The NDIS, like every other arm of government, should be open to sunlight. It should be clear and transparent and we should understand what is going on within the NDIS. It's interesting that this motion put forward by the member for Maribyrnong comes only a short while after the member for Indi put forward a motion about an integrity commission. It's very important that all government agencies do exactly what they are funded and designed to do. The member for Maribyrnong knows that. In fact, he was one of the first champions of the NDIS in this place, and I congratulate him: well done.

The NDIS followed a Productivity Commission report in 2011 and, when it was legislated in 2013, I might say that it received bipartisan support. So both sides of parliament are responsible for the success of this program. At that time, the Productivity Commission estimated that the full scheme would cost $13.6 billion per annum to run. The states were contributing around $8 billion to disability support services around Australia, and a deal was done that the states were to transfer that $8 billion into the new fund, and then the Commonwealth would pick up the gap between that and, at that stage, the $13.6 billion. It's very debatable whether the states have actually delivered on that full $8 billion. In fact, a lot of us think that they squirreled a bit away. One way or another, the Commonwealth is still making up the gap, but the full funding figure is now about $23 billion a year—so not double, but certainly getting right up there—an 80 per cent increase or thereabouts.

The NDIS has made a transformational difference on the ground. I have constituents that repeatedly come to me and say, 'I just cannot believe what we can do now' with young Freddie or Julia, or whatever their names are, 'that we could not do before. The support has been fantastic.' But it is absolutely right that the support should go to those who qualify and should not go to those who do not. The situation that exists is that people lobby the NDIS for extra funding. I would often argue that those that deal with the calamity of family on a day-to-day basis are not necessarily best placed to make the decisions about what kind of support should occur in that area. We are all conditioned by the person, by the personalities. That's not to say there are not needs that should be met outside what the NDIS is supposed to meet, but it is right that it should, as I said, have integrity, and that is what the independent assessments are about. At the beginning of the NDIS I was a little perturbed by statements about travel agents organising holiday trips for people with disability on the strength of the NDIS. I don't think anyone ever thought it was really for those arrangements, and some of the providers that were around in the early days—and I hope we're slowly clamping down on them—are to be questioned.

The member for Maribyrnong says there's been an outcry about the lack of consultation and information available about the independent assessments among people with disability and disability advocates. Has there really? I checked with my staff: we've had no-one contact the office concerned about those particular issues. And I might say that the contacts to our office about the NDIS in general have dropped not to zero but down to a very low number. I can tell you that is a big change. It's because we're actually getting the parameters right and we're getting the delivery of services right. That's not to say we still won't have errors. That's not to say people still won't be disenfranchised. If they're not getting served properly, they should come to their members, and we will stick up for them and make sure that justice is served. But, as I often say to people, it's my job to make sure departments follow the guidelines and the rules. I cannot ask a public servant to break the rules on anybody's behalf. If the rules are wrong, the rules should be changed, but they need to be properly administered. That's what the independent assessment is about. For the record, there are 3,189 constituents in Grey receiving support under the NDIS, better than the pro rata for the nation, which is about 2,700.

Tony Smith (Speaker) 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.