Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I wish to take note of this report. I urge senators to read this report because it is a report on the progress of the implementation of the NDIS by the NDIA. I have to say that it expresses some pretty strong concerns on a range of areas. It notes the work that the NDIA has been undertaking and the progress on the NDIS. It notes the issues that the joint parliamentary committee has been looking at and talking to people about. It also notes that we have done a separate report on psychosocial disabilities, and I spoke on that in this place during the last sitting when we tabled that report. That report highlights a large number of areas of concern in relation to psychosocial disabilities and the rollout of the NDIS. The report also talks about the concerns people have about the early childhood early intervention approach and highlights the fact that the committee has established a separate inquiry into that area. It also has established a separate inquiry into the transitional arrangements for the NDIS—in other words, how that's rolling out. And the report notes that we will be reporting very soon on our hearing inquiry, and there are huge concerns in that area.

One of the areas the report specifically talks about is planning. This area under the NDIS has generated a great deal of concern. People are being asked to complete their plan or engage in the development of their plan over the phone. There are concerns about the various skills and expertise of the planners themselves and the fact that the NDIA seems to have moved away from the 'reasonable and necessary' forms of support that form the very basis of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I've got to say, that is what's in the legislation and the rules, but planners seem to have moved away from that, and in the report we point out where they have done that and give some examples from some of our public hearings.

I should say here that one of the public hearings was in the main committee room here at Parliament House. We had to move from one of our normal committee rooms on the second floor—2S1 or 2S3, where you'd normally expect to have your hearings—to the main committee room because we had so many people turn up: over 100 people. Participants, carers and providers turned up. That sent an immediate message to the committee: 'Something's going on here, folks.' The evidence that I particularly recall and that we articulate in the report about reasonable and necessary supports related to the supports for a relatively young person and a particular prosthesis that the person needed. The local planner approved it and had a trial of it and it worked really well, so the recommendation was that this relatively young person have that prosthesis that was needed. But it was knocked back by head office, because the prosthesis was not considered necessary for an ordinary life. Without it, this person would fall over and could not walk. What do you think you need for an ordinary life? But they changed from 'reasonable and necessary' to assess it against what's considered necessary for an ordinary life—unacceptable in my book. Anyway, we articulate that in the report.

We also articulate the fact that people have been raising concerns about the disregard by the planners for medical assessments and for the information that carers provide, as well as the fact that there's no opportunity to review plans before implementation. Some people haven't seen their plans. And there are concerns about the number of times they're reviewed, the lack of involvement in the review, the inconsistencies between plans and the unacceptable delays in developing and implementing the plans. And we deal in the report with service provider issues; they were raised a lot. These relate to people being able to get their accounts paid. They are not being told when plans are reviewed and therefore continue to provide supports under the old plan, to be told that no, there's a new plan, and they are not paid for the supports they gave under the old plan, because they hadn't been told there was a new plan.

Then there is the pricing issue—a humungous issue—and the non-contextual process for pricing. There are the issues around the portal—IT issues. I'm sure that when the transition happened in June, July and August last year every member of this place got phone calls about the problems with the portal and people not being able to get accounts paid. When we held the hearing, we heard, again, a lot of concerns from the providers. The NDIA tells people that that's fixed. That's not what you hear on the ground, and you don't hear from the providers about it being fixed.

There are issues around transport and the transport market design. This is a huge issue that we've had evidence on. In fact, we heard from the transport providers a number of times about the issue around generating a market here. The concern here is that, by being so focused on generating a market in transport, you actually may take the situation backwards, because there are very strong concerns that the market in this particular area will not operate. In fact, we may very well leave people worse off.

These are all areas that I know we are transitioning in. I know that we are still in the process of rolling out the NDIS, but these issues need to be resolved now because they are causing very deep distress and concern for people to the point where people are saying—and I read out some participants', carers' and parents' views last night in this place during adjournment—that they're actually worse off under the NDIS than they were under the various states' proposals. That's actually saying something, in my view.

The report makes a number of recommendations. The first one is:

The committee recommends that the National Disability Insurance Agency provide an opportunity for participants, and those who support them, to view, comment, and rectify any errors in their plan in advance of it being finalised and implemented.

Sorry, but that's basic commonsense, so can we please implement that? The committee also makes the recommendation:

The committee recommends that the National Disability Insurance Agency publish the results of its participants and providers pathways review, specifically the areas identified for improvement, and the strategies in place to achieve improved outcomes.

That's a particularly important point—that that occurs. Then we say:

The committee recommends that the National Disability Insurance Agency include progress on issues identified in the participant and provider pathways review in future Quarterly Reports.

Again, you'd think that that is a fairly obvious thing to do. We recommend:

… that the National Disability Insurance Agency review its quarterly reporting terminology and metrics to ensure consistency, and apply this to all future reports.

Again, you'd think that this is rocket science so that we can actually get an accurate measurement and reflection of progress being made. Finally, we say:

The committee recommends that the NDIA ensure that only criteria underpinned by terminology set out in the NDIS Act and associated Rules is used in the assessment of appropriate supports.

That relates back to the fact that they are moving away from the reasonable and necessary approach and using terminology that's not in the legislation.

There is urgent need for change in the NDIS, and people are getting increasingly impatient. As I articulated yesterday, we remain strong supporters of the NDIS. We think that it has the potential to make profound differences and improvements to the lives of people with disabilities. But, if we don't fix these issues, that won't become a reality because people are already saying that they are not better off. They're so frustrated and so downhearted. Please, government and NDIA, listen. We encourage you to please read these recommendations and get on with making this scheme the best it can be.