Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the Joint Standing committee on the NDIS's recently released report into supported independent living. It was quite an extensive inquiry and series of hearings that were held, to the point that the committee made 45 recommendations. I think it's worth noting, though, when we consider supported independent living, or SIL, that it's probably one of the last legacy items from the previous way that disability was funded, often through block funding, now into the National Disability Insurance Scheme and through the NDIA. Obviously, that carries with it a very different philosophy with regard to choice and control. It ensures that participants have the ability to live their best lives under their choices, as opposed to fundamentally getting what they were given. That is what occurred too often in the past.

I would like to touch on just a few of the recommendations that we made in this report and how I think that there may be an opportunity in the future to go further with these recommendations. Certainly, with the NDIS definitely in its infancy, things will still require tweaking to ensure that people with a disability and their families are receiving the best possible opportunities that the NDIA and the NDIS can deliver.

SIL was fundamentally a move from the old group home situation. Whilst a number of the states underwent a process to offload their bricks-and-mortar services, unfortunately, these were primarily given to large providers who were previously block-funded. These providers were well known by disability departments at the state government level. This was unfortunate, because many new and more agile providers were not given the opportunity to participate and, secondly, a number of the large, formally block funded providers had form in providing incredibly poor service to their residents. In fact, a number of them had been under investigation previously for mistreating their clients. So, basically, it was disappointing to see a continuation of this under SIL. Certainly, these providers have not necessarily been in line with the choice-of-control ethos of the NDIS. Unfortunately, I think that in a lot of SIL situations we're continuing to see this.

I just want to touch on a couple of the recommendations briefly. Recommendation No. 6 is about providing some sort of guidance for families and allowing them more information and choice when it comes to finding a facility for their loved ones. Sometimes finding information can be incredibly difficult. Again, it also impedes on a family's ability to make the best choices for their family member. Recommendation No. 12 says:

… participants have the opportunity to review and agree to quotes …

What is fundamentally different between SIL and every other part of the NDIS is that SIL providers themselves negotiate with the NDIA on what the funding requirements are. They provide the quote and it is all done without the involvement of the participant or their family.

The other problem with current SIL arrangements is that there is very little choice as to where these people move into shared or individual support. Also, they have very limited ability to choose who they are able to live with. If people have grown up together and move into a SIL environment—a group home environment—they have very little ability to choose to live with each other because of the way the former block-funded, and now SIL funded, providers offer their services. We have made recommendations, under 18, 19, 20 and 21, that more information be available but that there is also support to move residence, that if you are unhappy with your provider then the support is there for you to move.

I think that recommendations 24 and 25 are some of the most critical recommendations that the report makes. They are ones that I'm certainly going to follow up on and make sure there is movement on. We need to see a separation of the bricks-and-mortar provision and the service provision. That ensures that if you want to own the houses, if you want to own the bricks and mortar, and you fundamentally want to be involved in property management then that's great and that's what you can do. If you want to be a disability service provider and ensure that people have access to the best opportunities in life then you can be a service provider. By allowing the two together there is the sense of punitive threats being made about security of housing if you decide that you don't want to use your housing provider as your service provider.

In recommendation 27 we also say that there should be a vacancy register, which would assist families further. We also acknowledged under recommendations 38 and 39 that there are issues with access in thin markets. Those recommendations also establish a provider of last resort.

Finally, I would like to see the commission look at more active monitoring and look at advanced analytics to ensure participants have not been disadvantaged by decisions of SIL providers and have not, in fact, been reinstitutionalised via stealth under the provision of COVID-19. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.