Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Tourism) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I rise to take note of the government's response to the final report of the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS on its inquiry into NDIS planning. When our committee released its our final report we made 42 recommendations, all of which were aimed at improving the planning process from the participants' perspective. The committee conducted this inquiry in response to years of advocacy from participants, carers, supporters, advocates and groups in the sector who were calling for reform. Of those recommendations, the government has chosen to support, or support in principle, 26 recommendations and to note the remaining 16 recommendations. During this inquiry the committee received 157 submissions and conducted 14 public hearings.

As every NDIS participant knows, NDIS planning, along with access, is the primary point at which participants interact with the scheme, so it goes without saying that a good planning process can change life for the better. It's pleasing to note the government's recognition of the importance of providing participants with information about their plans prior to their planning meeting. During the inquiry, the committee received extensive evidence about the many inconsistencies in the planning process and plan funding. Some plans did not include funded supports because in the view of the planner or agency the participants had access to informal support. 'Informal support' essentially means carers supporting the participant. That was essentially what the NDIS were falling back on, that a participant was going to be assisted by members of their family. The committee also heard of discrepancies in funding and support between siblings with the same disability type.

It is heartening that the government acknowledges the important role the NDIA has in assisting families and carers of people with disability in the planning process. This is an issue that has been ongoing for a very, very long time. However, the committee's recommendation that caregivers be provided with written information about the types of support that the NDIS can fund remains very, very important. Participants and their advocates have long advocated for specialist planners for participants who are hospitalised to assist with a smooth transition. The government supported this recommendation, and that is welcome. These transitions and other similar experiences can create uncertainty and gaps in support for people with disability. It is essential that various levels of governments and their agencies work together to support some of our most vulnerable citizens. The appointment of 24 health liaison officers nationally is a good first step towards achieving this.

Many participants in the NDIS have complex needs and need to access the complex supports needs pathway. The committee recommended that the NDIA publish more information about this pathway, including information on who is eligible and how the NDIA defines the term 'complex support needs'.

I note that the NDIA is currently undertaking a review of the pathway but would remind government and the agency that the more information provided to participants, supporters and advocates, the better. Clear advice and information are essential to the planning process succeeding. Throughout the inquiry this was one of the central messages that we received around information and clear advice. It's very clear that that advice that participants and their families are receiving is not clear and not consistent, so work towards ensuring that it is clear and consistent is welcomed.

Another key element is ensuring that there is trust in decision-making of the agency in the resourcing and transparency of the appeals process. The need for many of these appeals arises because participants never meet with the NDIA delegate who makes the decision on their plan. For too long the NDIA was slow to respond to appeals lodged with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Recent improvements are welcome, but the priority of resourcing this task must be maintained. Leaving NDIS participants living with the uncertainty is not good enough and must be addressed by the agency.

During our inquiry we also heard about the impact that planning errors had on participants. Initial plans and reviews have often been undertaken by a planner without any knowledge of the participant's disability, and this is an ongoing issue. The stories of planners relying on search engines while conducting meetings with participants are legend. In responding to many of the recommendations in this review the government notes recent announcements or reviews. But as we all know an announcement does not mean that the issue has been resolved. Announcements do not provide us with hope and provide us with an acknowledgement that the government has recognised the need to address the issue.

One of the announcements that the government is relying on in its response to this report is their recent commitment to the introduction of independent assessments. The government's determination to now rely on these assessments has already caused a great deal of alarm and concern in the disability community. This supposed reform was announced without adequate consultation and consideration of the needs of NDIS participants. That is why the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme is already conducting a separate inquiry into independent assessments.

There are roughly 440,000 people with disability on the NDIS. The rollout of independent assessments is a radical plan. You can't help but wonder if the soul aim of this radical plan is cost cutting. They all have to prove that they have a disability and they've been assessed as being eligible to participate in the scheme. What the government is now proposing is that these 440,000 participants effectively have to requalify for the scheme. The shadow minister for the NDIS has said that people with disability are effectively being asked to reaudition with a complete stranger for the same money they're already getting—not with the medical specialists that they've been used to over the years or have already received medical reports from, but with a panel of medical people they need to select from. We know that they've already had to convince a range of medical and allied health professionals, and NDIS officials, that they're eligible for the NDIS.

The rollout of independent assessments is a radical plan. I can tell you right now that advocates and participants are wondering whether this is not just a way of cost cutting, cutting people's plans. The reality is that this reform is based on shaky evidence and doesn't necessarily promise a fix for the problems with consistency and fairness in planning as outlined in this report. The government says that there's a new approach for planning which will be underpinned by the introduction of independent assessments later in 2021. Advocates and participants are, at best, very unsure about how this process is going to work. At worst, they believe that this is a way to cut their support. But it also adds stress to the planning process. It is stressful. You can imagine, if you had to go through it, how stressful it would be to talk to somebody and, at the moment, perhaps talk to somebody that doesn't even understand anything about your disability or the supports that you need. Here we have the government introducing independent assessments and lauding that as some sort of reform that's going to fix the issue around having fully costed, detailed draft plans. That's not going to happen, because they don't talk to participants or advocates or family members. (Time expired)

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.