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

by leave—I rise to speak on the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme's interim report on the NDIS workforce and the same committee's report on general issues. I would like to thank the joint standing committee for its work—the chair, the member for Menzies, Kevin Andrews; the deputy chair, Senator Carol Brown; Senators Askew, Chisholm, Hughes and Steele-John; the members for Corangamite, Adelaide, Reid and Fisher; and the committee secretariat.

I would urge the government, as a matter of priority, to respond to the recommendations of both these reports in a timely manner that reflects the hard work and the importance of their content. The report on general issues in the NDIS makes several important recommendations, including that the NDIA and the watchdog, the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission:

This is an important recommendation that recognises the reality of people with disabilities being forgotten in the early stages of the pandemic. The royal commission recently noted how the government had even omitted people with disability entirely from its pandemic emergency response plan.

There are recommendations about better engagement by the National Disability Insurance Agency with Indigenous Australians, with homeless people and with people who have psychosocial disorders. The final two recommendations are about better communication with NDIS participants about matters relating to the scheme and better management of circumstances around the death of participants. These are a response to the sorts of shortfalls highlighted by the tragic deaths by neglect, such as that of Ann-Marie Smith in Adelaide. Following her death and following calls by Labor, the government initiated the independent Robertson review. Alan Robertson, Senior Counsel, made a series of recommendations, some of which are now mirrored in these joint standing committee recommendations. I hope that the Minister for the NDIS now takes more notice of these important calls. He has so far refused to respond to the Robertson review recommendations. It's now 95 days since the Robertson review into the death of Ann-Marie Smith was handed down, and we've heard nothing from the government.

The committee's interim report on the NDIS workforce also shows that remaining work needs to be done. I think some of the noteworthy recommendations here are the need for the NDIA to ensure all pricing reviews are conducted in full consultation with people with disability, support workers and representative organisations.

A review of options for a national registration and accreditation scheme for disability support workers is an analysis of the skills and qualifications required by the disability workforce and a look at the vocational education and training programs and university courses to ensure they capture the real training needs for the sector and for the workforce of the future. Further, it's removing barriers of entry for people with disability to apply for positions at the National Disability Insurance Agency. There is a need for a strategy to address distribution shortfalls and thin markets in the allied health workforce in many parts of Australia.

A lot of this talks to what Labor has been saying for some time now and what we have been hearing from unions representing workers in this sector—the ASU, HSU, the United Workers Union and Australian Workers Union. There's a real need for career ladders, plans for job security and meaningful qualifications so that Australia cannot just do the right thing by the workforce and people with disability domestically but we can become a world leader in standards of care—a key remaining part of our service-leaning care economy.

It is excellent this bipartisan committee is speaking such sense on the issues. However, it does go against the trend of accelerating the gig economy. There remains a danger for government, such as the current one, falling for the lure of app based mechanisms that undermine the importance of a quality non-casualised workforce. Some government MPs may be attracted to the of uberisation of disability services—a digital marketplace—but I urge them to carefully listen to the well-researched and sensible conclusions of the report, which the member for Menzies has been speaking to. It is the right path for workers, the industry and people with disability.

One final matter, which would be remiss of me not to raise, is in response to the member for Menzies' comments on the report and the proposed introduction of independent assessments. I wish, in particular at this point, to draw attention to the views of the Australian Association of Psychologists. They have written to me and said, 'The proposed changes have caused a great deal of distress in the disability and psychology communities, with many of our members, the psychologists, sharing grave concerns for the wellbeing of their clients, if it is implemented. A key concern is that allied health professionals who are known to participants will have little input, if any, into the participant's eligibility to determination, plan development and reviews.'

The psychologists go on to say, 'The NDIA-appointed independent assessors will not have the depth or breadth of knowledge about a range of disabilities, particularly uncommon disabilities, to be able to adequately understand the complexity of various participant needs. Simplistic assessment by unfamiliar assessors will likely be traumatic for participants and their families. The use of one-size-fits-all assessment tools will most likely result in people with complex disabilities not being assessed properly. Poor assessments are likely to lead to people being denied access to this scheme, and, for those deemed eligible, they're likely to be granted inadequate funding. For people with social, cultural and language barriers, as well as those with complex communication or sensory needs, unfamiliar, independent assessors are unlikely to be able to understand or indeed assess their needs.'

The psychologists go on to say—and I agree with their proposition—'The participants should be given the right to choose to either undergo the independent assessment process or use reports from their trusted and qualified allied health providers. People living with disabilities are often subject to prejudices and quick judgement of others as well as the loss of choice and control. The independent assessment changes proposed by the current minister cements that experience for the participant. It takes away the participant's right to have a tailored assessment and a treatment program to improve their function and achieve goals for their choice. Experienced allied health professionals who are familiar with the most evidence based interventions available are best placed to recommend the type and frequency of treatment required to meet the participants' needs. If there are additional assessment measures that the NDIA requires, these need to be communicated clearly to providers so they can be included in reports, removing the need for independent assessors.'

All of us, I believe, have the view that the NDIS should protect the most vulnerable in our community. What we need to do is make sure that we honour our beliefs in the actions which we take in this place. I commend the report, to which the member of Menzies has spoken.

See this speech in context