Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, I present the committee's report entitled NDIS planning interim report.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

It's apposite that this report is being tabled today, as it's international day of disability. Planning is fundamental to the operation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the NDIS. The plan sets out the goals of the NDIS participant and the funded supports that will assist the participant to realise those goals. In effect, the plan determines how the participant will experience the NDIS. Given the significance of the planning process, it is crucial that planning is effective, robust and meets the needs of all NDIS participants.

It is therefore concerning that the committee has heard that there are a number of significant issues with the operation and the implementation of the NDIS, particularly in relation to process. It is troubling that many of these issues are not new and have been raised in previous inquiries. In light of these matters, the committee considers that urgent action must be taken to improve the operation of the NDIS and, in particular, the planning process, to maximise choice and control for people with disability and ensure that NDIS participants are fully supported to achieve their goals.

Evidence presented to the committee throughout the inquiry indicates that more time is required to fully consider issues associated with the planning process. Further time is also required to consider the impact of recent government initiatives to improve the NDIS, several of which are in their trial stages. Consequently, the committee has decided to present this interim report, which contains 14 recommendations, mostly directed to the NDIA to improve the operation of the planning process and the NDIS more generally. Many of these are proposed as a means of addressing issues with the planning process in the immediate term while initiatives to improve the planning process are implemented. The committee has also highlighted other areas that it will consider more closely in the coming months.

The committee emphasises that the issues raised in this report are not intended as a criticism of individuals involved in the planning process, who are often doing a very good job under trying circumstances. Rather, the committee's focus has been on the planning process as a whole, and the recommendations are targeted at bringing about systemic improvements to help the NDIS realise its full potential.

The committee heard that the planning process does not involve NDIS participants in a meaningful way. In particular, submitters were concerned that participants do not have the opportunity to review and alter their plan before it is approved and often do not meet with or speak to the National Disability Insurance Agency officer with authority to approve their plan. The committee considers that face-to-face meetings between participants and the NDIA delegates should be an essential part of the planning process. Participants should be given all opportunities possible to communicate their goals and required supports and to challenge planning proposals that do not meet their needs. This is crucial to realising the principles of choice and control that underpin the scheme.

The committee notes that the NDIA recently trialled a joint planning approach where participants meet face to face with their local area coordinator and the delegate with authority to approve the plan. The committee is pleased that the government proposes to roll out joint planning on a national basis from April 2020. However, it's not clear that joint planning will be an adequate substitute for the provision of fully costed draft plans to participants.

In this regard, the committee heard that the current approach to joint planning does not allow participants to review fully costed draft plans before they're approved. As such, the joint planning process may not on its own be sufficient to ensure that participants and representatives are adequately prepared for planning meetings and feel able to advocate for the supports and funding they need. Consequently, the committee considers that, in addition to the introduction of joint planning, participants should be provided with fully costed draft plans ahead of planning meetings. This proposal was strongly supported by the majority of the submitters to the inquiry and has been previously recommended by the committee.

At present, a full plan review is required for all changes to a participant's plan, even where those changes are minor or routine. The committee heard that this requirement is causing distress for participants and may be limiting their ability to effectively advocate for reasonable and necessary supports. The committee also heard evidence that delays in review processes may be causing undue burden for participants, limiting their ability to access supports and undermining the effective administration of the NDIS. The committee supports, strongly, allowing participants to request reviews of only part of a plan and a requirement that reviews be completed within a specified time frame. The committee also supports publishing, in a de-identified form, settlement outcomes associated with review processes as a means of increasing transparency and accountability for stakeholders.

Submitters indicated that the information disseminated by the NDIA is overly complex and bureaucratic and that the NDIA often fails to use consistent language. The committee acknowledges that the NDIA is working to simplify language it uses when communicating with stakeholders. However, evidence received during the inquiry suggests that the communication issues persist and are creating challenges for people seeking to navigate an already complex scheme.

The committee heard that additional training is necessary to ensure that all persons involved in the planning process understand the diverse experiences of NDIS participants, particularly those with complex support needs, and to ensure that service delivery is consistent, effective and culturally appropriate. The committee also heard that gaps in plans may be limiting participants' ability to access necessary supports, limiting choice and control and undermining the effective administration of the NDIS. The committee acknowledges that the NDIA has implemented enhancements to its internal processes, which goes some way to ensuring continuity of supports. However, evidence suggests that more needs to be done to ensure that participants are not left without funding for reasonable and necessary supports and to ensure that funding in participant plans remains appropriate.

The committee heard that the delays in approving first plans may be creating barriers to supports. The committee notes that the government announced an initiative to resolve delays in approving first plans for the early childhood cohort and supports the implementation of similar initiatives for all NDIS participants. The committee heard that children with acquired disability and children with complex support needs are often under-served by the NDIS and that approval delays may be limiting access to supports. The committee considers that a mechanism is needed to prioritise these cohorts in appropriate circumstances to ensure that they're able to access supports as quickly as possible.

Finally, the committee heard that that current NDIS funding model may not be giving participants adequate access to transport services. The committee notes that work is in progress to increase funding for transport services and to allow participants to use funding more flexibly. However, these measures may not be sufficient to ensure that the NDIS meets transport needs of participants in the short term, and the committee has made recommendations in relation to this matter as well.

In conclusion, the committee thanks all who participated in the inquiry by lodging submissions, giving testimony or expressing their views through correspondence. In particular, the committee acknowledges those NDIS participants who attended the committee's public hearings to share their experiences. The testimony of people with lived experience is crucial to identifying issues and making improvements to the NDIS. The committee will give further consideration to the issues associated with the planning process in the coming months and will hold additional public hearings. The committee proposes to present a final report to the parliament on this subject in 2020. May I, in conclusion, thank all members of the committee and the secretariat, headed by Bonnie Allan, for their work on this inquiry. I commend the report to the House.

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

by leave—On behalf of Labor, I would like to welcome this committee report. I think the chair and all the members of the committee have worked with an open mind. I think they have identified important and necessary reforms. When Australians look at the state of politics in 2019, I think this committee report is a little pinprick of bright light in that it shows what people can do. It shows what the Labor MPs and senators—Senator Chisholm, the member for Corangamite, the member for Canberra and the deputy chair, Senator Carol Brown—can do.

The NDIS is a good idea, but it's a good idea which I worry is bogged in the sand. There are plenty of good examples of life-changing support, which this scheme was set up to deliver. But I do worry that sometimes the bureaucratic red tape which surrounds people seeking modest supports for disabilities is in danger of strangling the process. I get concerned, as I've reimmersed myself in the world of disability since the federal election, that sometimes the decision-making structure within the National Disability Insurance Agency is designed to protect the agency from criticism rather than to focus on choice and control for participants.

People will recall the Terminator series of films back in the day when the former governor of California was an actor. They go back in time to fix up the Skynet system. In this fictitious world of Terminator, Skynet is a computer system designed to protect the human race. The problem is that, at some point, Skynet flips over and becomes the enemy of the human race. I'm not saying that NDIA is Skynet, but I am saying that this is now an organisation which too often is about protecting itself and not about the participants in the scheme.

So, on 3 December, the International Day of People with Disability, this report refocuses the scheme onto looking after participants. There is a saying on the Facebook groups of people with disability and participants and their families that dealing with planners can sometimes be planner lotto. You can get a very good planner or sometimes you can get planners who just aren't aware of the world of disability and how it all works and the struggles and the challenges of participants and the people caring for them.

I have to say that the member for Menzies is taking a legislator's approach to reforming the system. Reforming NDIS is not a left-wing idea or a right-wing idea. It's not a Liberal, National, Green, One Nation or Labor idea. It should be governed by common sense. But I would encourage the government, as opposed to the legislators on this committee, to take the same approach to these recommendations that the people on the committee have. The recommendations include the hardly revolutionary notion that a detailed plan which may cover tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for a participant in a year should be presented to the participant and their family as a draft before it's finalised, so, rather than presenting a final plan as a fait accompli, but where the planner may have missed important parts, if they get the draft, the family can work it through. This only makes sense. Do a rough copy before you submit the final version. That's what we tell people.

The second thing is that we think that having planners meet the participants face to face is hardly revolutionary but eminently sensible. So much grief and delay could be obviated by just talking to people. I think that you should be able to review part of the plan. These plans are quite complex documents, and, if there's something which isn't right or over time hasn't worked out as intended, you should be able to review part of it rather than the whole plan. For example, if you get a taxi allowance and it's not meeting your needs, the whole plan shouldn't be put up in the air to review the taxi allowance. We should have more flexibility on that. If a participant says, 'I'm not happy with the plan,' and wants a review of it, what happens under this scheme is that you can ask for a review but there is no deadline for the reviewer to review the scheme. Australians don't have the luxury of telling the tax office, 'I'm not ready yet on my tax return this year.' There is a deadline. Citizens have deadlines that the state puts upon them. It is not unreasonable to guarantee to a participant that, at a certain point, if the decision-maker hasn't got around to your review, it's deemed accepted at a drop-dead date. That will certainly focus the mind on decisions.

There should be standardised terminology across the scheme and clear language. I know the minister has used the words 'ontology of classifications', 'swim lanes', 'sprints' and 'cohorts'. We need less corporate jargon and less cover-your-backside jargon and more straight talking. The planners needs training and skills. They are good people, but if you are, metaphorically, selling Telstra phones one week and then all of a sudden you are preparing plans for people with disability the next week, you do need training and familiarisation. The area of complex needs is a particular area that needs to be developed further. We need faster implementation of approvals and supports.

This is a report with recommendations which I think pass the common-sense test. In the legislation governing the NDIA and the NDIS, there's a principle of choice and control for participants, and there's also a principle that they should be funded for what is reasonable and necessary. What has happened is that, in the seesaw of these two competing objectives, 'reasonable and necessary' seems to have all the weight and 'choice and control' is sometimes given insufficient weight, so there is more to be done here. You shouldn't have to wait months and years for wheelchairs, home modifications or car modifications. Australian disability enterprises need to be funded properly and not at a rate which will lead to them closing their doors, as we keep hearing about. People with disabilities come in all shapes and sizes, like all of the Australian population, and if you have complex needs they need special attention. They can't just be treated with a cookie-cutter mould.

The challenge of mental health, of course, and the interface with people with disabilities, is inadequately dealt with currently in the NDIS. There needs to be more focus on employment. We need to also understand that people with degenerative conditions, whilst they might not have stabilised, are not getting any better and therefore should be eligible for the NDIS. I notice that the member for Warringah has put forward a petition seeking for people over 65 with profound and severe disabilities to be included in the NDIS. Labor don't have a fixed view on that, but we do accept that, whatever bucket of money the support for people comes from, if you've had a catastrophic stroke at 66 as opposed to a catastrophic stroke at 64, you need support, whether it's aged care or disability care. Aged-care funding is not meeting the needs, and of course we need to do a lot more work with the workforce.

Nonetheless, in a year when politics has been complicated, in a year when Australians perhaps sometimes feel that politics isn't delivering, I commend this report, because I think it is actually commonsense steps in the right direction to ensure that the citizens of this country are in charge, not an organisation, and the right to an ordinary life for people with disability is indeed something to be upheld.

Alicia Payne (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I rise today to make a brief statement about the interim report of the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS, tabled today. And I want to give my thanks to our chair, the member for Menzies, the deputy chair, Senator Carol Brown, the member for Corangamite and all my fellow members of the committee for what has been a really important process and what I think is a really good interim report. I also want to thank the secretariat, headed by Bonnie Allan, for their brilliant work in supporting the community.

But most of all I really want to thank and take my hat off to the people with disability, their families and carers, and health professionals and providers who have yet again fronted up to tell their stories in the hope that we can get the NDIS right. The reason we have the NDIS is that people with disabilities and their families campaigned for years for a better system to give people real choice and control over their lives, something that most of us take for granted every day. They have kept fighting for that on this committee. We hear some of the same issues we've been hearing for years. The NDIS is a great idea, as the member for Maribyrnong has said, but we need to get the implementation right. The recommendations of this report will go to that, and I urge the government to adopt them. I think it's important to note that there is bipartisan agreement on these recommendations from the committee. All members have agreed because it is about addressing issues that have been ongoing.

Through this process we heard a lot of evidence that is quite disturbing. Obviously there are many things I would like to talk about, but I can't mention them all. But one that really struck me was Mark Tonga from the New South Wales Disability Council. He's a quadriplegic and has been for around 10 years since an accident. He was speaking on behalf of the people he represents but also his own story, and he said that he just hopes that one day he can live at home with his partner and receive the supports that he needs. This is so basic. This is why we have the NDIS, but it's not delivering that for everyone, and it needs to. I pledge to those people who gave their stories in this process that we will not give up the fight on seeing the NDIS really deliver on what was promised.

I just want to focus on one recommendation, the first recommendation of the report, which is around draft plans. It is so important and so obvious that people should be able to see their draft plan before it's locked in. Currently the only way it can be changed is through a time-consuming review process. We heard through the committee that there is a soft launch of a joint planning process, and people have been hopeful that this might be the answer, but, in the careful questioning of understanding that process, it appears that it is not, because what is being proposed is that people see only part of their plan, without all the costed supports in it, and then, when they have the meeting with the planner and the local area coordinator, there's actually no scope for them to change that plan without going to review. This is not good enough. It will be so much more efficient for the NDIA to get plans right the first time and not send people through a cycle of reviews.

I want to echo the comments of the member for Menzies—that this isn't a criticism of the hardworking people at the NDIA, who are understaffed and don't receive the training they need. That is another key recommendation of this report. People need to receive training in different areas of disability and in basic understanding of the needs of people with disability, because we heard some really troubling things about the lack of the understanding and lack of sensitivity to these people's needs. In my personal view what we've heard does point towards a sort of cultural problem with the NDIA. We're not focusing on choice and control; we're assuming that people are somehow asking for things they don't need or trying to get something they're not entitled to. They're asking for the basic things to let them live their lives and achieve their goals in the way that most of us take for granted every day. Again I urge the government to accept the recommendations of this report and I pledge that we will keep up the fight for the NDIS to deliver for people with disabilities.