Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The era of independent assessments was a harrowing time for so many in the community. As a member of the NDIS joint standing committee, I heard countless stories of people's distress and concern in the face of that proposal. At the core, the concern that the community had with independent assessments was that the NDIA would require them to have an interaction with a healthcare professional who they did not know and who did not know them to prepare reports that would determine how much support they got from the NDIS.

What really concerns me in the government's response to this inquiry report is that so many of the recommendations made by the committee, after hearing from hundreds of members of the community, have been bumped into yet another review process—recommendation 3, for instance, which clearly states that assessments should be carried out by health professionals 'nominated by a participant and/or their nominee' where appropriate and available. The government have not supported this in principle. That's a really big red flag for so many people in the community.

We heard very, very clearly that there is an absolute need to have a primary responsibility for developing reports related to the NDIS that should sit with medical professionals who know the participant and know their needs. Let me say that again: the government have not supported that recommendation in principle. They have bumped it off to the NDIS for review, when it was so clear that one of the primary problems with independent assessments was that they proposed to force a disabled person to interact with a medical practitioner who they didn't know, who didn't know them and who would then make reports that would influence how much support they received in their plan to live their life.

The only response that the disability community both expects and would accept from this government in relation to that recommendation is wholehearted support. I say clearly to the government: if there is any thought in your mind that you can get away again with forcing disabled people to interact with medical professionals they don't know to make reports about their life then we will go back to where we were before the election, with the disability community united against that proposal, because that is not okay. It is not okay to ask a disabled person to be dissected, have their life looked at and have everything that they need and all of their private support needs put on display before a doctor they don't know—before a specialist they don't know—who maybe doesn't even know anything about their condition. That is not okay. The disability community told you clearly that we would not cop that, and we will not cop that just because it is a Labor government proposing it. Let's just make that very, very clear.

Another recommendation of the committee inquiry report was that there needed to be consultation undertaken in relation to the definition of co-design. I acknowledge that the government so far is better than the previous government in relation to co-design—it's not hard because they didn't do any—and there have been some improvements in that process. However, in their response, the government have stated that they 'will consider further specificity about the definition'. This statement is not certain enough for the disability community. We know that when governments use the word 'consultation' they often do it when it's convenient for them, and we know that they don't consult when it is not convenient for them to do so. I strongly urge the government to authentically consult with disabled people around this definition of co-design and accept the definition disabled people give you, not the one you think would be most easy to implement. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.