Page 2406 - Week 08 - Thursday, 5 August 2021
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
scheme in 2013, there were lots of reasons to be optimistic. The National Disability Insurance Scheme administered by the National Disability Insurance Agency was founded with the purpose of both harmonising the system of government disability support across jurisdictions under the umbrella of a national insurance scheme which would not leave those in need behind, and providing person-centred support with choice and control around support provided to those living with disability.
Prior to the introduction of the scheme in 2013, disability care was distributed across state-based schemes. This meant that each scheme in each state or territory was different. There were different levels of funding for care and different models of delivering care; and the associated difficulties dealing with different systems for those moving interstate or interacting with different state governments or for border residents like those in Queanbeyan or Albury-Wodonga, for example, or seeking care in Broken Hill from South Australia.
This system was described by the 2011 Productivity Commission report, which preceded the introduction of the scheme in 2013, as “underfunded, unfair, fragmented and inefficient”. This decentralised model clearly presented issues for those seeking support and for the harmonisation of regulation and funding at a federal level. The funding issues which were presented by the old, decentralised model were to be centralised to provide more consistency and just generally more funding across the board.
This funding is provided by state, territory and federal governments. This money is then administered by the National Disability Insurance Agency, which forms part of the federal Department of Social Services, on an individual basis. When it comes to how this money is supposed to be administered on an individual basis, the model of the new NDIS was designed to provide more choice and control to those receiving support. This means choice of provider and control of the support received. This is supposed to be done through the development of treatment plans which are mutually agreed and developed between the person receiving support—or the participant, to use the language of the agency—and the NDIA staff responsible for each individual’s plan.
Part of this ability to provide more choice and control to those living with disability receiving support is through the funding model. Each participant’s needs are supposed to be assessed holistically by relevant health professionals, along with the participant. Then a pool of money is allocated to be used to receive the support needed by the participant. This model was lauded by a large part of the community, who were really hopeful that the autonomy and collaborative approach would result in greater outcomes. Unfortunately, this has not been the story for many participants. There is not just one practical reason for this, but the attitude of the federal government and subsequent policy decisions have fundamentally underlined all these shortcomings.
At the last meeting of ministers responsible for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the commonwealth minister brought forward a proposal to introduce a system known as independent assessments. Under the model proposed, independent assessments were essentially designed to review those plans that were developed in a collaborative, person-centred way. These reviews were to be done in a way that was
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video