The Final Report of the Independent NDIS Review has some significant positives, but overlooks clients’ need for choice and control, and places too great a compliance burden on registered NDIS providers.
Gellibrand supports the Independent NDIS Review and the work that has gone into the Final Report, released in early December 2023. We are positive about the future of the disability sector and overall sector support for people living with disabilities to have stronger voices and better lives.
We view the Report’s focus on foundational supports as a significant positive step. It shows an understanding that all people who live with disabilities have the same basic needs, such as to live in a clean home and to be supported to cook and shop. We trust that the Report’s recommendations will lead to a situation in which people won’t need to fight for support for these basic needs.
Further, we view the proposed ‘navigational system’, where people are supported prior to and throughout their NDIA journey, as pivotal to a successful service experience for people who live with disability. We also welcome the Report’s focus on better connected services. As people who live with disabilities age and their needs change, connected services – especially to aged care and mental health – can ensure the right people provide the right supports in collaboration with other providers.
The Report made many recommendations that aim to improve the lives of those who live with disabilities and their families. And these recommendations come hot on the heels of those that emerged from the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. Like the rest of the sector, Gellibrand is to an extent dealing with ‘change fatigue’ as we digest this latest round of recommendations. As always, however, our focus is on supporting our clients and families.
Gellibrand recognises that some aspects of the Report could cause concern for our clients and families, but it’s important to note that the Report’s suggested changes are only recommendations. In addition, their potential implementation would occur over a five-year period and would be dependent upon funding.
There was no promised funding to back the Royal Commission Report’s recommendations. Likewise, if financial support is not provided for the NDIS Review’s recommendations, they will not be implemented and positive outcomes like the ones described above will not be achieved for clients.
Twenty per cent of agencies in the disability sector are right now considering cancelling their NDIS registrations. This is due to cost imposts that don’t lead to benefits for organisations or clients, and the increasing compliance requirements organisations face.
The current quality and safeguarding requirements for a registered organisation such as Gellibrand are untenable in the long term. Therefore, we will welcome and embrace any work the government does in this space. As they stand, however, the NDIS Review’s recommendations may introduce further unfunded compliance requirements that would create greater stress for organisations already under significant pressure. Quality and safe guarding mechanisms serve important purposes and are essential, but they must be clear, financially sustainable, and not draw unnecessarily on human resources.
The Report doesn’t give enough consideration to the importance of support coordination. Demand for Gellibrand’s support coordination already faces significant challenges. It’s difficult to find allied health professionals with whom we can partner, constraining our ability to meet clients’ needs promptly. And clients with complex needs require extensive time and effort to ensure individualised support plans can be appropriately developed and implemented. This can impact our overall service delivery efficiency.
In addition, when clients require support service transitions, such as moving to new accommodation, this can increase the complexity of the support coordination process. Sometimes service providers also face capacity issues, which can lead to delays in service commencement or client access to specialised services. This hinders timely creation of support plans and can impact client satisfaction.
Similar to the Royal Commission’s recommendations about closing group homes and special schools, the Report’s recommendations don’t properly acknowledge people with disabilities’ desire for choice and control in how they manage and live their lives. The potential actioning of any recommendations must happen through genuine “co-design”. This will require a critical focus on what clients want and need, and how providers can best position themselves to meet those needs.
Improvements that ensure people who live with disabilities are genuinely in the driver’s seat of their own lives are imperative. Gellibrand’s more than 40 years’ experience tells us that some advocates, service providers, and families are true representatives for their family members. Sadly, however, this is not always the case. Sometimes clients’ voices are not heard and therefore their wishes are not respected. For those who can engage in true and full decision making, it is necessary both now and into the future.
As always, we will keep you updated about any decisions Gellibrand may need to make as a result of these or other recommendations made for the disability sector.
