Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme

By Stephen Abbott

I wish to submit my concerns about the increased risks that the NDIS has created for people who are significantly deaf in being able to access health services.

I recognise that there has been another inquiry specifically relating to the impact of the NDIS on Deaf and Hard of Hearing people and that perhaps this submission would have been better suited to that. Please refer below for my reasons for including it in this inquiry.

I understand that the NDIS does not cover general health issues but it does cover accessibility to access the health system through the provision of qualified interpreters for those deaf people who are reliant on AUSLAN (Australian Sign Language) for interactive communication.

Before the NDIS came in, the government funded an organisation called the National Auslan Interpreter Booking and Payment Service (NABS) to provide unlimited AUSLAN interpreting for deaf patients to attend health appointments. These health appointments covered anything from your local GP to dentists, physio, optometrists etc. That would include things that might be related to any other disability you had or just general health such as the flu or a dental check-up. Deaf people cannot access these services without interpreters.

The NDIS caters for this by supposedly allowing enough funds in your package to be able cover interpreting costs for medical appointments. However, both the NDIA workers and the deaf people themselves, cannot possibly predict how many appointments they might need in a year. If you become chronically sick and use up all your funding then you no longer have access to basic health services which is a basic right for all Australians. Yes you can appeal for more funding and I have currently been waiting 6 months for my appeal to be looked at and they have given no indication as to when it might be looked at. But this is not about one person’s circumstances. This is about ensuring that Deaf people who are reliant on AUSLAN have certainty that they can access the health system in the same way as every other Australian. The NDIS has actually created a scenario whereby deaf people are reluctant to go to the doctor for fear of using up all their funding. So a minor ailment may not be seen to until it has become a major complaint – that small cancerous lump doesn’t get looked at until it’s way too late.

I submit that either:

• NABS should be funded outside of NDIS (as it was before) to ensure that deaf people have certainty that they can access health services all the time and without fear of running out of funding.
• Or if it is funded by NDIS it becomes a separate category which has no limit on its budget.

Health services are a basic human right in this country and the NDIS should not limit access to such services.

In regards to whether this submission should have been included in the inquiry relating specifically to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, I make the following comments: At the time of that particular enquiry being open for submissions I believe the general community did not know that this would become an issue. The change from NABS being fully funded to NDIS funding happened mid plan

• without any prior warning.

• The interim report of that inquiry makes no comment on this issue which would signify that participants had not experienced this impact at that time.

This brings into focus another issue generally on the transition from traditional supports to the NDIS.

Participants can agree to a package that they believe is adequate for their needs and then suddenly find that the goal posts have shifted such that something that did not form part of your package suddenly has to be funded from your package. This isn’t fair on the participants nor the service providers who may find that packages are inadequate to provide the service. Then in the following year there is no increase in funding to take these shifting goal posts into account. In fact, more often than not the funding is cut in subsequent years despite the need for greater inclusions.

Thank you for reading my submission. I look forward to action to improve the operation of the NDIS, in particular as it relates to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing.