SUBMISSION TO THE JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME (NDIS) INQUIRY INTO GENERAL ISSUES AROUND THE IMPLEMENTATION AND PERFORMANCE OF THE NDIS
Background to submission:
The Multicultural Disability Advocacy Association
The Multicultural Disability Advocacy Association (MDAA) of New South Wales (NSW) is
the peak body for all people in NSW with disability and their families and carers, with a
focus on those from a Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) / non-English Speaking
(NES) background with disability. MDAA works to:
-
Promote the rights of people from NES/CALD background with disability, their families and
carers in NSW and make sure their rights are safe and protected;
-
Get fair access to, and good results from, government and non-government services for people
from NES/CALD background with disability and their families and carers in NSW;
-
Improve the quality of life for people from NES/CALD background with disability and their
families and carers;
-
Increase the participation of people from NES/CALD background with disability and their families
and carers in community activities.
MDAA assists people with disability, their families and carers with applying for the National
Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and, where relevant, appeal decisions. It is in this role that
MDAA makes this submission.
The University of Notre Dame Australia
This submission has been prepared by Dr Louise St Guillaume, Lecturer and Discipline Coordinator
of Sociology at The University of Notre Dame Australia and undergraduate Law/ Arts (Sociology)
student at The University of Notre Dame Australia, Madeleine Murray. Dr St Guillaume has extensive
experience investigating aspects of the NDIS. Dr St Guillaume completed a Doctorate in this field (St
Guillaume, 2014). Additionally, she has completed two projects investigating the extent to which
people with disability on Job Seeker are eligible for the NDIS. One project was completed as a
summer scholar at the Federal Parliamentary Library in 2014 and the other was completed as the E.G.
Whitlam Fellow at the Whitlam Institute within Western Sydney University in 2019 (St Guillaume,
2020).
Dr St Guillaume is currently working with MDAA on a project which investigates the experience of
people from NES/CALD background with disability with the NDIS application and appeals process.
Dr St Guillaume and MDAA hope to have the findings of their project on the NDIS
application and appeals process for people from CALD and NES background with disability
1
by December 2020. We would welcome the opportunity share these findings with the
Committee.
It is this project, and Dr St Guillaume’s former research projects which sought to understand whether
people with disability on Job Seeker are eligible for the NDIS and the Information, Linkages and
Capacity Building (ILC) tier of the NDIS that inform this submission.
This submission is based on evidence, as such it seeks to use objective criteria to inform
recommendations for the implementation and performance of the NDIS.
PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY ON JOB SEEKER AND THE NATIONAL
DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME
Whilst it is understood that the NDIS is designed to provide disability supports for people with
disability and the Disability Support Pension (DSP) is designed to provide economic support for
people with disability, the fact that NDIS participants can be DSP recipients is acknowledged
(Australian Federation of Disabled Organisations, 2020). Less known is whether people with
disability on Job Seeker are accessing the NDIS and their experience of navigating both systems.
The reforms made under the Howard government through the *Employment and Workplace Relations
Legislation Amendments (Welfare to Work and Other Measures) Act 2005 (Cth)* meant that people
with disability assessed as capable of working between 15-29 hours per week are no longer eligible
for the DSP. Instead, they have to apply for an alternative social security payment, such as Job Seeker.
Subsequent changes to DSP eligibility by various Australian Federal governments since this Act have
increased the number of people with disability on the unemployment payment. As of December 2019
there were 311, 797 people with disability on Job Seeker (Australian Government, 2019). Although,
these numbers would have been significantly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and the increased
numbers of people applying for and accessing income support.
The fact that there could be people with disability on Job Seeker eligible for the NDIS and the
ILC needs to be considered in reporting, data and in promotion of the NDIS. Eligibility for an
individualised funding package is dependent on whether people with disability on Job Seeker meet the
eligibility criteria. Yet in informal discussions with NDIS providers, providers were adamant that Job
Seeker recipients would not be eligible for an individualised funding package. Despite this, recent
research conducted as part of the E.G. Whiltam Fellowship found that one of the study participants
had an individualised funding package through the NDIS and received Job Seeker. This participant
was confused about why she was eligible for disability supports under the NDIS and yet subject to
mutual obligation requirements as a Job Seeker recipient and not eligible for the DSP.
2
It is also difficult to determine who has and will have access to the supports provided under the
ILC. While it is important to acknowledge that the ILC is currently being implemented, it is likely
that people with disability on Job Seeker would be eligible for these supports. Yet as the ILC
currently operates through awarding grants to initiatives and programs, it would depend on which
organisations, initiatives and programs were awarded grants, and whether the programs funded had
eligibility requirements which must be met as to whether people with disability on Job Seeker would
benefit. Inadvertently, however, the work done through parts of the ILC could assist people with
disability on Job Seeker. For example, community awareness and capacity building endeavours
could help people with disability on Job Seeker to meet their mutual obligation requirements with the
government (where relevant) and/ or find employment. As such, it would be worth considering how
the programs funded through the ILC could support people with disability on Job Seeker and
how the grants could be awarded on this basis for some of the funding rounds.
Despite this potential there are no clear guidelines on how the ILC works alongside the
expectations placed on people with disability on Job Seeker by Centrelink. For example, if
someone with disability on Job Seeker participates in a program funded through the economic and
community building grants round, are they still required to find, search and apply for employment and
could the program serve as meeting their program of support requirements as Job Seeker recipients?
In response to the above we make the following recommendations:
RECOMMENDATION 1: As the NDIS continues to be implemented, it is important that people
with disability on Job Seeker are recognised as potential participants in the NDIS and ILC and that
this is reflected in reporting, data, promotion and NDIS/ ILC take up by Job Seekers with disability.
RECOMMENDATION 2: Assertive outreach should be used to ensure that people with disability on
Job Seeker are able to access the supports which they require through the NDIS and are supported and
assisted with applying for an individualised funding packages.
RECOMMENDATION 3: That careful consideration is given to how the income support and
disability support systems intersect and govern people with disability, and how they both seek to
enable social and economic participation.
PEOPLE FROM CALD/ NES BACKGROUND WITH DISABILITY
APPLYING AND APPEALING
The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) whose role it is to implement the NDIS,
have developed a Cultural and Linguistic Diversity Strategy (NDIA, 2018). The Cultural and
Linguistic Diversity Strategy “is the NDIA’s public statement of commitment to working
3
alongside people with disability from CALD backgrounds to achieve access to, and outcomes
from, their NDIS Plan on an equal basis with the broader population” (NDIA, 2018).
However, despite the Strategy, research shows that people from CALD and NES
background with disability are experiencing difficulties accessing the NDIS (Mortimer &
McMahon, 2018). Data indicates that the number of people from NES and CALD
background with disability accessing the NDIS are well below rates of disability documented
(National Ethnic Disability Alliance (NEDA), 2019). Furthermore, NEDA has described the
strategy as “ineffective” because “it has no implementation plan or real concrete measures”
(NEDA, 2019).
In their experience as an advocacy organisation which works closely with people from CALD
backgrounds with disability applying for, managing their plans and appealing decisions made
by the NDIA, the Multicultural Disability Advocacy Association (MDAA) has identified
several problems with aspects of the NDIS for their clients. One problem they have identified
is barriers to applying for the NDIS and appealing NDIA decisions. Based on their work, it is
clear that some of these barriers could be related to the medical evidence which is required to
be provided. Understanding the barriers that people from CALD and NES background with
disability have to applying and appealing is important because MDAA is concerned that
people from CALD and NES background with disability may decide not to pursue the appeal
or may decide not to apply for support through the NDIS because the experience of going
through the appeals process is too difficult.
Medical evidence
In MDAA’s experience, obtaining medical evidence is difficult for people from CALD and
NES background with disability. Attending doctors and specialist appointments to
acquire medical evidence is expensive. An evaluation of the Administrative Appeals
Tribunal records appealing NDIA decisions over the last two years indicates how crucial
medical evidence is in successful appeals. The difficulties that people from CALD and NES
background with disability have to obtaining medical evidence and the cost of this evidence
can significantly impact on the number of people from CALD and NES background
accessing the NDIS.
Furthermore, often the medical evidence obtained is not comprehensive. While the NDIA
provides information for general practitioners on how to complete the paperwork for NDIS
4
applications and there is a lot of information for participants, an evaluation of this
information and its accessibility found that it was difficult to find on the NDIS website.
Additionally, the information on how general practitioners can provide evidence for appeals
is almost non-existent with more comprehensive information on billing and no information
on a doctor’s role in the appeals process, how to appeal and what supports can be provided to
clients if a claim gets rejected.
The information provided to medical professionals should take into consideration how
people from CALD and NES background with disability, their family and carers may
understand disability differently. Likewise, how the role of family and carers could be
understood differently by people from CALD and NES background with disability and their
family. If this is the case, then this needs to be accommodated, acknowledged and
understood. Including such information on documentation provided to general practitioners
could improve the rates of NDIS approvals. It is also crucial to understand that some people
may have a fear of medical professionals and their authority. This could impact on access to
disability supports and therefore should be taken into consideration in the way that the NDIA
and medical professionals work with people from CALD and NES background with
disability, their family and carers when applying for the NDIS.
In response to the above we make the following recommendations:
RECOMMENDATION 4: The cost of medical evidence needs to be taken into
consideration. This could include an explicit process for paying for further medical evidence,
such as meeting at least 2 of the 5 eligibility criteria.
RECOMMENDATION 5: Clear and easy to understand or follow information for general
practitioners on how to provide evidence for NDIA appeals cases needs to be easily available
and accessible on the NDIA website.
RECOMMENDATION 6: The information provided to general practitioners needs to be
more comprehensive and not entirely focused on billing information.
RECOMMENDATION 7: The information provided to general practitioners should be
designed to accommodate the experiences of people from CALD and NES background with
disability, their families and carers.
5
Reference List
Australian Government. (2019). DSS Demographics December 2019. Retrieved from https://data.gov.au/data/dataset/dss-payment-demographic-data/resource/1ab39d1b-328a- 4311-8b35-ee13c3f0dfc7.
Mortimer, P., & McMahon, T. (2018). Still outside the tent: Cultural diversity and disability in a time reform – A rapid review of evidence. Retrieved from https://www.ssi.org.au/images/stories/documents/publications/Still_outside_the_tent_Accessi ble.pdf.
National Disability Insurance Agency (2018). Cultural and Linguistic Diversity Strategy. Retrieved from https://www.ndis.gov.au/about-us/strategies/cultural-and-linguistic-diversity-strategy.
National Ethnic Disability Alliance. (2019). National Ethnic Disability Alliance Election priorities. Retrieved from http://www.neda.org.au/sites/default/files/2019- 05/NEDA%202019%20Election%20Statement_April%202019.pdf
St Guillaume, L. (2014). The Same but Different: How people with a partial capacity to work are governed in recent policy changes to the Australian income support system and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Retrieved from https://researchonline.nd.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1127&context=theses.
St Guillaume, L. (2020). Newstart, poverty, disability and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Sydney, NSW: The Whitlam Institute within Western Sydney University. Retrieved from https://www.whitlam.org/publications/2020/2/28/newstart-poverty-disability-and-the- national-disability-insurance-scheme
6