Inquiry: The Independent Assessments

I write as the parent of a teenager who is an NDIS scheme participant and in regard to your specific term of reference around the development, modelling, reasons and justifications for the introduction of independent assessments into the NDIS;

I have been following the promotion of Independent Assessments by the current Government and NDIA.

I got to reading an article by Jon Pittman, Autodesk Labs VP of Corporate Strategy and Engagement and also a Lecturer at the Haas School of Business of the University of California at Berkeley.

He was writing about good design. He wrote “In some sense good design and high quality are similar, but the real distinction I can think of has to do with human intention.Good design has all of the characteristics of high quality, but someone made design decisions intentionally. Thus, good design is the result of an intentional human act.”

He added:

• Good design balances form, function, and performance.
• Good design has conceptual integrity.

From what I can ascertain, the Independent Assessments being touted have no balance of form, function or performance and are absolutely lacking in conceptual (or, for that matter) actual integrity.

In fact, they are in direct contrast to the Tune Review recommendations, which explicitly stated: “NDIA should not implement a closed or deliberatively limited panel of providers to undertake functional capacity assessments.”

The human intention behind the recommendation of Independent Assessments is incredibly worrisome. It appears to have not been done with honesty, fairness or integrity.

You could be forgiven for feeling like this process has been done to cause the most amount of harm to disabled people in Australia in a veiled attempt to save significants amounts of money. There is a problem in this however.

If the NDIS runs as was intended, we know from economic commentator Peter Martin, it actually has a positive impact on the GDP. In fact, he reminded us in 2013 “some things are worth doing precisely for the reason that they will boost Australia’s economic performance. Whatever its other merits, the National Disability Insurance Scheme is one of them.”.

Why on earth would our Government and the NDIA be trying to use Independent Assessments to cause harm to the participants of a scheme who, when supported properly, actually contribute to boosting the economic performance of our country.

If there’s an equity problem where the considered “haves” get more than the “ have nots” then boost the outcomes and support to those with the least means. If you have enough data to show a discrepancy, you have enought data to match “upwards” those who are receiving less favourable plans. What we know from other countries is that if people are funded properly, they will only spend what they need. If they are funded to a cap or restricted in the funding, they will spend to the limit. It costs more money to underfund people. For this scheme to be so far along and for us (or you) to be still having these conversation is, frankly, unbelievable.

I have a sinking feeling that it appears to be philosophical and/or ableist motivation behind pushing independent assessments. It truly feels personal, like the key decision makers have zero respect, concern or interest in ensuring disabled Australians have the supports they require.

There is no excuse for not consulting with representative disability organisations - this goes to the heart of integrity in design and respect of people with disabilities.

There are real questions to be asked, including (but not limited to):

• are there any conflicts of interest or has there been any favoritism with regard to those involved in the organisations involved in providing the Independent Assessments and the NDIA/Governmentdecision makers.
• has there been impropriety or malfeasance taking place in the development, design and motivation of this scheme?

Greater scrutiny and investigation should be undertaken to ensure, not only, that all processes have been ‘above board’ but to also identify how it’s possible that such a poor design, without form, function, performance or apparent integrity has got this far.

Disabled people should be the priority in all decisions made by the NDIA, not the organisations, departments or service providers who stand to benefit or profit from such decisions.

Page 3

I do not believe this current push for Independent Assessments passes what parliament often refers to as the “Pub Test”.

Disabled Australians are right to feel scared, disappointed and angry - their lives are at stake. I feel and share their fear.

Gina Wilson-Burns