To the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme

PO Box 6100 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600

Dear Committee,

          I am the father of a participant receiving supports through the National Disability Insurance

Scheme (NDIS). My son currently receives full support from the NDIS. He has complex needs, is non-verbal, has epilepsy, apraxia and cognitive difficulties. He relied on his mother and I to support him in entering the scheme and continues to rely on us to ensure his supports are adequate, reasonable, necessary and ongoing. His current full support has only been possible due to our advocacy and direct support in ‘working with’ the NDIS and its people.

My background is in the education field as a teacher. My wife is a trained nurse. Our life experiences and skills have been essential in assisting our son throughout his NDIS journey. A great many participants do not have as much support as our son, with many having minimum or no support at all. I am greatly concerned about where many participants may end up, given what I view, as a flawed Independent Assessment process.

I view the current Independent Assessment process as flawed due to the following reasons:

 1.  There has been minimal or no discussion with the disability community as to its effectiveness or its
    purpose.
 2.  The Assessment process consists of various tests. Some which include:
       -   The Vineland test which is designed to measure adaptive behaviour of individuals from birth

to age 90. This looks at: Communication, Daily Living Skills, Socialization, Motor Skills, and Maladaptive Behaviour - The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) which is an IQ test designed to measure intelligence and cognitive ability in adults and older adolescents. These tests focus primarily on the negative aspects of a person’s life and capacity, and not on what may be possible. Whilst identifying a person may require support in some areas, the tests do not provide a basis for future planning, or to build capacity. 3. Having to sit over a three-hour period and answer a series of questions will place many people at psychological and emotional risk, with many of the questions suggested focusing on the negative. If an activity or skill cannot be achieved easily by the participant, it’s not a positive experience for the participant to answer, ‘no I cannot do that,’ or ‘I require support,’ over and over again. 4. My sons first review and experience on entering the NDIS was positive. The planner was experienced and able to effectively engage and work with him. His answers to her questions were explored further by her by specific questioning as she began to understand his needs. 5. She took careful note of the documentation we had prepared, and that which had been provided by others including allied health professionals. This documentation was essential to her decisions in ticking specific boxes and making relevant notes.

Page Content

6. The second planner the following year did not have good skills. She worked in a manner which may be similar to the proposed Independent Assessment process. She focused on asking the same questions that had been discussed the previous year over and over again. This caused enormous stress to our son who responded. “I still cannot do anything without help.” This planner was working to a formula which she had to follow as per her instructions. She did not have the same skills or competencies as our sons first planner and did not take any notice of the documentation provided by ourselves and allied health professionals
7. As a result, his second plan was inadequate leaving him at risk. He could not be left alone for even 30 seconds without support as he might seizure, fall, wander out his home onto the road and/or simply disappear from view.
8. It took another eleven months for the NDIS to correct the many errors this second planner had made. During this time our son, my wife and I were subject to unnecessary stress and worry as to his future. The time and cost to the agency would have been huge, considering the time many bureaucrats and others put into this exercise of attempting to essentially save funding.
9. If the review and assessment had been done correctly and collaboratively in the first instance these extra costs to Government would have been avoided. It is highly probable that the Independent Assessment process will continue to have similar bureaucratic excessive costs as it attempts to rein in costs.
10. If the independent assessments continue as suggested, what occurred with my son on his second review, may become a negative reality for many participants. There appears to be no effective positive checks and balances for participants with the proposed independent assessment process.
11. Ensuring qualified health professionals, who know participants well, is essential. They are better placed to ensure professional independent assessments and reports are provided. Funding from the NDIA should be available to ensure this is provided for all new and current participants if it is to achieve effective aims and objectives of the NDIS.

Is there a hidden agenda in having what are called independent assessments to counter what may occur at the tribunal if a participant has to go there to argue his/her case?

How independent is an assessment with three hours of ticking a series of boxes, designed by the NDIS, which potentially attempts to place everyone on the same level?

During my 30 plus years of teaching, in both regular and special school settings, I have engaged with thousands of students. At no stage did I meet any two students who were the ‘same’ or who required the ‘same’ level of support to maximise their potential. The tick box approach Independent assessments appears to be heading in cannot replace what should be a robust discussion with the participant and reports from professionals who know each individual well.

Having the same disability does not mean the same supports will be required. Thank you

Regards

                                    2