Parliamentary Inquiry on Planning
Recommendations:
Lets be clear it is not really the so-called Red Tape but mostly the refusal, by design or incompetence, to apply the legislation to planning that causes most angst.
Be aware that the planning fight and lack of a good plan is causing serious mental health breakdown.
Mary Mallett from DANA “the data however doesn’t show the pain”
The experience, expertise and qualifications of planners;
Pre requisite for planner’s employment should be a degree. They need an academic background to interpret reports, read legislation and apply a reasoned decision. A planner doing “what they think” disregarding reports, has to stop. Obviously lived experience is very beneficial Psychosocial needs different expertise.
The ability of planners to understand and address complex needs
See above it needs to be evidenced based, participant lived experience, what the agency has learned and sound research evidence. As in Rules Supports … 3.2 Scant instruction is given to planners to incorporate whatever impacts on the participant’s life including and especially other disabilities. The incredulous use of primary disability tick box “so what affects you most Ms Smith your amputations or your blindness. We have to state a primary disability?” yes this is asked all over Australia. Then there is no support for other disability when the plan arrives. See AAT comment for the one that went to tribunal for $750 because it was “other disability”. The lack of attention to family circumstances, sometimes highly complex, that fly in the face of Rules Supports 3.4 Families face breakdown if unsupported causing more need from government and the travesty and heartbreak of (expensive) relinquishment due to lack of family support. Stop fobbing off crushed parents with “parental responsibility”. It is insulting, hurtful and damaging. Parents are being responsible by advocating for their child. Rules 3.4 compare to s74
The ongoing training and professional development of planners;
The prior training of 3 weeks plus a few shadow shifts on planning is laughable. Increased recently of 100% to six weeks. Still inexcusably inadequate and likely negligence. Google you tube video of Every Australian Counts with ex CEO De Luca claiming he is unable to fully train staff whilst attending to roll out. Implication is understaffing. This means that for over 6 years staff has been seriously undertrained. These are the staff that will be undertaking training of new staff!!! As planner numbers increase (they MUST) reduce the involvement of LACs for planning. This 2-step system of planning is grossly inefficient and risks information and interview of participant need lost in translation. LACs should be scaled back to their original role of Local Area Coordination and remote needs. Recruit good LACs as planners.
1
The overall number of planners relative to the demand for plans;
Likely grossly inadequate numbers, given the staff caps of 1/3 productivity commission recommendation. Staff increases have been barely more than rollout proportion. Burnout and attrition is a consequence leading to a further lack of trained planners and the inexperience and training background of the trainers. Is this woeful neglect by government even salvageable?
Participant involvement in planning processes and the efficacy of introducing draft plans;
Depends what is meant by involvement. Yes the participant gets the opportunity to be involved, they collect expensive reports, write the goals, impact statements, request supports, even train the planner with legislation and OGs, then talk for 2 3 hrs. but that is where involvement ends. The plan disregards all that in many cases. The laughable oft-touted satisfaction of 90% is a yes /no response to the planning meeting did the planner listen? Did you put your case across? A slashed rubbish plan comes back. Yes involved – Yes disregarded. Draft plan is an opportunity to flag missing information and mistakes, which may avoid unnecessary reviews and AAT. So obvious.
The incidence, severity and impact of plan gaps;
We have not had that problem. We had direct contact with a new more responsive planner that extended the plan 3 times with pro rata when waiting for AAT. But apparently others have not had this NDIA obligation and it is a huge stress. Why is there no automatic computer extension reset if no new plan is generated? The ICT needs an urgent overhaul, as many things are not possible with the clunky existing system that slows everything including planners job.
The reassessment process, including the incidence and impact of funding changes;
Not sure what this is
The review process and means to streamline it;
Draft plans, Planners that are trained to apply the legislation. Every planner’s desk should have a laminated copy of Rules Supports for Participants. The Rules are less complex than the OGs. If they don’t understand and apply the Rules they shouldn’t be a planner. OG’s do not always apply the legislation. Independent legal oversight of OGs and other NDIA literature and policy is needed. Accountability of planners that apply their own erroneous reasoning rather than apply correct evidence based decision-making. More staff for a timely result Put back plan breakdown and reasoning of decision i.e. exactly what criteria of s34 was not met. At the moment plans just show a bucket of money that makes budgeting difficult. More transparency of decision-making. Participants are being recommended (on social media) to put through an FOI for all planning notes and documents. What a waste of resources yet it is unearthing shockers. Plans need a social worker or qualified caseworker for all complex intense needs. Vital for those alone without supports. Support coordinators are often not
2
qualified for this. A vulnerable man has died alone when his plan ran out and support ceased (awaiting an inquest). Plans need to be fully flexible not just within categories. This is especially important where markets are thin. Plans are blocked due to non-transferable budgets. Funds are there but cannot be used due to policy.
The incidence of appeals to the AAT and possible measures to reduce the number;
Fair, accurate and timely Internal Review decisions. 6 weeks max
COMMITTEE PLEASE REQUEST NDIA DISCLOSE HOW MANY RORDS
AWAIT DECISIONS AND HOW MANY STAFF ARE DEALING. Stop NDIA requiring AAT to do their job. Use prior AAT cases that have helped shape the legislation for appeals and planning information. A lawyer told me that they have had to say to NDIA lawyers “surely we are not going back to AAT again with this?” (not referring to our case). If the NDIA claim of being conciliatory is correct, why are so many good offers are made after months of delay and at the 11th hour before the hearing? Delay tactics are used until people give up exhausted. NDIA lawyers flout time lines by AAT – delay again. If the participant cannot get legal representation then the decision maker should attend AAT NOT a lawyer. The existing power imbalance is atrocious. Advocates and Legal Aid are not sufficiently funded for full representation. Both have waitlists.
NDIA lawyers are not behaving as a Model Litigant. “it is vital that government
bodies should not be ‘out to get’ people, but should be acting in the public interest, according to law”. https://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/priorities/model-litigant-rules/ A recent AAT tribunal used court time to settle a support for $750 of mobility scooter maintenance. The participant had an OT report of need for mobility but NDIA argued it did not relate to their ASD primary disability. Scrutinise legal team activity to avoid fighting. Use AAT reasoning in avoiding continuous AAT doing NDIAs job for them. Participants are people who struggle not criminals.
The circumstances in which plans could be automatically rolled-over;
The participant is happy and evidence suggests a predictable situation.
The circumstances in which longer plans could be introduced;
The participant is happy and evidence suggests stable situation. Note: some participants have accepted a two-year plan only to find they have the same funding as their one-year plan. Intense complex needs because the reviews are harrowing and difficult. Small changes could be processed efficiently along the way. True support not the fight.
The adequacy of the planning process for rural and regional participants; and any other related matters.
The thin market and unused supports. The separate categories of support funding that is not in the legislation but is theoretically not allowed could be very useful especially where markets are thin.
So where are those 90% satisfied customers?
3
YES the planner was lovely; YES we felt we had input, YES we felt they understood, YES we felt listened to.
So in the stats we are amongst those 90% YES’s erroneously reported as satisfied with NDIS. But no…. and there’s the example of the old adage “Lies, damned lies, and statistics”
Do not be deceived by the stats from the Outcomes fudge of a survey. The research methods do not pass scrutiny. Has NDIS helped yes or no? Of course you must say yes however minimal the support. Questions are asked to elicit the response that favours NDIA.
Outcomes Survey is a fudge of a survey
Yes we hear you - said the disability related Latrobe research team. Yes we know - said the Disability Discrimination Commissioner.
So NO we are NOT Satisfied with the fight for survival of a vulnerable family.
1st AAT 3 day tribunal hearing awarded 24/7 care for 6 months
0ne year later care support was cut by 1/3
Internal review took 8 months - no increase of care hours
2nd AAT. Another 3-day tribunal Increased care hours for 12 months (AAT decision took 6 months)
The next year’s plan, after the 2nd AAT, has reduced the Capacity (therapy) budget by 20% from therapist recommendations. When we have a breakdown of which criteria of s34 was not met we will likely have to appeal AGAIN.
4