Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Phone: +61 2 6277 3083 Fax: +61 2 6277 5829 ndis.sen@aph.gov.au
Dear Sir,
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) Quality and Safeguards Commission
I open by acknowledging I am an NDIS client. Personally, one continues to be highly dissatisfied; complaints and appeals can take up to two years to wander through the system. Whether it’s the AAT, FoI, the Commission, or the Agency itself, no one ever seems that interested in taking up issues and certainly not with speed. As the screenshots (word document) shows you must repeatedly contact these bodies to progress matters. It is incredibly hard and, my conclusion is that the whole system is premised on most people giving up in disgust. Find attached a selection of my interactions – how anyone without a law degree and a strong constitution (of the physical kind) finds their way around the NDIS labyrinth one does not know.
I do not believe it makes much difference whether the Commission is there or not – people are just as unsafe in the care of Australia’s over‐subsidised, over‐rated Bunyip aristocracy of third rate third sector providers in either scenario.
My suspicion is that Commission registration is not that telling, as agency failure would present government with the problem of what to do with an agency’s clients. My overwhelming impression is that the NDIS just is not designed for the urgent action a situation like that would demand. The level of official dependence on the charitable sector was highlighted by a letter received from Treasurer Josh Frydenberg’s office (see last two attachments). The Committee must consider whether this dependence is really in the interest of families or people with disabilities? I do not think it is, having experienced both disability employment services and NDIS services and, written extensively about both, including to numerous Parliamentary inquiries. It is time for all governments to accept that while some charities are well meaning, many are incompetent, inept, and just plain corrupt. In my view, many charity staff are there because they could not hold down a real job in the real economy. While this should invoke some compassion, clients and families suffer the consequences. Sometimes, receipt of a good or service is not a relief or assistance, particularly if you as the client have to train staff, far too many of whom have little English fluency; hopefully COVID‐19 will force a re‐examination of the over‐reliance on immigrant labour – as well as the skills (or lack
thereof) of the workforce generally. Meanwhile, there are those who have turned charity into a business and, they should be subject to the full suite of corporate taxation. The Ministerial lack of interest in recovering the tax expenditures lost to charities, or a belief that the NDIS Quality Commission and/or the National Charities Commission are sufficient, is dangerous.
I am a citizen of Australia, a resident of NSW and, let us not forget a Subject of Her Majesty Queen Elisabeth II. If COVID‐19 proves anything, it is the essential nature of these three elements. From the last one, the first two flow and, when it mattered, it was key public institutions like hospitals and health departments that remained open. We need our governments and they need skilled people to deliver essential services. Also, disability is a health issue; I couldn’t care less about the advocates who would argue it is a social issue. When my disability is causing me real problems, I’m in my GP’s rooms, an emergency ward or heading to an operating room in a public hospital. And if it’s not that, simple aches and pains remind me of impairment. What both I and my mother need are simple, consistent guarantees of service from competent, caring people. We don’t need multiple agencies, long‐winded complaint processes or NGOs whose management is chaotic and some of whose field staff are so helpless you wonder why they were ever allowed outside unsupervised. It is the later which we have received under the NDIS and, in its current form it is hard to see how the Commission can satisfactory achieve any of the aims outlined in the Terms of Reference.
In closing, let me give you one clear example. I have a care worker M who works for a large agency, of which I am a client. He wants to start his own business, so obtained some form of NDIS registration. Then, he decided he wanted to make a pitch for all my support services. He presented me with a proposal, heavy with NDIS language cum social working gobbledegook about supporting my engagement in the community but light on detail and written in broken English. As to questions of whether he had sufficient insurance to cover all my needs, as well as what would happen if either or both of us were injured, he could not answer. Further questions about what M would do in the case of becoming ill himself, a family crisis or some other incident also produced general equivocation. Statements like: ‘we can sort that out later’ or ‘I have friends who can help’ did not satisfy me. It also led me to three important conclusions – firstly, I was doing all the thinking and wargaming about contingencies. M never appeared to recognise the critical importance of this planning.
Secondly, why were potentially vulnerable and ill‐equipped clients like me being left to field business proposals. These came from people who were ill‐prepared on all levels and had done next to no risk, regulatory or financial planning. Why is NDIS or the Commission content to allow people who are all vulnerable think that they can or should start up one‐man businesses? Why are even more vulnerable NDIS clients allowed to even contemplate accepting services from them? Neither party will have the knowledge to run a business – this was very clear in my case. I certainly didn’t want to assume a management role to make up for all the research I knew my over‐zealous carer cum businessman had not done himself. And again, why should I or any other NDIS participant have to deal with any of this? The academic ideologues can have their ‘choice and control’ over which charity will neglect, defraud and abuse them. I want a publicly run service that actually delivers a service rather than just writes plans about one. Of course, we had that when there were State‐run disability services. But then the academics, advocates and other experts said ‘tear it all down and give people human rights’ and political leaders across the country were stupid enough to take that advice. Is there a human right to worry? There should be, because that’s the only one I can really relate to. Worry about plans, loss of services, closure of services, being abused and neglected by disreputable people
So no, I do not believe the Commission or the NDIS is fulfilling their functions and it is hard to see how they ever will.
Yours truly,