Ms Bonnie Allan
Committee Secretary
Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme
Dear Ms Allan,
Re: Joint Standing Committee NDIS workforce
On behalf of the Disability Council NSW, I submit the following feedback in relation to the joint standing committee on the NDIS workforce.
Below comments are provided by the Disability Council NSW members Dr Jill Duncan and Ms. Casey Gray.
a) the current size and composition of the NDIS workforce and projections at full scheme; Comments from member Dr Jill Duncan:
-
The main difficulty here is thin markets (for example - rural, remote). The NDIS could provide incentives for providers to have long-term outreach relationships with rural town or towns. E.g., providers could get a grant if they commit to a minimum of say 3 years commitment to a town and have a minimum of 4 visits a year. They could provide specialist face-to-face service in outreach visits that are supplemented practice and also build relationships with and educate local professionals. Businesses will not provide services in thin market areas unless they are funded, so they need special funding support from the NDIS (the travel allowance of 60 minutes is better than the 20 minutes they started with, but does not help a family in Nyngan get specialist professional help).
-
Composition lends itself to large providers that can pay for the administrative support needed to navigate the NDIS. Big providers then employ less qualified staff because they are less expensive. Consider graded charge out for services related to the level of experience of the provider (e.g.: physiotherapists/ speech pathologists/ occupational therapists are all grade 1, 2, 3, etc.). Charge less for the new grads and more for the professionals with experience - this is what any normal “market” system would do.
Locked Bag 4028, Ashfield NSW 2131
b) challenges in attracting and retaining the NDIS workforce, particularly in regional and remote communities; Comments from member Casey Gray:
More specific to regional and remote communities:
-
It is reported that there is difficulty in securing work placements for those studying to become part of the NDIS workforce. Not specific to regional and remote communities, but some reasons it is difficult to attract and retain staff are:
-
Casualisation of the workforce which has negative consequences for staff, such as; people with disability cancelling their supports with minimum notice so support workers who are disadvantaged by no pay, or; support workers are expected to be available for short shifts such as 45 in minute timeslots to help someone with personal care which is not financially viable or practical.
-
There is no obvious incentive for rural and remote employees to work long term E.g. relocation or financial reward.
-
One solution for attracting people to the workforce unrelated to the points above is the reintroduction of traineeships on a mass scale. Traineeships allow people with no qualifications to enter the workforce and gain qualifications through their work with their employer whilst being paid the same wage as the rest of the entry level staff. https://www.training.nsw.gov.au/apprenticeships_traineeships/index.html
-
A solution for maintaining people in the workforce is provision for resilience training or EAP perhaps organised through the NDIA or through the potential professional registration body NDP (SEE general notes below). The NDIS workforce consistently faces abuse from unhappy participants, especially since the scheme is in its infancy and the systems are rapidly developing in response to consumer demand. Comments from member Dr Jill Duncan:
-
A set travel limit time for providers of 60 minutes is no incentive to provide specialist services to a RRR community. The above idea of providers committing to a rural area may be more practical.
-
There are not a lot of NDIS providers in rural areas and the administrative burdens of the NDIS are huge. My colleague dropped out because of the administrative burden even though she had extensive experience in the disability sector. The NDIS could consider funding administrative support in RRR areas (e.g., one admin assistant that helps many- speech therapists, physiotherapists, dietitians). This admin assistant could be funded to help with the administration of the scheme and they keep on top of the changes. NDIS providers could access a percentage of the admin assistants time related to the numbers of NDIS participants on their caseload (brainwave hey - just thought of that! But that may have kept me in the system).
- Student placements in RRR areas increase the RRR workforce. But there is no pricing or place for student placements in the NDIS system (which also means the new grad workforce has NO experience with people living with disability).
c) the role of Commonwealth Government policy in influencing the remuneration, conditions, working environment (including Workplace Health and Safety), career mobility and training needs of the NDIS workforce;
Comments from member Dr Jill Duncan
-
Training - Government could ensure that NDIS planners are well-educated in disability. Consider formal education. Planners are the gate-keepers of the system and a lack of education at this level creates fundamental problems. This would mean paying planners more, but may result in less complaints, more equity and less AAT appeals.
-
Remuneration and Career Mobility - even though the NDIS is a “quasi- market” paying professionals on a scale according to experience would increase transparency and function more like a “normal” market. Professionals would then want more experience and skills in disability to increase their pay rate.
d) the role of State, Territory and Commonwealth Governments in providing and implementing a coordinated strategic workforce development plan for the NDIS workforce; No comment
e) the interaction of NDIS workforce needs with employment in adjacent sectors including health and aged care; Comments from member Casey Gray:
-
Aged care training is needed for NDIS staff supporting people with disability who are also ageing e.g. the intersection of cognitive disability and dementia. This is becoming more and more relevant as the population of people with disability is ageing.
-
It is interesting to note the difference in the rate of pay between the aged care sector and the disability sector and I wonder whether the ramifications of this on workforce mobility need to be investigated. Comments from member Dr Jill Duncan:
-
A lot more needs to be done in the intersection between departments. Health and Disability have just agreed on around 90 disability-related health needs that will be funded by the NDIS. A liaison officer from Health should be available for Joint planning meetings where the participant has needs from health and disability to endure they are catered for appropriately. They demarcation of funding should be documented and accessible so there is a precedent which may reduce the need for liaison officers over time.
-
Education is a huge area that needs to be overhauled. School principals should have the right to allow “reasonable” supports. There are too many therapists in
the schools that do not link in with the school or the child’s learning in any way. The NDIS needs to re-think that therapists cannot support education (this is the main goal for children). Could be a limit of 2-3 of any type of therapists in a school (maximum of 2-3 speech therapists, 2-3 occupational therapists etc.). They should build a relationship with the school and be aware of the routine and the children in that setting. They should be required to communicate with the teacher and parents about what they are doing in the session at the school. This is also motivating for the therapists because if they have a cluster at the school, this reduces travel time and can increase the flexibility of the therapist to fit in with the school program because they can see the child at a different time. If parents are not happy with the 2-3 therapists at the school, they can take the child to see any therapist they like - out of school hours - that is their choice.
f) the opportunities available to, and challenges experienced by, people with disability currently employed, or wanting to be employed, within the NDIS workforce; and
Comments from Casey Gray
It is pleasing to see the generous employment conditions offered by the NDIA, including flexibility, incentives and leave conditions. There are a few considerations for improving access for people with disability into the NDIS workforce. In respect of the NDIA:
-
Roles are advertised as full time which is a disincentive straight up for those with disability who cannot work fulltime.
-
The Revelian Cognitive Ability Test is not accessible
-
The Recruitability Scheme is not realised until later in the recruitment application and only by chance, that is if you are game enough to tick that you have a disability that affects you daily.
-
The jobs listed in the mainstream employment lists for each state are not listed in the Affirmative Measures employment list also
-
There an ongoing temporary employment register for 2020 in the Disability Affirmative Measures program as is available in the mainstream employment stream
-
One solution that is not necessarily specific to employment within the NDIA but is relevant to employment within the NDIS as a whole is the consideration of a peer-led workforce such as that found in the mental health sector in organisations such as Flourish. It would perhaps be worth ILC funding a program such as this to see the rewards for employment for people with disability as well as the outcomes for both those employed and those that are supported.
Comments from Dr Jill Duncan
-
ensuring a baseline level of workforce competency; even if participants and the NDIA are struggling to employ support workers and allied health professionals, I encourage a process of hiring well-qualified people only.
-
developing a more robust on boarding system so that there is accountability in the workforce capability and capacity.
-
ensuring that every precaution is made in hiring a workforce, either employed directly by the participant or by the NDIA, is based on a rigorous screening process. This is in light of the Royal Commission findings.
g) any other matters
Comments from Casey Gray
Workers need to be regulated, particularly now in an industry where a high percentage of workers are working independently of organisations that once provided ongoing training and supervision. Employment options such as the relatively new platforms Hire-up or Mable; or disability support workers who have obtained an ABN and now practice independently of organisations all together should be required to take responsibility for their own continued professional development (CPD) in lieu of the training and supervision once provided by organisations. Along with compulsory worker screenings, there should be a commitment to ongoing CPD to stay up to date with the latest in policy and practice to minimise incidents of poor practice such as the potential for abuse and neglect by modern standards. One solution is to make use of the National Disability Practitioners (NDP), subset of National Disability Services, as a national industry body whereby disability support workers would need have a minimum level of registration/accreditation, maintained by participation in a minimum level of CPD activities. Registration with NDP as an industry body should then be a requirement of disability staff wishing to enter and maintain employment in the NDIS workforce. Professional development activities need not be so cumbersome that it deters workers from entering the workforce. This should be a Commonwealth initiative to ensure people with disability are getting a consistent level of support with minimum risk of harm despite regional location. https://www.ndp.org.au/
Yours sincerely