Submission to NDIS Joint Standing
Committee
NDIS Participant Experience in Regional, Rural and Remote Australia
disability advocacy nsw | website: da.org.au | email: da@da.org.au | phone 1300 365 085
About Disability Advocacy NSW (DA)
DA has over 35 years of experience providing individual advocacy to all people with disability of any age. The organisation services over two thirds of NSW, making it the largest individual advocacy disability organisation within NSW.
While DA has a presence in Sydney, it has a strong commitment to regional, rural, and remote (RRR) areas in NSW. With local disability advocates - on the ground - in Armidale, Bathurst, Broken Hill, the Blue Mountains, Coffs Harbour, Dubbo, Newcastle, Port Macquarie, Tamworth, and Taree – DA has firsthand insights and observations of the lived experiences of PWD and their families living in these areas.
DA’s systemic advocacy draws on coalface information from clients, disability advocates, and the disability sector more broadly to identify and address emerging policy issues. In this submission, we focus on issues relating to thin markets and the impacts this has on different stages of the NDIS, the effectiveness of the scheme in RRR areas, and choice and control of participants.
In addition to this submission, we invite members of the NDIS Joint Standing Committee to conduct site visits to our RRR offices alongside our policy lead (contact details below) to hear more about the experiences of PWD living in RRR areas.
Contact
Dr Cherry Baylosis Policy Officer at DANSW 42 Great Western Highway Valley Heights Disability Advocacy NSW | website: da.org.au | Email: da@da.org.au | Phone 1300 365 085 Page 2
Introduction
It is widely acknowledged that there are fewer services in RRR areas. An increase in
urality is generally associated with a decrease in availability of services. Accessing rsupports can be difficult without an NDIS plan for people with disability living in RRR areas. In many instances, the scheme has not stimulated the growth of a support service market. Instead, it has seen the availability of services decrease in some RRR areas. With the move to an individualised funding model, we saw block-funded government and non-government services fold, become defunded, absorbed into larger services or transition to a fee-for-service model to compete in a market driven model. Not only has this led to a lack of diversity of services in some RRR areas, but it has meant that service providers face precarious financial situations. Smaller, independent service providers are often drowned out against larger service providers that can monopolise areas, leading to lack of choice of control for participants.
Alongside this, some service providers have started to refuse to service people who are non-NDIS participants because they prefer to service NDIS participants where they can charge higher rates.
Thin markets have wider implications that go beyond a limited number of services to choose from – it contributes to the degradation of service quality and professionalism. Having a limited amount, or no services available can fuel a sense of desperation among people with disability who crucially need support and care. Unethical providers take advantage of this, and the lack of competition, where people with disability cannot simply take their business elsewhere and are dependent on the one service provider.
Submission Summary
We have written at length about issues surrounding the NDIS in RRR areas123. This
text is a continuation of that discussion.
Submission summarises and draws on previous research reports and submissions.
For further information we invite the committee to view our research reports at
da.org.au/resources.
Lastly, we write this submission acknowledging significant developments within the
disability sector. Namely, the Disability Royal Commission (DRC) and the NDIS
review. We have highlighted recommendations within these two reports that we see
as integral to address the issues raised in this submission and have made additional
recommendations.
\nBaylosis, C. (2023). ‘Thin Markets, Thin Hopes: The NDIS in Regional, Rural, and Remote NSW. Report 5 in Disability Advocacy’s Aussie Battler series. \nBaylosis, C. (2022). NDIS Performance and Implementation: Burden of Evidence. Retrieved from NDIS Joint Standing Committee’s inquiry of General Issues (submission 5). \nBaylosis, C. (2022). NDIS Implementation and Forecasting. NDIS Joint Standing Committee’s inquiry into the Current Scheme Implementation and Forecasting for the NDIS (submission 81)
The experience of NDIS applicants and participants
Thin and absent markets
Thin markets plague RRR areas. In some locations, the scheme has not successfully stimulated the growth of a disability services market. The limited amount, or absence of services undermines the NDIS’s principle of ‘choice and control’. This was demonstrated among DA’s surveyed participants indicating service accessibility significantly decreased as the distance from metropolitan areas increased.
In total, 73% of participants residing in rural/remote NSW reported service accessibility as ‘Poor/Very Poor’, compared to 42% living in regional areas, and 13% in metropolitan areas4.
I]f you do not have NDIS Plan you cannot access any disability services
anymore, while before you could access help straight away. Now it takes forever to get a plan before you can maybe access any help
Anonymous regional interview participant, 2021
Many community-based and mainstream services are inaccessible or no longer exist in RRR areas. In some instances, as the above quote indicates, accessing disability supports and services has become more challenging since the roll out of the NDIS.
There is a lack of services both in and outside of the NDIS. In this, there is also a lack of support to help people navigate and locate services within what is experienced as an overly complicated system. This can lead people with disability to disconnect completely because the help is not available and/or it is too challenging to access.
4 Survey research conducted by DA in 2021 N = 2021. See more
Thin Markets
These individuals are not at only at risk of missing out on crucial services and support, but they are at risk of not being represented in the system’s data that is collected by governments to assess thin markets.
We also see that services are often spread thin across large geographical areas in RRR areas, which requires a need to travel to access services. When there are fewer services in an area, it places increased demand on the few services that are available, contributing to lengthy waitlists, or closed books.
[I] have to access services from other cities or states because local services are over capacity. Waiting periods are so long that a plan would run out if you tried to stay with local services.
Anonymous regional survey participant, 2021
Where there are thin markets, people will need to travel - sometimes hundreds of kilometres and sometimes overnight where they must source accommodation - to service providers that do have capacity. But for many, travelling is not viable due to transport and accommodation costs, the time needed take leave from work, being away from home (and from children and or pets that require care), unreliable and inaccessible transport, and the support needed to travel. These issues can also impact family members and friends who provide support and need to travel with their loved one to appointments, creating a further financial burden for others.
If people with disability are unable to travel, they are reliant on service providers tavelling to them, which comes at a hefty price:
[I] have to find support people willing to travel to my home and paraprofessionals will only visit when they can cluster other appointments in the area which means once or sometimes twice a year. All other disability services or mainstream
service, I have to arrange support and transport to, which ends up costing a lot
of money from my limited NDS funds.
Anonymous regional survey participant 2021
There are a limited number of services providers who are willing to travel regularly to
some RRR areas. Moreover, service providers charge for travel, which can consume
a significant proportion of participants’ plans.
These challenges associated with travel are further impacted by the high cost of
disability. There are expenses associated with medications, treatment, equipment,
and aids, in addition to the costs of living in RRR areas involving transport, and daily
supports. As it is often described, people with disability who live in RRR areas are
‘double disadvantaged’. They tend to have more expenses, yet they are more likely
to receive a lower income with nearly half (44%) of working aged people with disability
(15 – 64 years old) receiving government payments compared to those without a
disability (12%). This can make affording necessities difficult, or even impossible.
I don’t think people living in cities quite get it, we pay extra for postage, fuel,
and so much more. How is my payment supposed to stretch further than
someone who lives closer to a city?
Anonymous rural survey participant, 2021
Accessing basic health care, such as seeing a general practitioner (GP), can be near
impossible. In turn, this can limit access to the NDIS as people are unable to gather
evidence needed for a NDS application (discussed in more detail below). The costs
and challenges associated with obtaining a diagnosis, and living with a disability in a
RRR area can limit people’s ability to attend medical and specialists’ appointments.
5 Gething, L., (2010) Sources of Double Disadvantage for People with Disabilities Living in Remote and Rural Areas of New South Wales. Australia. Disability & Society, 12(4): p. 513-531 6 See Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. [accessed February 19, 2024]
Disability Advocacy NSW | website: da.org.au | Email: da@da.org.au | Phone 1300 365 085 Page 7
Accessing Supports and Services
Consequently, many people with disability simply go without basic health care and support.
Thin markets can also lead to inflated prices among service providers. A lack of competition can embolden service providers to charge higher rates and ‘cherry pick’ thier cliental (discussed in further detail below). While the NDIS price guide sets a regulatory system to set price limits7, service providers will often nominate to charge the higher fees for NDIS participants, while refusing to service non-NDIS participants.
NDIS providers tend to charge the maximum allowable. Some also charge ttransport and time to and from and as this has not been funded in my plan it has resulted in a limited choice of providers for me.
Outer regional survey participant, 2022
For many PWD living in RRR areas, the NDIS can seem like the only avenue to access necessary and reasonable supports and services. As Professor Bruce Bonyhady described, the scheme can seem like, ‘an oasis in the dessert’ that is deeply inequitable for those unable to access the scheme. The double disadvantage that people with disability who live in RRR magnifies such inequity. They face unique challenges with thin and absent markets that not only limits service availability, but it also creates challenges with accessing the scheme.
The paucity of mainstream and ‘tier 2’ services8 leaves people with disability without crucially needed supports and services, while limiting their capacity to access the scheme. The current NDIS model – without effective stewardship – disadvantages 7 See NDIS Pricing Arrangements and Price Limits 2022-2023. 8 In 2020, ‘tier 2’ became known as Information, Linkages and Capacity Building (ILC), comprising two components that include a grants program administered by the Department of Social Services and Local Area Coordinators (LACs) who would be responsible for linking people to support and information in the community.
Strengthening Market Monitoring for NDIS Foundational Supports
the most disadvantaged, where people with disability living in RRR risk falling through
the gaps.
The NDIS review’s recommendation to change the scheme’s model structure to incorporate ‘foundational supports’ is promising. Its purpose to ensure all people with disability have access to support and a navigator to help them access basic care and support is a step forward. However, the issues in RRR areas revolving around thin markets must be addressed if this new model is going to work. The new proposed model is likely to encounter similar challenges as the NDIS’s original tier 2 services and local area coordinators (LACs) faced in regional, rural, and remote (RRR) areas.
We acknowledge and agree with recommendation 13 in the NDIS Review to ‘strengthen market monitoring and responses to challenges in coordinating the NDIS market’ which requires legislative changes. These are outlined and discussed below, along with other considerations regarding foundational supports in thin markets.
Recommendations:
1.) Department of Social Services (DSS)
- takes on an active role in monitoring markets through data gathered from the transition to electronic payments and service access issues reported by navigators.
- In addition to this, we recommend that other data is gathered from specific RRR areas to gain more of an accurate representation of service demand.
- The proposal to monitor the market via electronic payments and service access issues has the potential to overlook cohorts who have not engaged with disability services. Arguably, these may be the most vulnerable and disadvantaged.
- Other more diverse data is needed. We recommend randomised collection that is location based is needed to get a more accurate representation of people with disability who are both engaged and disengaged with services.
- Additionally, data in relation to carers (e.g., carers’ payments, carer related services data) may be useful. This is a cohort that often provide informal support due a lack of other
Options
options. Therefore, gathering carers’ data may also reveal gaps in the market in
RRR areas. Gathering such data will strengthen the collection of data to better
identify thin markets and allow governments to respond effectively.
2.) Provider panels of allied health professionals (AHPs) are trialled in small and
regional areas. This will help to assess the effectiveness of AHPs pooling both
coordination and resources to service RRR areas. However, this trial must ensure
that provider panel patient sizes are properly trialled so that workloads are
manageable and remain at a level that does not impact on quality. We recommend
that these trials factor in the geographical spread of each panel service to
determine and allocate the necessary resources involved with travel.
3.) Provider of last resort arrangements are evidence-driven and underpinned by
robust market monitoring. This needs to ensure that people with disability in RRR
areas where there are thin markets are not disadvantaged and there is consistency
in the level of care across different locations. Local hospital data may be another
source of information to assess the effectiveness of provider of last resort services.
Currently, many people with disability in RRR areas rely on admissions to hospital
to receive care and treatment because of a lack of availability in their areas.
Therefore, using this data may provide more of an accurate representation of the
effectiveness of providers of last resort.
4.) The move toward foundational supports in areas of thin markets incorporates
findings from DSS’s market-monitoring. This will ensure that adequate resources
are disbursed to fund foundational supports in areas where there are thin or absent
markets. Additional funding in areas of thin markets should be considered to ensure that foundational supports are adequately resourced to service RRR areas.
Electronic Communication Devices
There is also an assumption that if people lack these resources, they have access to informal and formal supports (e.g., family, friends, advocates). Some RRR communities lack these resources, placing them at a disadvantage because they do not have the means to access information needed to engage with the NDIS.
In some RRR communities, there is low literacy, and digital literacy that limits people’s ability to navigate the NDIS. Oftentimes, these communities rely on word-of-mouth and their peers, friends, and or family as a form of informal support to help them navigate the NDIS. Access to the internet can also be limited as there may be limited and unreliable digital infrastructure. At times, households rely on a single mobile phone, and costly data on that one phone as the only means to access information on the internet. This can not only make accessing information difficult, but it can also create challenges with lodging and uploading documents to support NDIS applications.
Additionally, trust is also a barrier to information. Some RRR communities – such as remote Aboriginal communities – are distrusting of government agencies, due to historical mistreatment, which limits their willingness to seek out information at the outset. Without information and culturally appropriate engagement, challenging these longstanding perceptions is difficult. Providing information needs to extend beyond one-way communication where information is disseminated without the ability for people to engage in conversation. Two-way communication and engagement not only provide an opportunity for discussion, it enables relationships and trust to form, which for some communities, is an important initial step in receiving information.
Recommendations
5.) The NDIA conducts community outreach to hard-to-reach communities to build capacity within communities to navigate the NDIS. In this, the proposed ‘navigator’ role, which will assist people to access services both in and outside of the NDIS, can play a role in conducting regular outreach to better engage communities and individuals.
6.) The NDIA employs culturally identified navigators, who have capacity to build trust and relationships with hard-to-reach RRR communities. Ideally, these will be individuals who have established working relationships within the communities that they will be working with.
7.) Culturally safe guidelines and practices are developed through a process of co-design. This must occur with people with disability who identify as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander, and people belonging to a culturally and linguistically diverse background(s).
Burden of evidence
We have written at length about the additional challenges faced by people living in RRR when gathering evidence14. It impacts many stages, including the application phase, when there is a change of circumstance, and during internal and external reviews, where substantial documentation (evidence) from the applicant or NDIS participant is often required.
Due to the absence of allied health and medical professionals, people are not able to demonstrate that they meet the eligibility requirements or require changes to their NDIS plan because they cannot obtain the level evidence required by the NDIA.
Additionally, obtaining acceptable evidence is a frequent problem reported by
For more detail information see NDIS Performance and Implementation: Burden of Evidence (number 5), DA’s submission to NDIS Joint Standing Committee’s inquiry into general issues 2022.
Applicants and Participants
It is like ‘the secret service’… you have to know, and write the correct codes to gain access to help and only [government] staff know this ‘special language’ and they don’t share it with anyone else.
Anonymous regional interview participant 2021
Doctors and treating specialists are not provided with adequate information, training, or support from the NDIA to write reports for access requests. Without experience or guidance to complete reports, specialists and doctors often find that their assessments are deemed unsatisfactory, and they are required to revise or reword their reports. In this, there are inconsistencies in relation to what the NDIA accepts. For instance, in some cases the NDIA will accept a written explanation from a GP about a person’s treatment history. However, in many other cases the NDIA may deny access with the same level of information on the basis that it needs to be confirmed by one or more specialists, and they need a functional capacity assessment written by an occupational therapist (OT).
Increasingly, it seems that the NDIA’s requests for additional reports are becoming unofficial requirements. But obtaining these reports can cost considerable amounts of money. This places a financial burden on applicants and participants and strain on time-poor doctors and specialists. Additionally, we are seeing a concerning trend among GPs and specialists telling clients they do not write reports for the NDIS. For people with disability living in RRR areas, this magnifies issues with thin markets: finding affordable specialists and doctors who are willing, and available to write reports within a manageable distance to travel to and from, can be like finding a ‘needle in the haystack’. Yet, there is little practical and financial assistance provided by the NDIA to assist people in RRR areas to obtain evidence.
Case study 1: Grant*
Grant is a Disability Support Pension (DSP) recipient who lives in a RRR area. He was unable to access the NDIS because of the costs associated with the need to travel to and from medical appointments that the NDIA requested he attend. He explained that being on the DSP meant that he, ‘didn’t have the money to drive down and back to a [regional centre] every couple of weeks’. This was compounded by his conditions which prevent him from driving and having a child with high-care needs. Additionally, t travelling would require his partner and child to go with him. He noted that while there is financial assistance for fuel – up to 70% of the cost – it does not take into account parking, or food that he would need to purchase for himself, his partner, and child.
These costs created a substantial barrier for Grant that it meant he was unable to attend the appointments with the specialist. Not only did this mean that he went without treatment for his condition, but he was unable to obtain evidence to access the NDIS.
Recommendations
8.) Foundational supports - as proposed in the NDIS review - include daily supports that assist with travel to medical and health appointments where there are thin markets. This can help as an interim measure for people unable to meet evidentiary requirements due to issues associated with thin markets and travel. Foundational supports can provide an important measure, filling in gaps in support services.
9.) Foundational supports include a base level of funding for a variety of therapies (OT, physiotherapists, speech pathologists, psychologists). This base funding can be used to obtain assessments from treating specialists who are most appropriate to assess individuals’ specific disabilities.
- Name anonymised.
The availability of health and disable workers
With thin markets, there is shortage of skilled disability and health workers in RRR areas. Attracting professionals to these areas has been a longstanding issue. Many workers prefer to stay closer to cities where there is more support and potential for career progression. Thus, an inherent problem within thin markets is a short supply of skilled professionals who deliver good quality health and disability care.
As a result, positions can remain vacant for considerable amounts of time. Even when there are incentives that may attract skilled disability and health workers to RRR areas, it is also difficult to retain them for long periods15. Consequently, the use of fly-in and fly-out (FIFO) doctors and allied health professionals in some RRR areas is a common practice16. Additionally, service providers will cluster appointments in one area when travelling is required, which limits the number of times they will visit locations sometimes to once or twice a year17. These are short-term fixes that limit continuity of service, and hampers rapport building between clients and health professionals.
A lack of a skilled workforce in RRR areas can reduce requirements and qualifications that are needed for a position and or service provision. It is common, for instance, for support workers in RRR areas to have no prior experience or qualifications. Here, the NDIA has attempted to limit barriers for entry for service providers (e.g., unregistered providers) to increase diversity, choice, and control. In some cases, this has enabled greater flexibility and choice for NDIS participants as they can select a familiar and trusted individual to provide support and assist with daily living. But this can come at a cost in quality and oversight (discussed in further detail below), where both participants and the scheme are exploited.
15 Lincoln, M., Gallego, G., Dew, A., Bulkeley, K., Veitch, C., Bundy, A., … & Griffiths, S. (2014). Recruitment and retention of allied health professionals in the disability sector in rural and remote New South Wales, Australia. Journal of intellectual and developmental disability, 39(1), 86-97. 16Fitts, M.S., Russel, D., Matthew, S., Liddle, Z., Mulhoiland, E., Comerford, C., Wakerman, J. (2020). Remote health service vulnerabilities and responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 28(6), 613 – 617. 17 ibid
This is also problematic when there is mismatch in the level of care needed for a
person with disability and the level of care and or health needs. Adding to this, is the
diversity of disabilities that require specialist knowledge. For example, a person may
have a diagnosis that they share with only one or two other people in the world. In
areas where there are thin markets, finding a specialist with the expertise and
knowledge to treat such condition is difficult. Again, it may mean that people need to
travel, accept inappropriate levels of care, rely on FIFO healthcare workers, relocate,
or forgo support and services *altogether.
Case study 2: Bill and Charlie*
Bill is the father of Charlie, a 20-year-old with a rare disability where there is only one
other known case in the world. They live in a remote town in NSW’s Far West. Charlie
has high needs, requiring 24-hour one-to-one care. He is non-verbal, unable to sit up, requires peg-feeding, and uses a wheelchair. Bill advised that Charlie has not had his
teeth cleaned for several years because he requires a general anaesthetic to undergo the procedure. Bill advised that ‘it was just too risky if something was to go wrong’ in their remote town. It would require hours of travel to the next major hospital where there is appropriately trained and skilled staff.
Bill holds concerns that Charlie’s condition is so complex that he requires specialist knowledge and care. He is unsure that that local services would know how to respond if there was an unexpected complication. As it is, Bill and Charlie often need to travel 5.5 hours (driving) away to the next major city to access specialist health care. Bill is concerned that if travel was required to the next major city, it could place Charlie at significant risk of not being able to receive the appropriate level medical care on time.
Names anonymised.
Bill’s experience with health services highlights the difficulties associated with
concerns about the level of skilled disability and health care workers in RRR areas. In this case, there are risks associated with accessing specialist care in an emergency where an immediate response is critical to Charlie’s safety.
Recommendations
-
The Australian Government and states and territories invest in peer support and developing workforces in RRR areas. The NDIS review recommends investing in peer support, increasing migration pathways for overseas workers, and to plan for future workforce needs as solutions to address the worker shortage in RRR areas. We suggest that the Australian Government, and states and territories invest in upskilling the labour market in RRR areas. E.g., TAFE courses are provided to RRR areas communities to learn basic levels of disability care. This can include subsidised TAFE programs and/or scholarships to assist with fees and or costs of living and studying in a RRR area. To increase accessibility for people in RRR areas, online programs should be developed to allow for students who cannot travel or relocate to study.
-
A minimum qualification, along with registration, as recommended by the DRC, is required for support workers to better ensure a standard and quality. We note that the NDIS review also recommends that all service providers are registered within a ‘risk proportionate model’. While this may reduce some of the lack of oversight of unregistered providers, we recommend that the ‘lower risk’ registration and enrolments have a robust assessment criterion for individuals and businesses seeking registration that can identify previous issues of misconduct. If concerns arise, there are measures that will prevent and or limit such businesses from operating again under a new business alias, particularly in cases involving serious misconduct.
-
Provider panels develop clear guidelines and standards that ensure continuity and quality of care. The NDIS review’s recommendation to use panel arrangements
Lowering Costs Through Shared Resources
For allied health professionals in small and medium sized rural towns may work toward lowering costs of service through sharing the costs of travel and resources among local providers.
However, providers of the same panel must work to ensure that there is continuity among panel members to ensure standard of quality across panel members. This can include key performance indicators that can measure time allocated to discussing client plans and treatments among the team, alongside satisfaction ratings and or reports of clients.
Unethical Service Providers
In thin markets, a lack of choice means a lack of control. People are not empowered to seek out an alternative service provider if they are unsatisfied with a service. Conversely, they can become dependent on the one service provider because they cannot go elsewhere[1]. This contributes to a reluctance to make complaints or speak out about exploitation, abuse, neglect and or violence perpetrated by unethical service providers. In small communities where there are close-knit ties and a lack of anonymity, some people fear that they will be identified if they speak out and lose access to crucially needed supports and services.
I find if you put in a genuine complaint in a small town, it always gets back to you. That is when you are treated like dirt, so you never put in a compliant
Anonymous rural survey participant, 2021
Adding to these issues are inconsistencies with registration, where unregistered providers do not undergo the same time-consuming process as providers that are registered with the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission go through.
Areas
areas, unregistered providers have some benefits as it enables more service providers to operate without the red tape that registered providers have. This can encourage small local business to enter the market and provide participants with more choice and control. However, there are risks with a lack of oversight, which can enable, and even encourage, unethical practices.
These conditions can also erode service quality as there is little accountability. Despite several mechanisms in place to address misconduct and fraudulent activity, people with disability in RRR areas continue to experience exploitation. While the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission is responsible for responding to complaints, investigations can be hampered if people with disability are fearful to speak up. As the NDIS review pointed out, the current protective mechanisms rely on participants and or their supporters to raise issues. This means that without formal complaints, many unethical providers and practices can remain undetected and unaddressed by the NDIA Quality and Safeguards Commission.
Recommendations
13.) The NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission take an active role and engage communities face-to-face who are at greater risk of abuse, neglect, exploitation, and violence (e.g., site visits to providers and workers), as recommended by the DRC. We raise this specific recommendation as we see this as relevant and necessary for people with disability living in RRR areas where there are thin markets. Specially, we recommend an on the ground presence, where the new proposed National Disability Supports and Safeguards Commission engages with RRR communities to build capacity to identify and report misconduct. This new body will take on more of an active role in monitoring service providers than the previous Commission did. This can involve randomised visits to providers, using a similar model as the official community visitors program (administered by the NSW Aging and Disability Commission).
14.) Ban providers from charging higher prices to NDIS participants for services. We also acknowledge that the Australian government is attempting to address
Conclusion
This inquiry regarding the experience of NDIS participants living in RRR areas is sorely needed. People living in RRR areas are unfairly disadvantaged and have not fully realised the benefits of the scheme. As the submission has highlighted, the nature of thin markets in RRR areas has compromised the NDIA’s vision of choice and control.
Instead, people with disability are facing precarious situations where there is a lack of services, which contributes to a risk of exploitation and abuse. We trust that this review will address and attempt to correct these issues, and other concerns raised by the disability sector and individuals who contributed to this inquiry.
Disability Advocacy NSW | website: da.org.au | Email: da@da.org.au | Phone: 1300 365 085
Page 20