5 reasons why we should have a #real NDIS
1. There is no evidence that the WA NDIS is better than the Federal NDIS
2. People with disability and their families will be disadvantaged under under the WA NDIS
3. We have no certainty under the WA NDIS
4. Taxpayers will be far worse off under the costly, fiscally irresponsible WA NDIS
5. People with disability have been cut out and left in the dark by those with vested interests
DETAILS BELOW
1. There is no evidence that the WA NDIS is better than the Federal NDIS
There's no evidence - and in fact, there's evidence to the contrary.
The much awaited WA NDIS evaluation report, conducted by Stantons, was released a few weeks ago.
It was in favour of the WA NDIS - but who did they talk to?
A lot of service providers, who have long since expressed their preference for the WA scheme. And some people with a disability. Or family members. It's not clear if it's one or the other, or both.
How many? Of many thousands of participants, it was a resounding 21 people who gave their opinion.
The Stantons report was slammed in Federal government, but as late as today (22.3.17) people with disability and families have been receiving letters saying that DSC has listened to us and that the WA scheme is superior to the Federal NDIS.
All 21 of them.
There are a few other pertinent facts about that evaluation. Like the fact that a high level governance committee responsible for governing the progress of the report was set up only after DSC had written the terms of reference for the evaluation and assumed sole responsibility for that job. A NDIS/My Way committee raised concerns about the lack of oversight some months before. In December of 2015, according to publicly available minutes, the Committee recommended that the interim report be released to the public. It wasn't, and shortly thereafter, DSC stopped calling the Committee members to attend meetings. It was quietly dropped, and the evaluation, which ran late, continued along their own trajectory.
Members of the Disability Services Commission publicly stated that they were happy to release the evaluation (after refusing FOI requests by media prior to the announcement that a deal would be signed) but DSS were unwilling to release it to the public. Eventually, after much lobbying, they released it, to the amusement of anyone who has ever conducted an evaluation - including a public smackdown by Social Services Minister Christian Porter. You can watch the video of the Federal response to the evaluation here or below.
The much awaited WA NDIS evaluation report, conducted by Stantons, was released a few weeks ago.
It was in favour of the WA NDIS - but who did they talk to?
A lot of service providers, who have long since expressed their preference for the WA scheme. And some people with a disability. Or family members. It's not clear if it's one or the other, or both.
How many? Of many thousands of participants, it was a resounding 21 people who gave their opinion.
The Stantons report was slammed in Federal government, but as late as today (22.3.17) people with disability and families have been receiving letters saying that DSC has listened to us and that the WA scheme is superior to the Federal NDIS.
All 21 of them.
There are a few other pertinent facts about that evaluation. Like the fact that a high level governance committee responsible for governing the progress of the report was set up only after DSC had written the terms of reference for the evaluation and assumed sole responsibility for that job. A NDIS/My Way committee raised concerns about the lack of oversight some months before. In December of 2015, according to publicly available minutes, the Committee recommended that the interim report be released to the public. It wasn't, and shortly thereafter, DSC stopped calling the Committee members to attend meetings. It was quietly dropped, and the evaluation, which ran late, continued along their own trajectory.
Members of the Disability Services Commission publicly stated that they were happy to release the evaluation (after refusing FOI requests by media prior to the announcement that a deal would be signed) but DSS were unwilling to release it to the public. Eventually, after much lobbying, they released it, to the amusement of anyone who has ever conducted an evaluation - including a public smackdown by Social Services Minister Christian Porter. You can watch the video of the Federal response to the evaluation here or below.
2. Contrary to WA's assertions that we have been running the best disability system in WA for many years, there's no evidence to support that. In fact, a 2011 RMIT paper called - Australia’s Individualised Disability Funding Packages: When Do They Provide Greater Choice and Opportunity? - rubbished the idea that WA had the best individualised service scheme in Australia. From the paper about the WA disability system -
“Most service providers held packages and provided planning and support services as they had before individualised funding packages were introduced. Although individualised funding packages were intended to offer greater flexibility and better outcomes, most service providers did not inform people with disability or their families about flexible ways to use the packages. Despite legislative and policy changes, the service provision system had not changed.”
Carmel Laragy, PhD
Senior Research Fellow
Centre for Applied Social Research (CASR)
Global Urban & Social Studies
RMIT University
A 2014 Community Development and Justice Standing Committee inquiry into the CAP funding process in WA found, amongst other things, that 'the director general of the Disability Services Commission presented evidence that was inconsistent with the majority of service providers, advocacy groups and clients' and that the WA system had enormous deficiencies around key areas like the collection of data, that the CAP system process was inherently flawed and caused people with disability uncertainty and active distress and that the Minister for Disability Services ensures that evaluations of the NDIS and My Way trials are independent and compatible.
Seems that didn't happen. Read the report. It's enlightening.
In 2011, the Bolshy Divas activist group collected 100 'other conversations' in response to a DSC '100 Conversations' consultation amongst selected participants in the DSC systems. A few weeks later, WA signed up to the My Way and NDIS trials.
We've heard that large providers and National Disability Services have been heavily influential in directing government about the scheme.
“Most service providers held packages and provided planning and support services as they had before individualised funding packages were introduced. Although individualised funding packages were intended to offer greater flexibility and better outcomes, most service providers did not inform people with disability or their families about flexible ways to use the packages. Despite legislative and policy changes, the service provision system had not changed.”
Carmel Laragy, PhD
Senior Research Fellow
Centre for Applied Social Research (CASR)
Global Urban & Social Studies
RMIT University
A 2014 Community Development and Justice Standing Committee inquiry into the CAP funding process in WA found, amongst other things, that 'the director general of the Disability Services Commission presented evidence that was inconsistent with the majority of service providers, advocacy groups and clients' and that the WA system had enormous deficiencies around key areas like the collection of data, that the CAP system process was inherently flawed and caused people with disability uncertainty and active distress and that the Minister for Disability Services ensures that evaluations of the NDIS and My Way trials are independent and compatible.
Seems that didn't happen. Read the report. It's enlightening.
In 2011, the Bolshy Divas activist group collected 100 'other conversations' in response to a DSC '100 Conversations' consultation amongst selected participants in the DSC systems. A few weeks later, WA signed up to the My Way and NDIS trials.
We've heard that large providers and National Disability Services have been heavily influential in directing government about the scheme.
2. People with disability and their families will be worse off under under the WA NDIS
We've compiled a list of 'Key Differences' which you can find here - differences which disadvantage West Australians in comparison to other Australians. Although DSC has made some changes, the issues of disabled people having far less choice and control under a WA run system are not proposed to be changed.
There's the issue that we'll be waiting longer - in 2019, when every other disabled Australian has been rolled into the scheme, 12,000 West Australians will be still waiting. That's got to suck if you've hit the magic 65 year old cut out limit. On the ground, we're hearing stories about comparative differences which favour the federal NDIS. And if the Federal actuaries are right - we can't see how they won't be, given that their projections are based on both the ABS and actual facts rather than #altfacts, 11,000 people will miss out on an NDIS. DSC have projected that only 39,750 people will be eligible for the scheme in WA, as opposed to the ABS and actuarial estimation of 50,000 people.
Read the key differences and the #nodisadvantage page. We're going to be far worse off under the proposed WA NDIS than a federally run scheme.
There's the issue that we'll be waiting longer - in 2019, when every other disabled Australian has been rolled into the scheme, 12,000 West Australians will be still waiting. That's got to suck if you've hit the magic 65 year old cut out limit. On the ground, we're hearing stories about comparative differences which favour the federal NDIS. And if the Federal actuaries are right - we can't see how they won't be, given that their projections are based on both the ABS and actual facts rather than #altfacts, 11,000 people will miss out on an NDIS. DSC have projected that only 39,750 people will be eligible for the scheme in WA, as opposed to the ABS and actuarial estimation of 50,000 people.
Read the key differences and the #nodisadvantage page. We're going to be far worse off under the proposed WA NDIS than a federally run scheme.
3. We have no certainty under the WA NDIS
One of the key issues that people with disability lobbied for was certainty. What will happen to our kids when we die? We wanted to ensure that we would have a federally administered, national scheme that was embedded in legislation and which couldn't be tampered with.
WA proposes to develop their own legislation and the national NDIS legislation will reputedly have to be changed to accommodate the WA scheme. With the WA government instead of people with disability and their families holding the reins, we're not guaranteed certainty. Add that to the prospect of the 75% risk and chance of overspend by WA - as well as the cute deal between the former WA government and Federal government which said that they would 'cost share' on 'savings' if standardised packages were delivered at significantly lower costs - we're in trouble.
We want a scheme that delivers certainty for all Australians.
WA proposes to develop their own legislation and the national NDIS legislation will reputedly have to be changed to accommodate the WA scheme. With the WA government instead of people with disability and their families holding the reins, we're not guaranteed certainty. Add that to the prospect of the 75% risk and chance of overspend by WA - as well as the cute deal between the former WA government and Federal government which said that they would 'cost share' on 'savings' if standardised packages were delivered at significantly lower costs - we're in trouble.
We want a scheme that delivers certainty for all Australians.
4. Taxpayers will be far worse off under the costly, fiscally irresponsible WA NDIS
If you don't care about people with disability or their families, you should at least be worried about your hip pocket.
Because taxpayers are going to be slugged with the huge cost of admin, which has not been properly costed or released to the WA public. That's $144,000,000 to the taxpayer - yes, you've heard that right - per annum. Then there's the fact that we've signed up to the cost of an overrun for 11,000 extra participants at $35K a pop, which will incur a cool additional $288,750,000 - untidy for a State which is already in debt.
A little more about those 11,000 participants. The Commission has actively admitted that they've never had a data collection system and in a transcript from an inquiry, the Director General says that they 'don't really know how many people with disability there are in WA' and that theirs was essentially an 'opt in system'. Although DSC says that they have received funding under block funded services, people with disability in WA often have not even heard of the Commission and have never received individualised services. The 'relationship model' doesn't work if you don't know what an LAC is. There are vast numbers of people with psychosocial disability, people from CaLD backgrounds and Aboriginal people who have never been engaged with the Commission and who the Commission do not know about - in a paper from some years ago, they disclose their shamefully low engagement rate with the Aboriginal population. The mental health sector in both schemes is way under target and both CaLD and indigenous sectors report under engagement, as do adult autistics, people with spinal cord injury and other diagnostic groups. It's hard to see how the Commission can say with such confidence that there are only 39,000 people with disability who are eligible in this state. There's also evidence that an overrun is likely - in the ACT there were 1500 extra people from the Federally projected 5000, and 5000 extra children in the SA scheme in the first year or so. The Feds picked up the tab.
A few more issues, like the costings for the teams in each state, with the incredibly costly LAC system. Or the IT system, which is costed at a measly 22 million as a build from scratch - currently in the WA NDIS it is essentially a paper based system. The federal NDIS cost 144 million for the build and that was from a repurposed system, which will be upgraded later this year. And then there are the ongoing costs for maintenance and service agreements - for example, the Federal Health system costs 100K in service agreements to maintain. That's an enormous additional cost burden for the WA taxpayer - and where's the proof we're getting anything extra for it?
Because taxpayers are going to be slugged with the huge cost of admin, which has not been properly costed or released to the WA public. That's $144,000,000 to the taxpayer - yes, you've heard that right - per annum. Then there's the fact that we've signed up to the cost of an overrun for 11,000 extra participants at $35K a pop, which will incur a cool additional $288,750,000 - untidy for a State which is already in debt.
A little more about those 11,000 participants. The Commission has actively admitted that they've never had a data collection system and in a transcript from an inquiry, the Director General says that they 'don't really know how many people with disability there are in WA' and that theirs was essentially an 'opt in system'. Although DSC says that they have received funding under block funded services, people with disability in WA often have not even heard of the Commission and have never received individualised services. The 'relationship model' doesn't work if you don't know what an LAC is. There are vast numbers of people with psychosocial disability, people from CaLD backgrounds and Aboriginal people who have never been engaged with the Commission and who the Commission do not know about - in a paper from some years ago, they disclose their shamefully low engagement rate with the Aboriginal population. The mental health sector in both schemes is way under target and both CaLD and indigenous sectors report under engagement, as do adult autistics, people with spinal cord injury and other diagnostic groups. It's hard to see how the Commission can say with such confidence that there are only 39,000 people with disability who are eligible in this state. There's also evidence that an overrun is likely - in the ACT there were 1500 extra people from the Federally projected 5000, and 5000 extra children in the SA scheme in the first year or so. The Feds picked up the tab.
A few more issues, like the costings for the teams in each state, with the incredibly costly LAC system. Or the IT system, which is costed at a measly 22 million as a build from scratch - currently in the WA NDIS it is essentially a paper based system. The federal NDIS cost 144 million for the build and that was from a repurposed system, which will be upgraded later this year. And then there are the ongoing costs for maintenance and service agreements - for example, the Federal Health system costs 100K in service agreements to maintain. That's an enormous additional cost burden for the WA taxpayer - and where's the proof we're getting anything extra for it?
5. People with disability have been cut out and left in the dark by those with vested interests
And where are we in all of this? You should ask that question, because the providers knew an impending deal was going to be made and it was announced at a National Disability Services event - to add insult to injury, on International Day of People with a Disability. People with disability and their families found out later. They found out that Porter and Barnett had agreed to a list of 'agreed elements' including financial incentivising between Liberal governments and the signing of an agreement which would disadvantage West Australians. Although there were endless 'consultations', there was never a draft proposal for any disabled people to review and provide feedback - unlike the Productivity Commission report, which was sent out for public comment in fine detail and modified accordingly, with expert groups set up to examine every aspect of the proposed scheme.
We were also cut out of being part of the signing of the bilateral agreement, hours before the government went into caretaker mode, including the agreement that WA taxpayers would be responsible for millions of additional incurred costs. Not just disabled people, but WA taxpayers. You'd think there would be a forward announcement, with some idea of costings. Apparently not.
And those with vested interests - that's the DSC, who are proposing to restructure with a 'service arm' and govern their own business practices. Not to mention the service providers, who will be paid in advance and are set to do far better under a WA run scheme than a federal run scheme.
The idea of the NDIS was to put people with disability in the drivers seat and to give them more choice and control. That's not the imperative of the WA NDIS.
We need a scheme that will put us in control and not leave us worse off than other Australians.
We were also cut out of being part of the signing of the bilateral agreement, hours before the government went into caretaker mode, including the agreement that WA taxpayers would be responsible for millions of additional incurred costs. Not just disabled people, but WA taxpayers. You'd think there would be a forward announcement, with some idea of costings. Apparently not.
And those with vested interests - that's the DSC, who are proposing to restructure with a 'service arm' and govern their own business practices. Not to mention the service providers, who will be paid in advance and are set to do far better under a WA run scheme than a federal run scheme.
The idea of the NDIS was to put people with disability in the drivers seat and to give them more choice and control. That's not the imperative of the WA NDIS.
We need a scheme that will put us in control and not leave us worse off than other Australians.
WA Labor must commit to ripping up the bilateral agreement.
We deserve a #real NDIS.
Listen to the people.
Today on ABC radio, Mark McGowan issued a commitment to a #realNDIS. Hear it here on Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/abcperth/videos/1472242289475393/?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE