The Disability Royal Commission’s final report dropped with barely a ripple of response from the federal government. What’s it going to take?
Almost five years and a staggering $528 million later and the Disability Royal Commission has tabled its 12-volume final report, complete with 222 recommendations to the government.
Leading up to this there were 32 public hearings with evidence provided by 837 witnesses; 1785 private sessions of the commission; 7944 submissions; 17,824 phone enquiries; 14 issues papers with 710 responses; more than 700 community engagements; 12 policy roundtables and workshops; and 28 research reports.
Last month the commission published more than 1500 harrowing narratives by people with disabilities, their families and supporters. And then came the final report.
The headlines were loud for a few days but now there is just silence. Where are we? Where is the report? Is it already gathering dust on the shelves of parliamentarians?
So far there has been no formal response from the government and perhaps, at first glance, we shouldn’t be expecting one so soon after the report was published.
Then again, it’s not like it’s come as a big surprise.
The Royal Commission was established in April 2019 “in response to community concern about widespread reports of violence against, and the neglect, abuse and exploitation of, people with disability”. Those concerns didn’t spring up out of the blue in March 2019 – they’ve been a known entity for years, particularly since the NDIS was legislated in 2013.
The suspicion is that the other shoe will drop for the government when the year-long NDIS Review tables its final report at the end of this month.
If the rumours are true, things are already starting to change inside the NDIS in anticipation of the seismic shifts suspected to be on the way.
For example, according to an NDIS client who contacted HSD, local area coordinators (LACs) are being stood down at the end of the month when it comes to the development of plans and undertaking plan reviews. It is understood they will be redefined and take on other activities.
LACs are essentially middle men. They act as agents on behalf of the NDIS by assessing client applications, reading client reports and reviewing client plans. They design a plan for the client which they then send to the NDIS for approval or rejection.
The problem is the NDIS doesn’t ever directly consider the needs of the clients – just the recommendations of the LAC. And there is no safeguard that ensures the LACs actually read client reports and consider all of the evidence they are given when they are developing a plan.
Our source says a support coordinator was told by one LAC that they rarely read all of the reports, which can run to 60-70 pages each for some complex clients.
So the NDIS might never actually hear the client’s story as it should be told. How can they hope to sign off on a plan that takes all of the client’s needs into account? And how can they even know they have not been comprehensively informed? They are flying blind and have to trust that the LAC is doing their job.
Our source says they have never laid eyes on the LAC looking after their family member in three years. Not even via Zoom.
“So much money is wasted in trying to get people what they need to live their best lives,” they said.
“Last year’s plan was almost pointless for [our family member] so this year we invested the lion’s share in assessments and reports so that we could support our requests with the best evidence possible.
“The only problem with that is that while we have an amazing roadmap for [our family member] to live [their] best life, we have no money left to make it happen because we spent most of the money on the roadmap.
“And it is abundantly clear that no one read even the first page of even one of the reports. It’s absolute futility. And it’s the people for whom the NDIS was set up who fall through the gaping cracks.
“Much has been said and written about NDIS rorters – those people who have renovated their homes, taken cruises and expensive holidays and there are even the organised crime syndicates that have used the system to launder money and traffic drugs.
“But it’s the unnecessary layers of bureaucracy, the lack of accountability and the systemic failures in places like LACs that are costing huge amounts of money too.
“I have seen what happens when the system gets it right, I have seen people living their best lives and better. If the NDIS can work for them, it should work for every single client.”
If the rumour is true and LACs will no longer be the gatekeepers for developing and reviewing clients’ plans, that is a huge shake-up for the way the NDIS engages with clients.
And that can’t come soon enough for the almost 600,000 Australians who rely on the NDIS for support and care.
Watch this space.