Minister Butler’s major address was a welcome injection of ambition for the future of NDIS reform, holding fast to the original intent of the scheme with major announcements on its scope and growth targets. What’s missing is the Federal Government's comprehensive response to the NDIS Review, putting quality for participants at its heart.
We are currently seeing the point where the string that holds this sector together snaps. On a regular basis, very good providers are saying they can’t provide quality safe supports within available funding so have to exit the market.
After the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, countless inquiries and the unchecked growth of unregistered providers, it’s clear what happens when governments don’t prioritise quality. Achieve isn’t afraid to pick up the phone and argue the case with the NDIA on reasonable and necessary supports. But the level of effort required to ensure funding for safe quality care and support is only increasing: this has to stop.
I’m pleased that the Federal Government has recognised that the NDIS market does not consistently deliver value for its investment or quality outcomes for participants. Ministers understand they need to work with the sector to keep quality providers in the sector. This is the starting point for a genuine conversation about government stewardship in partnership with quality providers to deliver the full benefits of the NDIS.
As a service provider that works with people with the most complex and acute needs, Achieve has never waited for governments to act. We have done the work to create a lean service delivery model that makes the hard decisions to prioritise quality. This is something we grapple with every day, in big and small ways. However, this comes at a significant cost of time, energy and resources.
The NDIS must be based on a funding and regulatory model that bakes in quality and safety for all participants. This is the basis for a system that is easy for participants, sustainable for quality providers and defensible for governments.
The Federal Government can prioritise three reforms to make this a reality:
The first step is to fund staffing and supports that are consistent with clinical best practice and the NDIS Practice Standards. NDIS participant funding must be evidence-led, not hamstrung by opaque bureaucratic systems with little independent oversight. I’ll be keeping a close eye on the design of the new assessment process by the NDIA. This must prioritise participants’ access to quality supports that improve their health and quality of life as well as building their capacity and protecting their autonomy.
Secondly, the NDIS must register and quality assure every provider. The biggest current risk to participants and government is from rogue providers that operate without appropriate safeguards.
Thirdly, we need effective and sustainable pricing that supports ease and dignity for people with disabilities as well as sustainability and innovation for providers. This means understanding the real cost of quality services, accounting for variation across location and levels of complexity.
For those interested in how we learn from past major reforms, Jenny Macklins’ book Making Progress: How Good Policy Happens is an excellent and timely read. For Macklin, longevity is the true benchmark for good policy, citing the NDIS as a successful example. But this requires a steadfast commitment to incremental progressive change.
It’s tempting to dwell on what’s hard right now. What we need is courage and optimism to continue this reform journey in earnest. We can’t forget that being right wasn’t enough to win the case for the NDIS – and all of us need to help protect its social license.