Motion
Resumed from 11 October on the following motion moved by Hon Alison Xamon — That this house notes —
(1) The significant impacts on people with disability and their families of ongoing uncertainty about which form of the National Disability Insurance Scheme will be adopted in WA;
(2) Whether the government decides to adopt the NDIS or the NDIS My Way model, it is imperative that those whose lives will be most affected by the decision are kept informed in an ongoing and meaningful way;
(3) That, furthermore, it is essential that a co-design model for engagement that involves people with disability and their families in the design of governance, policy and operational aspects is developed to inform the delivery of whichever scheme is agreed to;
(4) The significant uncertainty in the funding of disability services in WA, and calls upon the government to put mechanisms in place to ensure —
(a) that people with disability and their representative organisations are included in governance structures and inform service delivery design; and
(b) that the decision-making process is fully transparent.
[speeches and comments of various members]
Hon Alison Xamon: I have been prepared to support either model, which is the point. When your government made the decision to go with the state model, the Greens deliberately did not make a decision about whether that was a good or bad decision. Likewise, when this government made the decision that it wanted to pursue a federal model, once again the Greens took a position of being agnostic around that. The purpose of this motion and the reason it is worded the way that it is, is that we are calling for certainty either way, not because we feel that we necessarily need to be taking a position on whether a state-based model or a federally based model are the best models.
[speeches and comments of various members]
HON ALISON XAMON (North Metropolitan) [1.54 pm] — in reply: I am really happy to be able to reply to some of the comments that were made. I thank members who have contributed to this discussion and for showing an interest in what I believe is a really important issue. I want to respond to a few of the comments made, particularly the interjections that have come from both sides of the house requesting that I take a position on whether I think we need to pursue a WA-based model or go with the national scheme.
I will reflect on the media release read out by Hon Donna Faragher that came from the minister when he was in opposition. He also at no point stipulated which particular model should be pursued, but simply that a decision should be made. I also concur with the comments made by Hon Donna Faragher that of course there will never be a consensus within the disability community as a whole, because it is as diverse in its opinions as the general community is on a whole range of matters. As someone who is very engaged with this sector, I know the diversity of opinions we have been hearing. We know that there are a lot of service providers very active nationally that are keen to see a national approach and a lot of services in Western Australia are keen to pursue the My Way approach.
We also know that that diversity is reflected in people who have had experience in accessing services. I want to make a comment about part of that. Comments were made about the value of the local area coordinators and why that was indicative of the positive approach that has been taken in the state-based system. Of course, there are two sides to that. For people who have had a really engaged and switched on local area coordinator, their experience dealing with the state system can be absolutely life changing and they cannot speak more highly of it. Conversely, I have heard far too many stories from people who have ended up with a less engaged local area coordinator or who have been in the position temporarily and who have gone through and failed to make that fundamental long-term personal engagement with individuals and their families. Their experiences are very negative and they speak with great despair about their experiences under that approach. I think it is important to note at a systemic level that there are real vulnerabilities in that devolved approach, as well as the fact that there can be very big strengths as well.
It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the latest Productivity Commission report looking into what is happening with the National Disability Insurance Agency and acknowledging that, clearly, some quite serious issues and problems continue to emerge with the rollout of this very large reform. We can take from that that it is quite clear that there are going to be problems no matter which scheme is ultimately signed up to. I reflect on the comments made by the minister about how the introduction of a reform of this size is always going to bring challenges and issues with it and he is absolutely correct. I suppose that goes back to the second half of my motion, which I want to draw members’ attention to.
I am disappointed that I do not feel there was enough concentration on that part of the motion, which, as far as I am concerned, is the substantive part of the motion. I would like to assure members that before I took my seat, I did not formulate this motion in isolation but in consultation with a number of people in the disability sector, because they had indicated to me what they really wanted get to the bottom of. Again, they were very clear that they did not want to advocate for either a state or federal model, but they indicated they were very concerned by the lack of certainty about what was going to happen moving forward, bearing in mind that this was back in May. Many months later we do not have that certainty, although through the estimates process we have had some undertaking from the minister that, hopefully, we will get some idea of what is happening in December. I agree with the comment that come December, with every day a decision has not been made, there will be a number of people demanding that one finally be made, because people really want certainty.
Regardless of what happens in the attempts to renegotiate those bilateral agreements, and no matter whether we go with a state-based system or a federal-based system, the one thing I want to stress is that there will be challenges no matter which system we go with. I honestly believe that the best way to navigate the challenges that will arise— they were going to arise whether the Barnett government managed to hold on to government or whether we had a change of government; it was going to happen inevitably—is by ensuring that people with disability and their families, and the people who are at the centre of these services, drive the reforms and what needs to happen. These people are best placed to identify where the problems are emerging on the ground, whether they be large-scale problems or the niggly sorts of problems that can undo schemes. These people are best placed to be consulted to come up with the creative solutions that can then be appropriately considered.
One of the things that did not get a level of attention in members’ responses to this motion, which is very disappointing, is the need to ensure that real funding—money—is put towards organisations for people with disability that engage in systemic advocacy. I again emphasise that in the last Productivity Commission report, this area was highlighted as needing attention. It was recognised that a reform of this scale cannot be rolled out successfully without ensuring that the independent bodies that are absolutely representative of the grassroots people with disability and their families participate directly in identifying the issues and helping to find the solutions. The two key disability organisations in this state that engage in systemic advocacy, People with Disabilities (WA) Inc and the Developmental Disability Council of WA, have lost their funding. That decision was made by the previous government and has continued under this government. We are talking about low levels of funding in the overall scheme of things. That is a problem, because that has happened in this state; it has not happened universally around the country. That is a matter of great concern and needs to be addressed. I note the minister’s acknowledgement that these two organisations in particular are very important and perform a critical role. I am glad that that has been acknowledged, but it needs to be backed up with dollars. That is just an absolute fact. I am really concerned that there was not enough focus on that.
I also want to talk about the representative structures that need to be put in place over and above the systemic organisations to effect this reform. I do not necessarily have in mind a set model of what that should look like, because people with disability should have those discussions with government directly to determine the best way that they think that can proceed. We are hearing from people, rightly or wrongly, that they feel that the only voice that is getting a say in the design of the scheme in WA at the moment—this may be unfair or it may be incredibly fair; I do not know, but I will relay it—is that of service providers, particularly the very large service providers. However, we know it is about more than just service delivery. It is also about being aware of the gaps that are emerging and also the smaller organisations that will potentially fall by the wayside, and I have spoken about that matter already.
In the debate on this motion, not enough attention was focused on how we will make sure that people with disability and their families will be front and centre in helping to design the scheme in Western Australia. That is a challenge. It is never an easy exercise. Co-production is not an easy exercise to undertake, but if it is done well, it can be transformational in making sure that the system is right. I would like us to be leaders within this space in WA. I note that the previous government liked to say that, particularly when the first two trial sites were announced. But any ground we had at that time has been well and truly lost now.
I also thought I would make some comments in response to something the minister said about the trial sites. I want to be very clear and put on the record that when the decision was made by the previous government to embark on two trial sites, I was extremely supportive of that decision. At that time, I was president of a peak body that also was very supportive of that decision. We saw that as a good way to access a whole range of comparative data that we thought would contribute quite helpfully to the national scheme. In fact, at that time I was also the vice-chair of a national organisation that was looking at the issue of psychosocial disability. That organisation chose to take an agnostic approach to whether we should go with a state or federal-based system and instead took the position that we needed to enunciate a series of principles under which any system should operate and support whichever model came up, whether it be state or federal, as long as it abided by those principles. I will still stand here and say that if the minister makes an announcement in December that the government has decided to go with the state-based system, I will not be inherently critical of that, but I will have a lot of questions about it. If the minister decides to say that the government has managed to renegotiate the bilateral agreements and it will go with the federal system, I will not be critical of that either. But, once again, I will have a whole bunch of questions about how it will operate.
I come back to the basics. Either way, people need to have some certainty. Organisations need certainty. It is creating real problems for service providers. The uncertainty also is genuinely distressing for too many people with disability. I also acknowledge that the experience has been transformational in the lives of many people in WA who are receiving services under the National Disability Insurance Scheme at the moment. I particularly acknowledge those people who have been the recipients of psychosocial disability packages and who never received a thing prior to the introduction of the NDIS and are now receiving something. I know it is absolutely amazing for those people. However, on the flip side, I know that other people are now receiving less in packages than they did before the NDIS was introduced. This is giving an idea of how diverse the experiences are for people on the ground. The one thing that people want more than anything is to have some certainty across the board and to know what they can expect. They also want to have consistency across Australia. Whether we go with a federal system or a state system, we know that people with disability within WA want to ensure that whatever package they end up with will not be less than that of their counterparts in the rest of Australia. This was a very hard fought for reform. As we keep saying, it is one of the largest reforms to have ever happened in this country. We need to make sure that we get it right, and the way that we get it right is by ensuring that people with disability and their families design the system and identify the problems. We also need to support their organisations, which are best placed to provide that broad-picture thinking, so that we can get this right.
Question put and passed.