HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2022-05-17 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Motions

National Disability Insurance Scheme

The Hon. N.F. COOK (Hurtle Vale—Minister for Human Services) (16:35): I move:

That the Social Development Committee inquire into, and report on, the impact of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) on South Australians living with disability who have complex needs and are, or are at risk of, residing for long periods in inappropriate accommodation (such as hospital or residential aged care), with reference to:

(a) ability to access and navigate the requirements of the NDIS;

(b) the timeliness of approval for appropriate specialist disability supports, including home and living decisions through the NDIS; and processes that may lead to delays;

(c) the adequacy of funding in NDIS plans to fund the supports required;

(d) the ability of the NDIS workforce and market (including the specialist disability accommodation policy settings and market) in South Australia to deliver necessary accommodation and funded supports;

(e) the impact on the wellbeing of participants of these inappropriate accommodation arrangements;

(f) any negative impacts on state government services; and

(g) any other relevant matters.

This referral comes after many points of advocacy to members' offices on our side of the house and, I am sure, on the other side of the house, from people living with disability and their advocates. Many would be aware that South Australian taxpayers provide more than $800 million per annum to support the NDIS. The NDIS is a game changer. Choice and control is something that people with disability have wanted for decades, and now it is being delivered, but sometimes there are obstructions in the way of a successful pathway to choice and control.

While the scheme has been of huge benefit to many South Australians, sadly some of those who need it most either do not get access or suffer serious delays in planning and approvals. This does include people who lack support frameworks and networks or families who can advocate for them, so sadly these people can be left without a pathway to that choice and control without advocacy.

This often includes people with complex needs, particularly those with acquired brain injury, cognitive impairments and intellectual disability—those who can least afford it. There are other groups, such as people with language and cultural barriers, that are not adequately addressed by the NDIS in particular in relation to accommodation needs.

Prior to the NDIS, there were people in hospital for lengthy periods of time. It goes without saying—this is not a new thing—that people with disability often ended up with prolonged hospitalisation periods over many years. However, with the state handing over its funding and the coordination responsibility to the NDIS, there has been a notable increase in the number of people who remain in hospital for longer, obstructed and with barriers to discharge and success—barriers to choice and control and optimal accommodation outcomes.

There has been an apparent increase in the number of people with a disability with complex needs who require specialist robust housing, behaviour supports through allied health professionals, skilled and experienced staff. Much of this is down to different models of care, different models of support over decades and, with choice and control and the acknowledgement of the basic human rights of people with disability, modalities of care have changed.

Many people have entered the health system as social presentations due to provider failure. This is something that is providing an absolute barrier to discharge from hospital. The impact on the wellbeing of the person with disability and the health system is significant, as they often require complex and significant substantial resourcing, including security, to keep themselves and others safe.

An organisation, the Summer Foundation, has recently commenced a campaign to reduce the amount of time it takes to assess an application for NDIS housing support. I am watching this with interest, and I am hoping that this forms part of the inquiry. It is so important that these decisions are made well and also made quickly. Every day a person is stuck in hospital in inappropriate accommodation or with the wrong supports, delays their recovery and can even send them backwards. It prevents people from participating fully in the community and it does not maximise their potential in the long term.

This inquiry by the Social Development Committee will provide an opportunity for South Australians, particularly those in this situation, to tell their stories. It will help to ensure that South Australians—all of us—are getting the best value for the more than $800 million that is contributed to the NDIS but, more importantly, that people with disability are getting the best possible outcomes through the NDIS.

This is absolutely not a partisan referral; it is something I have spoken about across the house with other members of the opposition and also with members on this side of the chamber. It does not seek to lay any blame; it seeks to find some answers in order to insert some opportunity to provide housing for one group of people who are left wanting. This is about ensuring that the people we love and care for receive the support and services that not only are paid for but they deserve. I commend the motion to the house.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (16:41): I rise to speak on the motion to suspend the standing orders. In doing so, I indicate that I will be brief. There are pressing matters before the house. I indicate that we have no opposition to the substantive motion that is to follow the motion we are discussing, and I have no criticism to make of the Minister for Human Services' content. I would draw to the attention of the leader of the house—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry to interrupt, but I draw the member's attention to the fact that the house has already dealt with the suspension, so you are speaking to the substantive motion.

Mr GARDNER: In that case, thank you, sir, I will speak on the substantive motion's timeliness in this place. I indicate that, while the Minister for Human Services' speech is absolutely welcomed—we of course want to support people living with disability in Australia and in South Australia to live their best lives—and there is no problem with the Social Development Committee referral, this is not necessarily the right place to have done it, though, in the Address in Reply debate.

The opposition was advised this morning by the Government Whip that the government required two minutes to suspend standing orders to make this referral. I suggest that the Government Whip or the leader of the house might provide advice to their ministers in future that, if one wants to make a non-partisan/bipartisan committee referral, the first place to do that is in the committee itself. The committee can resolve on its own motion to have an inquiry.

The second place to do it is in a period on the Notice Paper entitled Committee Business, with notice given so that every member of the house can consider the matter and contribute to the debate at the time allocated for that. The third opportunity to do it is by a letter to the committee, followed by a ministerial statement before question time.

There are many ways in which the government could have handled this. Providing the opposition with a couple of hours' notice that two minutes would be required and then taking a substantially longer time than that is not the way to do it. I encourage the government to be honest with the opposition for the good management of the house in the four years to come.

Motion carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT