7.1
One of the most consistent themes arising in the evidence provided to the inquiry concerned the training, experience and expertise of planners. One participant summed up the view of many submitters and witnesses to the inquiry as follows:
If you get a good planner, you get a good plan. Get a dud planner, you get a dud plan. There is too much inconsistency, lack of expertise and experience in planning staff at the moment and participants are suffering unnecessarily because of that.
7.2
As outlined in Chapter 1, the term ‘planner’ can refer to local area coordinators (LACs), who are employed under contractual arrangements with the NDIA’s Partners in the Community, and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) planners, who include delegates of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), or those with decision-making power regarding the supports the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) will fund. LACs develop plans for participants, but only NDIA planners can approve the plans. Not all participants develop their plans with LACs; some will engage directly with an NDIA planner.
7.3
Planners need to take into account the disabilities, circumstances, goals and wishes of participants and their support networks, the legislative and policy framework that provides guidance on what to include in a plan and the kinds of supports that would help to address participants’ goals and set them up for a better life in the future.
7.4
This chapter outlines the following issues related to planner training and expertise:
Performance pressures on planners.
Planner retention and staff turnover.
Planner errors
7.5
The committee received a considerable body of evidence outlining planner errors in plans. Some suggested that LACs were not passing on information to NDIA decision makers, or that NDIA planners were inputting incorrect information that did not reflect what was discussed in planning meetings. In some instances, the committee was informed, planners may be incorrectly listing participants’ names and their disability type.
7.6
Multiple submitters provided examples of planner errors. For example, the mother of a participant reported that she had ‘had NDIS planners not take any notes during a planning meeting’. Another participant reported that they received a plan with an increase in funding seven months after a planned review, despite not having a planning meeting:
My goals and description of my circumstances had not been updated. This plan did not reflect the changes in my life. It said I lived with a son and my Assistance Dog would soon be coming home – he had been there for six months, and my son had left home. They had included funding for upkeep of my [Psychiatric Assistance Dog] for two years, but had told me that it was going to be reassessed at my next scheduled review.
The paperwork said that funding had been approved so I wasn’t even able to challenge the decision, because it looked on paper as if I had won. Imagine if they told a wheelchair user that the vital technology they need was to be reviewed and possibly removed every two years?
7.7
An advocacy organisation commented that of several hundred plans that it had advocated for, only one had met the participant’s needs. In some instances, it reported, planners may not even be correctly identifying the participant’s disability in their plan.
7.8
One single mother of two participants with autism—who herself had recently been granted access to the NDIS as well—submitted that planners had rewritten:
…all of the goals I had presented in my daughter’s planning meeting… They omitted any information regarding risk of challenging behaviour, and made up [a] medical team to make it look like the support needs were minimal and there were more supports surrounding her…[I]t’s a ridiculous waste of resources to change people’s goals (against legislation), and to not send a draft.
7.9
The sibling of a participant, who attended a plan review meeting, reported that after the planner was asked to read back what they had typed, ‘it was significantly different to what had been discussed with missing detail. If we hadn’t asked for this we would not have had the opportunity to make corrections’.
7.10
Roundsquared, which provides mentoring, support and consultancy services to people with disability and their families, outlined examples of planner errors that included:
A participant’s goal being listed as ‘I would like to increase my capacity to complete writing my book’, despite the participant’s ‘enormous difficulty reading’ and the participant, according to his mother, never saying in the meeting that he wanted to write a book.
Plan content being cut and pasted from other participants’ plans, where the names of the other participant have not been changed in the new plan.
7.11
Leadership Plus called for the NDIA to improve accountability for administrative errors and complaints.
7.12
People with Disabilities WA suggested that the number of planner errors that participants see in plans is a result of planner fatigue and not enough staff to carry out the planning process.
7.13
As outlined in Chapter 2, the national roll-out of joint planning, which will involve participants seeing a draft plan at a meeting with an NDIA decision-maker, began in March 2020. However, the NDIA reported that it is currently paused while the NDIA focuses on its response to providing critical services during COVID-19 and maintaining physical distancing requirements.
Performance pressures on planners
7.14
The committee received evidence arguing that performance pressures and workloads for LACs in particular and planners in general are too high. For example, People with Disabilities WA submitted that although the NDIA guarantees that participants can have a face-to-face meeting with a planner, ‘planners have disclosed that they are being pressured into getting people to do plans over the phone because this allows them to do more plans per day’. It further argued that the pressures on planners meant that they did not have time to read evidence submitted to support participants’ requests for supports. This issue is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6.
7.15
This sentiment was echoed by the Australian Services Union, which shared that its members working the disability sector, particularly LACs, had reported that ‘caseloads, specifically the quantum and timeframes set, are unreasonable and have created work, health and safety issues in a number of workplaces’. Further, it stated that its members had argued that ‘the focus on the number of plans they develop over the quality is affecting participants’ plans’ and the key performance indicators (KPIs) from the NDIA were ‘unrealistic’. Planners, it submitted, were working unpaid overtime to meet their KPIs and taking on the caseloads of other staff whose contracts were not renewed or who had resigned, with high staff turnover. One of the Australian Services Union’s members reported that in some instances, LACs may be taking workloads of 80–120 participants.
7.16
The Community and Pubic Sector Union (CPSU) informed the committee that a number of negative impacts were arising as a result of performance pressures on planners. These included:
LACs were forced to accept that many of the plans they developed would need plan reviews to correct plan details and supports.
LACs did not have the time to explain plans in a way that would be understandable to participants.
LACs did not have time to develop relationships with participants and their families.
7.17
Roundsquared reported that LACs were allocated 90 minutes for the planning process and 90 minutes to write up a plan. It argued that this would be possible if the participant’s situation was stable and the nature of their disability was not complex, but much more difficult if the participant had significant changes to their living situation or functional capacity, needed home modifications or assistive technology, or if the LAC needed to call therapists or support coordinators to clarify information. It submitted that many LACs had reported that they often had to finish plans by working an additional three or four hours at home at night.
7.18
Roundsquared further noted that planners and LACs may hear concerning issues raised during planning meetings, such as matters related to domestic violence, child abuse, tragic accidents and homicide, meaning that a participant or family member may need time to compose themselves. It suggested that planners and LACs may be ‘ill-equipped for these disclosures’ and ‘may reflect on these issues for some time after the meeting’.
7.19
Submitters made the following suggestions to alleviate performance pressures on planners:
Allocate more time for LACs to carry out planning meetings and to develop plans.
Improve training and remuneration for LACs to attract more qualified staff.
Allocate additional time for planning meetings with participants with mental health conditions, given medication can often slow thought processes and tight time constraints can increase anxiety.
Ensure that LACs are adequately resourced to carry out their role, including linking participants to community supports.
NDIA planners to take responsibility for planning meetings, rather than LACs.
7.20
As noted in previous chapters, the NDIA began the national roll-out of joint planning for new participants in March 2020 in Robina, Queensland. Joint planning involves planning meetings between participants, LACs and the NDIA delegate who will approve the participant’s plan. The NDIA advised that further roll-out of joint planning has been placed on hold while the NDIA focuses on responding to the COVID-19 pandemic and adhering to physical distancing requirements in meetings.
Planner retention and staff turnover
7.21
The committee heard that there is a high turnover of planners and this has impacted plan outcomes and led to plan inconsistencies. For example, Leadership Plus argued that staff turnover in the NDIA ‘has been endemic since the NDIS commenced. Enormous amounts of money and time must have been spent training people who have left’.
7.22
Early Childhood Intervention Australia Victoria/Tasmania suggested that ‘recruitment of a skilled and proficient workforce continues to be an issue’ across planning, along with high staff turnover.
7.23
The Australian Services Union argued in relation to LACs that a ‘system of poorly paid workers with no training opportunities cannot give each client the quality individualised plans they need’. Similarly, Carers Victoria also called for planners to be well remunerated, arguing that wages ‘are the strongest motivator in attracting and keeping skilled workers’.
7.24
The NDIA argued that it ‘does not have a high turnover rate for planners’. It reported that its turnover rate for a financial year for planners is 8.36 per cent, with the average separation rate for ongoing Australian Public Service planners being lower than the average turnover across the Commonwealth. Although this figure only includes government (NDIA) employees, the NDIA reported that the current rolling average separation rate for LACs is only slightly higher, at 9 per cent. This figure is impacted by contracts ending for some Partners in the Community.
7.25
The NDIA also contended that it had ‘an engaged workforce which in turn drives high performance, with survey results indicating an Engagement Index (or emotional connection and commitment employees have to working for their organisation) of 80 per cent. It outlined the following recent initiatives it has undertaken to address employee retention:
New talent and succession strategies.
A recognition and celebration program to foster a culture where employees feel valued for their contributions and celebrate the achievements of their colleagues.
An employee experience project to monitor and improve employee experiences and staff retention.
Networks to understand and address any concerns among diversity cohorts, such as the Employee Disability Network, LGBTIQA+ network and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Network.
The number of planners
7.26
Multiple submitters argued that an inadequate number of planners has led to delays in organising planning meetings, developing plans and conducting plan reviews. For example, Carers Victoria suggested that the number of planners is so limited ‘that they are copying and pasting sections from other participants’ reports’ because of demand on their time.
7.27
Calling the Brain’s Bluff, in a submission written by a participant, argued that there are not enough planners, noting that:
When I asked to have my [plan] review at home, they wanted me to go to them because they are understaffed. Even though I was happy to go to the office, I feel it was wrong to expect a person with a disability who is unable to drive and is wheelchair bound to attend. I had to pay my support worker extra for travel time to and from the meeting.
7.28
The NDIA, like the remainder of the Commonwealth public service, is subject to a yearly average staffing cap. The Australian Government’s 2020–21 budget accounted for average staffing levels for 2020–21 to be 4,000. In 2019–20, the average staffing level was set at 3,230. This cap does not include services contracted out to Partners in the Community.
7.29
Noah’s Ark Inc argued that ‘delays coupled with the lack of preparation by some planners’ for planning meetings ‘indicate that planners are overloaded’ and that there are insufficient planning staff, particularly in rural and regional areas. Children and Young People with Disability Australia suggested that ‘workforce shortages are also affecting the meeting duration with NDIA staff and the volume does not allow for extra time to answer all the questions required’.
7.30
Allied Health Professions Australia (AHPA) argued that in some regions, LACs ‘are taking on an expanded role to address what appears to be lack of access to planners’, leading to issues with planner knowledge and consistency.
7.31
ADACAS Advocacy submitted that ‘the most commonly quoted reason’ for delays in participants getting a planning meeting is a lack of planners. Maurice Blackburn Lawyers submitted that their experience of engaging with the NDIS on behalf of clients suggested that:
…there may be a lack of planners, relative to the demand for plans. This perception is borne from our experience of working with people with disability who have had their eligibility to join the NDIS determined, but then cannot get in to see a planner.
7.32
Family Advocacy suggested that if more planners were available, and if these planners were ‘well-trained, good quality planners’, this could lead to more time allocated per participant, meaning planners could better understand participants’ needs, create better quality plans and lead to ‘far less applications for plans to be reviewed and cost the NDIA less in resources’.
7.33
Queensland Advocacy Incorporated suggested that because LACs may have very high caseloads, they may not have sufficient time to link and connect participants to services, perhaps leading to the number of requests from participants for support coordination.
7.34
The Queensland Office of the Public Guardian reported that the NDIA was changing plan dates to manage plans for, particularly, participants in the Complex Support Needs pathway and younger participants in aged care, ‘as there are few planners with the experience, expertise or qualifications to undertake this work’. It suggested that this issue had arisen because of ‘an understaffing of planners which may be impacted by the NDIA’s staff cap’.
7.35
The NDIA advised the committee in January 2020 that ‘Partners in the Community delivering LAC services are required to comply with Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) as set out in their agreements with the NDIA’. These KPIs concern timeliness, plan support and implementation and participant satisfaction, and may differ across agreements because of the different phases during the roll-out of the NDIS during which they were engaged. The NDIA stated that it is currently working with Partners in the Community ‘to improve reporting outcomes and establish a revised KPI and Assurance Framework’.
7.36
In its answer to a question on notice from the committee about how the Australian Government is ensuring that planning staff are not subject to unreasonable KPIs and that there is a sufficient number of staff to deal with plans and reviews, the Department of Social Services (DSS) stated:
The Australian Government is committed to ensuring the NDIS is fully funded both for participant supports and for the NDIA’s operating expenses. The appropriation bills the Government puts to the parliament ensure that, together with the funds paid to the NDIA by states and territories, the funds the NDIA receives and holds are sufficient to meet all the expenditure incurred.
Planner expertise
7.37
The committee learned during the course of the inquiry that planners’ expertise and backgrounds may vary considerably, including their understanding of disability and its impact on participants’ lives. It should be noted that the NDIA does not require planners to have lived experience in disability or allied health or disability-related qualifications.
7.38
The committee was informed that some NDIA personnel, including those in managerial positions, had disclosed ‘personal views which are abhorrent and contradict NDIS principles’.
7.39
In one instance reported to the committee, a planner asked a family whether Down Syndrome was a permanent condition. The Royal Australasian College of Physicians noted a similar example where a participant with Down Syndrome had been asked how long they had had Down Syndrome. In other instances, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians reported that planners were asking participants’ families whether their child’s condition had improved, in cases where a condition was palliative, listed as degenerative or where an expert had stated that the disability would have lifelong impacts requiring therapy and care. The College argued that such questions indicated ‘a gap in knowledge and understanding of particular conditions on the part of NDIS planners and Local Area Coordinators’.
7.40
Similarly, Kelmax Disability Services commented that it had often heard of planners telling participants that ‘they will fully recover from treatment resistant schizophrenia…This is inappropriate and reflects in the plans with insufficient support based on assumptions’ rather than clinical evidence.
7.41
Mx Ricky Buchanan, a participant, explained the impact of a planner not understanding that Mx Buchanan was bedridden and could not sit or travel in a car to leave the house because of her disability:
…one of the things I was told is that one of the reasons NDIA would not fund art therapy was because I could use my core funding to use a support worker to take me to a mainstream art class.
I explained…that I could not attend art classes because I can’t travel and there are no extant accomodations that would allow me to do so…
Then the [Review of Reviewable Decisions] officer followed up by emailing my LAC a list of local art classes that they suggested I might attend, having emailed the providers to ask if there was ‘bed access’ which they implied involved my providing a bed (which it seems they thought I could bring with me?) in the classroom. This is an imaginary nonsense which makes no sense when given even minor thought…Even if I could travel, how on earth would anybody bring a bed with them to class? I can’t imagine any support worker has a car that would fit a bed into it. How would you get a bed through the door of an art class, even?
This level of complete and utter misunderstanding of my most basic needs…makes it very hard to trust that NDIA understands me at all, and very hard to trust that NDIA will fund my needs. If they don’t even understand or believe that I have these needs, or have the faintest idea of what the needs entail, how could they possibly be in a position to accurately judge whether my needs are reasonable and necessary?
7.42
A participant with psychosocial disability reported that the manager in their planning meeting, despite being brought in as a mental health expert, seemed unaware of the measures the participant needed to make them feel safe:
My son attended a review meeting with me, and he had told another manager who enquired prior to the meeting how they could help me feel comfortable: that they could help me manage the meeting with kindness and a cup of tea.
At one point in the meeting I was so upset with how I was being spoken to and their talk of me losing my psychiatric assistance dog (PAD), I had a triggered behaviour episode. This is when I feel so unsafe, I lose awareness and I involuntarily hit my head with my hands…It is upsetting to see but it is part of my condition that can be managed when I am in safe surroundings and people are not threatening…
My son, seeing I was distressed asked if I could have a cup of tea. [The manager attending with the planner] refused. He asked for a cup of hot water so I could calm myself down and she said ‘No.’ He had to leave me sitting there while he left to go to the nearest coffee shop to get a cup of tea so I could self soothe.
Everything about this meeting was inappropriate. I will never be able to enter that building again yet I have been told that is my only option.
7.43
Early Childhood Intervention Australia Victoria/Tasmania provided the following example from a parent outlining planner inexperience:
As a parent you are attempting to build rapport and trust with a person who you know has very little or no experience in community health disability, social work or allied health but rather has completed a two day course...This inexperience was comically evident when my first planner resigned without me even knowing (after leaving messages on her phone for 6 weeks) as nobody informed me. The second planner was so junior she required her manager to be present at the assessment meeting but a mere five weeks later she was so senior at my daughter’s planning meeting she was now training a new planner…[T]his is not a joke, as the planner is the determining force in what level of early intervention my daughter will receive.
7.44
One participant with psychosocial disability argued that ‘tertiary qualifications and Government department work history is meaningless if planners do not possess necessary skills like empathy, listening, self-reflection and the ability to imagine’. Similarly, Mr Sean Redmond from AEIOU Foundation suggested that planners needed ‘to come from a very caring and understanding background, and you need to take the time to listen to the families’. Qualifications, he argued, did not necessarily determine whether a planner would have these skills.
7.45
AEIOU Foundation suggested that in some respects, it may be better if planners do not have previous expertise in disability ‘to avoid a bias (unconscious or not)’ that could influence their opinions. It suggested that social workers or counsellors might be better suited to the role.
7.46
The Queensland Office of the Public Guardian informed the committee that in its experience, participants had generally experienced ‘better outcomes’ when their plan was facilitated by a planner within the NDIA rather than a LAC, especially if the participant had complex needs and life circumstances. This was echoed by the Northern Territory Office of the Public Guardian, which suggested that external partners ‘have the same or higher skill deficiencies as the NDIA planners’.
7.47
The Office of the Public Advocate (Victoria) suggested that the ‘level of expertise of the planner appointed to any one participant is seemingly determined by chance outside of the Complex Support Needs Pathway’, leading to considerable variations in the ‘quality of the plans’ (see Chapter 8 for further discussion of this pathway). Other submitters made similar points. For example, People with Disabilities WA argued that participants ‘should not feel penalised because they have a different planner who has less knowledge’ than the planner of a friend. The Australian Lawyers Alliance reported that:
Anecdotally, we have been told that a participant’s experience with the NDIS is largely defined by their planner – if you get a ‘good’ one, you are likely to have a positive experience. However, if you get a ‘bad’ one, your plan is unlikely to be sufficient nor appropriate, forcing you down the path of internal and external review.
It is entirely inappropriate that a participant’s experience with the NDIS, and their prospects of receiving an appropriate plan, should be defined by chance. Yet this is exactly what seems to be occurring given the huge variance in capacity among the planners.
7.48
Roundsquared expressed its concern that the NDIA, in its position descriptions for planners, does not require applicants to have qualifications in the areas of disability, early childhood development, mental health, rehabilitation or community/health education. It suggested that ‘the experience, expertise and qualifications of planners and LACs may well be suited to the bureaucracy’ but are not sufficient for planners and LACs to understand the range of disabilities, the functional capacity of particular disabilities, the inter-relationship of multiple disability types, and the impact of caring on families.
The impact of limited planner expertise
7.49
In some instances, the limited expertise of planners may be ‘disheartening’ and ‘distressing’ for participants. According to MND And Me Foundation, families had reported that when they had asked their planner if they had any direct knowledge or experience with Motor Neurone Disease (MND), a ‘common response’ was: ‘[n]o, not directly. But I have had a quick look online’. Without planner knowledge or expertise, MND And Me suggested, plan gaps may arise because the planner is unaware of the progressive and unpredictable nature of MND.
7.50
The impact of limited planner expertise, Orthoptics Australia informed the committee, can lead to inadequate knowledge of what supports or equipment would be appropriate, and planners giving incorrect information about the best interventions and supports to address participant needs. This in turn may increase the number of appeals made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) (see Chapter 10 for further discussion of the AAT). For example, Vision Australia suggested that because of limited planner knowledge of the impact of vision impairment on a participant, planners may drastically reduce funding for other supports, such as community access, when including funding for a dog guide in a plan, despite a dog being unable to assist a person in choosing which items to buy in a supermarket, for example.
7.51
A plan manager suggested that even qualified health professionals are not able to understand all disability experience ‘and obtain additional professional development or qualifications if working with a specific population’. They argued the ‘same principle of specialisation should be applied to planners’.
7.52
A further impact of limited planner expertise raised in the inquiry was planners not understanding how to communicate with participants. Carers Victoria provided the following example:
It is very common for people to state they are ‘fine’ with showering, for example; however, they do not state it may take a family member prompting them 10 times over a 2-hour period before they get into the shower. Planners need to be skilled at interpreting what lays beneath a participant’s statement of being ‘fine’.
Submitter suggestions for change
7.53
Suggestions from submitters for changes to improve planner expertise were not uniform. These proposals included the following:
Require planners to hold a relevant tertiary-level qualification or equivalent skills, or make these highly desirable in the selection criteria for planners.
Require planners working in the complex support needs pathway in particular to have higher-level qualifications in, for example, allied health, with specialisations in areas like mental health, homelessness, the criminal justice system and family violence.
Develop a national basic principles framework or evidence-based framework for planners to align with existing frameworks used by health and allied health professionals working with people with disability.
Create a feedback system, whereby participants could give the NDIA feedback on a planner.
Training for planners and service providers to help them understand the supports needed for vulnerable cohorts in particular.
Require planners to have experience in human services, allied health or disability.
Offer incentives for staff to undertake further study to understand the nature and scope of disabilities.
Create communities of practice to help LACs and planners further understand the nature of different disabilities, the trajectory of degenerative conditions, the impacts of caring, and assistive technology.
Develop greater specialisation within planner teams and allocate work based on that expertise.
The NDIA’s position
7.54
In its submission of September 2019 to the inquiry, the NDIA outlined that most NDIA planners working with complex participants have at least ‘five years’ experience in high-level case coordination, and a relevant professional qualification in disability, mental health, allied health, social work, education, justice or health/human services’.
7.55
In its response to a question on notice from the committee on why it does not require planners to have expertise or lived experience in disability or allied health related areas, the NDIA provided the following comments:
The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) does not require planners to have lived expertise or lived experience in disability or allied health related areas, however these are highly valued. The NDIA is focused on ensuring employees have the right motivational fit and meet Commonwealth work level standards for internal Agency staff.
All planners and Local Area Coordinators (LACs) attend in-depth training called the New Starter Program, where learners develop skills to actively listen to participants and their nominees about their lived experiences and the impact of their disabilities. This is continued into on-the-job training to learn in more detail about the supports that may benefit participants.
Planner training
7.56
Some evidence indicated that many people have ‘no idea what training the NDIA provides for planners’. One submitter, who self-managed the plans for both her son and her sister, submitted that ‘I don’t know what training or development planners have, other than to say in my experience, they need much more of it…I would really like to know what training is currently available to the planners’.
7.57
Another submitter, whose son was a participant, suggested that if current training for planners does exist, ‘it must be rated as extremely unsatisfactory. In an effective system of training…it should be expected that consistent outcomes would be produced by several different planners…’
7.58
A participant with psychosocial disability was of the opinion that ‘I think planners should have annual and compulsory training and professional development to develop and maintain their ability to respond to participants with kindness, compassion, respect and care’. This participant reported that an NDIA delegate had laughed ‘at me when I started crying’.
7.59
Queensland Advocacy Incorporated called for ‘transparency and accountability regarding the requisite base level training planners must undertake, along with the additional training provided’.
7.60
In some instances, the inquiry learned, providers may be spending ‘significant time, energy and resources in capacity building with planners who come to planning meetings very poorly prepared’, with providers sometimes aware of new NDIA procedures before planners were. Early Start Australia argued that that on ‘a regular basis we as providers are fulfilling an unpaid education and support role helping families navigate changes their planners are not aware of’.
7.61
Multiple submitters called for more training for planners and LACs to help them understand the impact of disability. The Australian Services Union reported that its members had ‘identified the lack of investment in training since the rollout of the NDIS as a key issue for the workforce’, with LACs in particular calling for more training.
7.62
Services for Australian Rural and Remote Allied Health (SARRAH) suggested that the role of planners is ‘primarily procedural’—which is not problematic if participants are informed and well-supported during planning. However, SARRAH suggested that where this is not the case, ‘planners may have little incentive or awareness of a possible need to investigate the circumstances and needs of the individual beyond that required to complete a planning process’.
7.63
Submitters to the inquiry called for more training, professional development and capacity building for planners in the following areas:
What it is like to have a disability, with people with disability telling their stories of the challenges that they face in everyday life and in achieving their goals.
Aboriginal cultural safety.
Best practice early childhood intervention.
Child and adolescent development and transition to adulthood.
Knowledge of disability types.
Working with parents/caregivers with disability.
Families and children and young people at risk, including those involved with the child protection system.
Children and young people living in families facing disadvantage.
Working with people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
Participants living in rural and remote Australia.
7.64
Multiple submitters and witnesses proposed that the NDIA consider increasing its sourcing of professional development from experts, including health industry peak bodies and the allied health professions.
The NDIA’s position
7.65
The NDIA provided the committee with an outline of the training that it provides for NDIA planners and LACs:
The New Starter Program, implemented nationally from September 2018, which provides an overview of planning with a focus on participants over the age of seven, and incorporates skill development for planners to undertake planning conversations.
Specialised training for all planners and Early Childhood Early Intervention Partners who develop plans for participants aged 0–6, provided by technical and subject matter experts in the NDIA Early Childhood Services team.
Compulsory Contemporary Disability Rights training for all planning staff
Disability Awareness training.
Service Delivery Training Programs, including psychosocial awareness training.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Awareness training for all planning staff.
Additional and locally focused on-the-job training for staff living in remote and very remote locations with concentrates on building rapport and conversation styles with reference to First Nation Peoples.
LGBTIQA+ inclusion training.
Inclusion and Diversity training for planners working with participants who are from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
Collaborations with key advocacy organisations to build staff knowledge on specific disabilities.
7.66
The NDIA stated that this ‘formal training references and is supplemented by additional materials and external resources about different disabilities and the impacts of these on participants’ lives’, which may include Practice Guides and Disability Snapshots, which are fact sheets for the most common disabilities in the NDIS. As of October 2020, the NDIA had 23 Snapshots. Further, its Disability Navigator contains interviews with people living with disability and includes topics such as ‘how to communicate with me’, their lived experience and reference points to learn more about their disability.
7.67
The NDIA expressed its commitment to continuing ‘to expand these resources by adding to the library of snapshots and videos, and the useful links and resources associated with each disability type’.
Committee view
7.68
The evidence provided to the inquiry suggested that a considerable number of planner errors, as reported by participants, may be because of performance pressures on LACs in particular, staff numbers, limited planner expertise and inadequate training for planners. The committee emphasises that the issues raised in this chapter about planners are not intended as a criticism of individuals involved in the planning process, who are often doing good work under trying circumstances.
7.69
The committee commends the NDIA for commencing the national roll-out of joint planning and recognises that COVID-19 has prevented the NDIA from continuing this roll-out. Given that joint planning meetings and providing participants with draft plans will likely significantly reduce the number of errors made in plans, the committee encourages the NDIA to continue the roll-out of joint planning and draft plans as soon as reasonably practicable.
7.70
The committee reiterates its recommendation in Chapter 2 that participants be given draft plans at least a week before their joint planning meeting so that they are able to show these to experts to correct major errors, such as inappropriate recommendations for therapies and supports.
7.71
The committee commends the NDIA for its broad training program but notes that public knowledge of this training is limited, with some submitters to the inquiry even questioning whether planners had received any training. The NDIS website does not appear to have any easily locatable information on the training provided to planners. As such, the committee recommends that the NDIA publish this information on the NDIS website in a place where participants, their families, advocacy groups, providers and allied health professionals can easily find it. Doing so would help to improve the NDIA’s transparency and lead to increased confidence in the work of its planners.
7.72
The committee recommends that the National Disability Insurance Agency publish information about the training it provides to planners, Local Area Coordinators and Early Childhood Early Intervention partners on the National Disability Insurance Scheme website in an easily accessible location.
7.73
Given the impact that planner decisions can have on participants’ lives, including whether the supports for which participants are funded are appropriate or clinically advisable, the committee considers that the NDIA should give greater preference in its recruitment processes for planners to candidates who have experience or qualifications in allied health or disability‑related areas. The committee at this stage does not consider that this expertise should be made compulsory, given the other recommendations that the committee has made in this report to improve the transparency and accountability of planning decision-making. However, the committee is open to reconsidering its position in future inquiries, if the issues raised in this inquiry persist.
7.74
The committee recommends that when conducting recruitment processes for planners, the National Disability Insurance Agency give greater preference to candidates with experience or qualifications in allied health or disability‑related areas.
7.75
The committee notes that the Australian Government has allocated funds for an additional 770 NDIA staff in its 2020–21 Budget, compared with the 2019–20 Budget, and that some participants are moving to longer plans, meaning that there may be reduced need for plan reviews and the staff to carry these out. However, new demands may be placed on NDIA planning staff in the forthcoming roll-out of joint planning, with NDIA delegates required to attend joint planning meetings. To address this potential shortfall, the committee recommends that the Australian Government ensure that the NDIA is sufficiently resourced to meet future planning needs.
7.76
The committee recommends that the Australian Government ensure that the National Disability Insurance Agency is sufficiently resourced to meet future planning needs.
7.77
Finally, the committee acknowledges the considerable body of evidence concerning performance pressures on LACs. The committee is not in a position to determine whether these performance pressures have continued beyond the national roll-out of the NDIS, or whether they will continue in the future with the full roll-out of joint planning meetings. However, given the impact that high workloads and performance pressures seem to have had on the work of LACs to date, and the implication suggested in Chapter 6 that LACs may not have time to read expert reports, the committee recommends that the Australian Government and/or the NDIA conduct an inquiry into the workload and responsibilities of the NDIA’s Partners in the Community. This inquiry should include, if relevant, whether the Australian Government should provide more funding for these programs, whether Partners in the Community are subject to conflicts of interest in making the decision to refer participants to NDIA planners or propose support coordination, and whether the responsibilities of Partners in the Community should change following the full roll-out of joint planning. The committee notes that the Australian Government is currently reviewing the LAC framework, and recommends that this review be expanded to cover the issues mentioned above.
7.78
The committee recommends that the Australian Government conduct an inquiry into the workload and changing responsibilities of the National Disability Insurance Agency’s Partners in the Community.