Brief history of the NDIS

Introduction

The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) provides support to people with disability, their families and carers. It is jointly governed and funded by the Australian, state and territory governments.[1] It is intended to replace the previous system of disability care and support provided under the National Disability Agreement.[2]

The NDIS was introduced by the Gillard Labor Government on 1 July 2013, beginning with a trial phase known as the NDIS Launch. The NDIS began to be introduced across Australia from July 2016. It is being progressively rolled out and is not due to be completed until 2019–20.

This section provides a brief history of the NDIS, including the context from which it emerged, the NDIS’s early development and the passage of legislation, and debates and issues. This is followed by a table listing milestones in the development of the scheme from 2007 until 30 June 2018.

2007—2011: proposals for alternative models

The NDIS is a major reform of disability support in Australia. The NDIS emerged from years of discussions about problems with the existing disability support arrangements, the need for reform, and proposals for new models of disability support. Key developments in the realisation of the NDIS are discussed below.

Senate inquiry into disability services

A 2007 Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs (the Committee) inquiry report, Funding and operation of the Commonwealth State/Territory Disability Agreement, made several recommendations relevant to the eventual introduction of the NDIS. Nationally, responsibilities for specialist disability services had been defined through a multilateral agreement between the Australian Government and the states and territories, known as the Commonwealth State/Territory Disability Agreement (CSTDA), and since 2009, as the National Disability Agreement.[3]

As the inquiry report noted, at this time:

 ... there had been criticism of the CSTDA on many fronts: by people with disabilities; by advocacy groups; by State and Territory Governments; and by the Australian National Audit Office ...[4]

In addition:

A number of issues were raised in debate to support an inquiry. People with a disability had pointed to a lack of clarity in the intent of the [Commonwealth State/Territory Disability] Agreement and changes to the Agreement over time. As a result, people with disabilities and their advocacy organisations and services commented that they were unsure and unclear about what the detail of the Agreement actually entailed. People with disabilities reported a lack of consistency in the application of the Agreement, not only State to State but also within States and Territories. They also stated that there is no portability of funding and support for those moving between States and Territories. It was also noted that people with a disability are ageing and that there was therefore a need to understand nationally the interface between the ageing portfolio and the disability portfolio.[5]

The Committee recommended the development of ‘a National Disability Strategy which would function as a high level strategic policy document, designed to address the complexity of needs of people with disability and their carers in all aspects of their lives’.[6] It said that this more strategic approach was necessary in order to:

 ... ensure a coordinated national approach to improving the delivery of disability services, to ensure that people with disability services access the services they require throughout their lives, to address interface issues within the disability sector and to ensure that future need for services is adequately addressed.[7]

In addition, it recommended that ‘a review of alternative funding arrangements be undertaken through the research and development program of the next CSTDA’.[8] This would consider such matters as:

• the likely costs and benefits of individualised funding
• the issues encountered in the introduction of alternative funding overseas
• provisions and alternatives to allow people with disabilities to choose the level of self-sufficiency with which they are comfortable
• the provision of decision support tools and services to assist people with disabilities, their families and carers.[9]

During the 2007 election campaign, the then opposition Labor Party committed to negotiate a National Disability Strategy with the states and territories, which would canvass, among other issues, ‘how to fund, finance and deliver disability services in the future’.[10]

Australia 2020 Summit

In April 2008, a submission to the Rudd Labor Government’s Australia 2020 Summit (the Summit) by disability advocates, Bruce Bonyhady and Helena Sykes, argued that the cost of caring for people with disabilities ‘represents a very large unfunded liability’ which would continue to grow significantly.[11] Bonyhady and Sykes argued that the situation was ‘similar to the problem identified in the 1980s, when it was recognised that an ageing population dependent on old age pensions would place an unacceptable burden on taxpayers’, and which ‘led to the introduction of compulsory superannuation’.[12] As such, they argued that:

The time is right to reform the disability sector: to shift from the current crisis-driven welfare system to a planned and fully-funded National Disability Insurance Scheme that will underwrite sustained, significant long-term improvements in meeting the needs of people with disabilities and their families.[13]

They suggested that the model for an NDIS already existed in the form of various fully-funded no-fault insurance schemes for people injured at work or in motor vehicle accidents in the states and territories. Bonyhady and Sykes proposed that the advantages of such a scheme would be significant:

First, with an insurance model the families of people with disabilities can have confidence that the needs of their family member will be met, reducing stress and risks of family breakdown. Second, a life-time approach to care ensures that early intervention and equipment is available immediately following diagnosis or injury, leading to better and lower cost long-term outcomes. Third, active case management facilitates as normal a life as possible and minimises the risks of over-dependence on publicly funded support. Fourth, a NDIS would provide funding for research, development of best practice models and public education to reduce the incidence of risky behaviours leading to disability.[14]

They argued that the contrast with the current scheme would be stark: ‘it would be equitable and enable people with disabilities and their families to be in control, make choices and plan their lives with confidence’.[15]

This idea was supported at the Summit and, accordingly, the Final Summit Report recommended:

Establish[ing] a National Disability Insurance Scheme, similar to a superannuation scheme, to support the families of children with brain injury from birth and other non-insurable injuries.[16]

The recommendation was not among those accepted for implementation by the Rudd Government when it announced its response to the Summit recommendations in April 2009.

Nevertheless, the Government did commit to considering:

 ... the development of an insurance model to meet the costs of long term care for people with disabilities in conjunction with the development of the National Disability Strategy.^[17]

As noted above, the development of a National Disability Strategy in partnership with the states and territories was a 2007 Labor Party election commitment.

National Disability Strategy

The National Disability Strategy (the Strategy) was developed by the Commonwealth, and state and territory governments under the auspices of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG).[18] The Strategy built on the National Disability Agreement signed in 2008 and it was intended to support Australia’s compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (the UN Convention) which the Government ratified in 2008. The purpose of the Strategy is to guide the development of disability policy across the jurisdictions.[19] It is a ten year plan (2010–20) setting out six priority areas for action: inclusive and accessible communities; rights protection; economic security; personal and community support; learning and skills; and health and wellbeing.[20] The Strategy was formally endorsed by COAG on 13 February 2011.[21]

As part of the development of the Strategy, new avenues for the funding and delivery of disability services were explored. Two key investigations were conducted by the Disability Investment Group and the Productivity Commission.

Disability Investment Group

In April 2008, the Government announced the establishment of the Disability Investment Group (DIG).[22] The role of the seven-member DIG was ‘to explore innovative funding ideas from the private sector that will help people with disability and their families’ [sic] access greater support and plan for the future’.[23]

The DIG submitted its report, The way forward: a new disability policy framework for Australia, to the Government in September 2009. The group’s principal recommendation was that ‘the Commonwealth Government, in consultation with States and Territories, should immediately commission a comprehensive feasibility study on a National Disability Insurance Scheme’.[24]

The DIG considered drawbacks of the current system and the future pressures that the ageing Australian population would place on the existing disability services and concluded that ‘a transformational shift in policy approach and service delivery is needed’.[25] The group recommended that the welfare model of disability services be replaced with a three pillar policy to support people with disability. They proposed the following three pillars:

• a new and comprehensive National Disability Insurance Scheme to deliver care and support for life for people with severe and profound disability using an individualised and lifetime approach, including reform of state/territory-based insurance schemes to include all traumatically injured people
• a strong income support system that facilitates people with disability who cannot support themselves through work, to live in dignity and
• a range of measures to enable increased private contributions.[26]

The DIG noted that an NDIS-like scheme had also been recommended at the Summit and in three other recent reports:

• J Harmer, The Pension Review report, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA), Canberra, 2009.
• House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family, Community, Housing and Youth Report, Who cares...? Report on the inquiry into better support for carers, House of Representatives, Canberra, 2009.
• National Disability Strategy Consultation Report prepared by the National People with Disabilities and Carer Council, Shut out: the experience of people with disabilities and their families in Australia, FaCHSIA, Canberra, 2009.

Productivity Commission report

In December 2009, as part of the development of the Strategy, the Government requested that the Productivity Commission investigate ‘the feasibility of new approaches, including a social insurance model, for funding and delivering long-term disability care and support for people with severe or profound disabilities however they are acquired’.[27] The Productivity Commission reported to Government on 31 July 2011, finding that:

The current disability support system is underfunded, unfair, fragmented, and inefficient. It gives people with a disability little choice, no certainty of access to appropriate supports and little scope to participate in the community. People with disabilities, their carers, service providers, workers in the industry and governments all want change.

Most people know little about Australia’s current disability system and do not know how poorly they would be served were they to need it—this is a system marked by invisible deprivation and lost opportunities. Yet major disability can happen to anyone and at anytime [sic]—a simple fall can lead to quadriplegia, and an illness to severe brain damage. Most families and individuals cannot adequately prepare for the large costs of lifetime care and support. The costs of lifetime care and support can be so high that the risks and costs need to be pooled.[28]

The Productivity Commission recommended that the current system be replaced by a new disability care and support scheme, the NDIS. The scheme proposed by the Productivity Commission would have three tiers, focused on three groups of people.

Tier 1 of the NDIS would effectively focus on the entire Australian population in that it would provide insurance (in the form of guaranteed support) for all Australians who acquire a significant disability. A further focus of Tier 1 would be to ‘minimise the impacts of disability’ through such activities as promoting opportunities for people with a disability and creating awareness in the community about issues affecting people with a disability.[29]

Tier 2 would include anyone with a disability and their primary carers (estimated by the Productivity Commission at around 4.8 million people).[30] The primary form of support provided in Tier 2 would be information and referral services, as distinct from funded care and support.

Tier 3 would provide long-term care and support to people with a significant and ongoing disability and who meet age and residency criteria (estimated at the time to be around 410,000 people).[31] People receiving supports under Tier 3 would have a disability that is, or is likely to be, permanent (that is, irreversible, even though it may be of a chronic episodic nature).[32] They would also have ‘significantly reduced functioning in self-care, communication, mobility or self-management and require significant ongoing support’ and/or be assessed as belonging to a group ‘for whom there was good evidence that [early] intervention would be safe, significantly improve outcomes and would be cost-effective’.[33]

The Productivity Commission proposed that Tier 3 would include the following features:

• entitlements to individually tailored supports based on the same assessment process
• certainty of funding based on need
• genuine choice over how needs are met (including choice of provider)
• local area coordinators and disability support organisations to provide grass roots support and
• a long term approach to care with a strong incentive to fund cost effective early interventions.[34]

The Australian, state and territory governments would establish a single agency, the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA), to administer and fund the NDIS. Services would be provided by non-government organisations, disability service organisations, state and territory disability service providers, individuals and mainstream businesses.[35]

The Productivity Commission emphasised the role of increased choice for people with disabilities under the proposed NDIS:

... support packages would be tailored to their individual needs. People could choose their own provider(s), ask an intermediary to assemble the best package on their behalf, cash out their funding allocation and direct the funding to areas of need (with appropriate probity controls and support), or choose a combination of these options.[36]

The Productivity Commission estimated that the NDIS would require an additional $6.5 billion annually. When added to the then annual expenditure on disability services of $7.1 billion, this would amount to an increase in funding of around 90 per cent. Noting that ‘current funding for disability is subject to the vagaries of governments’ budget cycles’, the Productivity Commission proposed that the Commonwealth Government ‘should finance the entire costs of the NDIS by directing payments from consolidated revenue into a “National Disability Insurance Premium Fund”, using an agreed formula entrenched in legislation’.[37] The NDIS was ultimately funded using a shared funding model, rather than the Commonwealth entirely funding the scheme.[38]

The Productivity Commission proposed the NDIS would commence in stages with:

• regional implementation in several states and territories beginning in July 2014 and
• progressive coverage of all groups in subsequent years, with a fully operational scheme by 2018–19.[39]

On release of the Productivity Commission’s report, the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, announced that the Government would ‘start work immediately with states and territories on measures that will build the foundations for a National Disability Insurance Scheme’.[40]

Early development, passage of legislation

Following work through COAG and bilateral negotiations with state and territory governments, the legislative framework for the NDIS launch was established with the passage of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (NDIS Act) on 21 March 2013.[41]

The NDIS commenced in stages from 1 July 2013 (one year ahead of the timetable proposed by the Productivity Commission), beginning with a pilot phase known as the NDIS Launch (later changed to NDIS ‘trials’ by the Abbott Government). Full rollout of the scheme commenced in all jurisdictions except Western Australia (WA) from July 2016. In WA a ‘nationally consistent’ but state operated NDIS was introduced from July 2017.[42] In December 2017, it was announced that the national NDIS would be rolled out in WA, with the NDIA assuming responsibility for the NDIS in that state from 1 July 2018.[43]

Debates about funding

Since 2013, much of the parliamentary debate about the NDIS has focused on how it will be funded.[44] Arrangements for funding the NDIS are complex, and exact settings for the full scheme are still under consideration, as outlined in a 2017 Productivity Commission position paper on NDIS costs.[45]

There is an ongoing debate about whether the initial funding arrangements for the NDIS were sufficient to cover the full, continuing, costs of the scheme. Labor has maintained the ‘NDIS was fully funded by the former Labor Government in the 2013-14 Budget’.[46] However, this has been challenged by members of the current Government. For example, the former Minister for Social Services, Christian Porter, has said that ‘the previous Labor government failed to fully-fund the NDIS, leaving a substantial funding gap of $3.8 billion for when the scheme is fully operational from 2020’.[47] In the 2017–18 Budget, the Government announced it would increase the Medicare levy from 2.0 per cent to 2.5 per cent of taxable income to ‘ensure the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is fully funded’.[48]

In the 2018–19 Budget, however, the Government reversed its decision to increase the Medicare levy.^[49] Shortly before the 2018–19 Budget, the Government announced that it could ‘fully fund’ the NDIS without it due to a stronger economy and an improved budget fiscal position.^[50] In response, Labor argued that the Government’s funding of the NDIS was ‘a clear admission’ that the NDIS has always been fully funded.^[51]

Implementation issues

As with any large-scale reform process, there have been some implementation challenges with the NDIS. Major and/or recurrent issues have included information and communications technology (ICT) problems, planning processes and quality, continuity of support arrangements, market readiness and workforce capacity.[52] Many of these challenges have been attributed to the speed and scale of the rollout of the NDIS.[53]

The NDIS began in four trial sites across Australia from 1 July 2013, with another three sites commencing on 1 July 2014. Following the trial, the national rollout of the NDIS began on 1 July 2016. At this time, the NDIA launched its new ICT system, the MyPlace Portal. Shortly after, media articles began to report that providers were not receiving payments due to MyPlace Portal problems.[54] In early August 2016, the Government announced an independent inquiry would be undertaken into ICT problems and payment failures.[55] The review by PricewaterhouseCoopers found that there was not a single cause of payment failures, but ‘a series of compounding issues which prevented a viable option to delay ICT implementation’.[56] The report further stated:

The Full Scheme ICT Implementation ran out of time to fully complete the required implementation activities and proceeded with the acceptance of the identified implementation risks with the intention of applying maximum response to the problems. However, the change effort and overall program was under-resourced and underprepared in order to provide the accurate and timely support required by participants and providers when faced with ICT challenges.[57]

The NDIA acknowledged that the problems with the ICT system ‘adversely impacted on both participants and providers and caused a loss of community confidence in the NDIA’s administration’.[58] The NDIA accepted the findings of the review and is implementing its recommendations.[59]

The Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS investigates a range of matters in relation to the NDIS, including the implementation, performance and governance of the NDIS, and the administration and expenditure of the NDIS.[60] In its inquiry into ‘General issues around the implementation and performance of the NDIS’, the committee heard evidence about participants’ difficulties accessing the NDIS and long waiting times between being approved as a participant and receiving a plan; and participants’ dissatisfaction with the planning process, including plans being made over the phone, participants not having the opportunity to review a draft of their plan, concerns about planners’ skills and competencies, inconsistencies in planning decisions, delays in planning and plan reviews, and the NDIA’s lack of transparency.[61]

The committee has also conducted inquiries into the provision of services under the Early Childhood Early Intervention Approach, and for people with psychosocial disabilities.[62] Current inquiries are underway to investigate the provision of hearing services and market readiness.[63]

In response to feedback from stakeholders—participants, families, carers and providers—in April 2017, the NDIA announced the NDIS Pathway Review. A specific concern responded to was the NDIA’s use of telephone planning, which ‘did not promote the development of an informed relationship about a person’s needs and requirements against their desired outcomes’.[64] In October 2017, the NDIA announced a ‘new participant pathway’ to improve participants’ and organisations’ experience with the NDIS.[65] Face-to-face planning meetings would be a key aspect of the new pathway. In November 2017, the NDIA announced the pilot of the new participant pathway would begin in mid-December 2018 in two NDIS regions in Victoria.[66]

In November 2017, the Parliament passed legislation to establish the NDIS Quality and Safeguard Commission (the Commission).[67] The Commission will oversee the quality and safety of services and support that participants access through the NDIS and ensure a nationally consistent regulatory framework for providers.[68] Establishment of the Commission was in part in response to the Community Affairs Reference Committee’s report in 2015 on violence, abuse and neglect against people with disability in institutional and residential settings.[69]

An independent study by researchers from the University of Sydney examined the impact of the NDIS on people with psychosocial disability, that is, disabilities that may arise from mental health issues. Released in January 2018, the report found low participation in the NDIS for people with psychosocial disability and estimated that a significant number of people with severe mental illness will have to rely on mental health services outside the NDIS.[70] The report identified gaps in two main areas: administration of the NDIS and continuity of support for people ineligible for support. The NDIA responded to the report on their ‘On the record’ page, describing it as unbalanced and based on ‘factually incorrect data that does not recognise work that is already underway by the NDIA’.[71] In the 2017–2018 Budget, the Government allocated $80 million over four years to fund psychosocial support for people not eligible for the NDIS.[72]

The final report of an independent evaluation of the NDIS trial was released in April 2018.[73] The evaluation found numerous positives about the NDIS, including it being ‘designed and built on sound fundamentals’ and that it was ‘delivering the outcomes that it was designed to deliver’.[74] It found that many participants reported improved satisfaction with the quality of supports and high satisfaction that supports were reasonable and necessary. However, a large minority of people (about one third) reported that they were not better off under the NDIS, and a small minority (between 10 and 20 per cent) were worse off.

NDIS milestones

Table: NDIS milestones 2007–2018

• References

  [1].     L Buckmaster, The National Disability Insurance Scheme: a quick guide, Research paper series, 2016–17, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2017.

  [2].     Under the National Disability Agreement, the Australian Government has responsibility for providing employment services for people with disability and funding for states and territories to assist with meeting the objectives of the agreement. State and territory governments are responsible for specialist disability services, such as accommodation support, respite care, community support, community access, and advocacy and information for people with disability. Until the full rollout of the NDIS, responsibilities under the National Disability Agreement remain.

  [3].     Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, Funding and operation of the Commonwealth State/Territory Disability Agreement, The Senate, Canberra, 2007, p. 2.

  [4].     Ibid.

  [5].     Ibid.

  [6].     Ibid., p. x.

  [7].     ibid., p. 21.

  [8].     Ibid., pp. xii.

  [9].     Ibid., pp. xiii.

  [10].    J McLucas, Disability and carers, Australian Labor Party policy document, Election 2007.

  [11].    B Bonyhady and H Sykes, Submission to Australia 2020 Summit, ‘Disability reform: from crisis welfare to a planned insurance model’, April 2008, p. 2.

  [12].    Ibid.

  [13].    Ibid., p. 1.

  [14].    Ibid., p. 3.

  [15].    Ibid.

  [16].       Australia 2020 Summit final report, Canberra, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Canberra, 2008, p. 175.

  [17]. Australian Government, Responding to the 2020 Summit, Canberra, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 22 April 2009, p. 158.

  [18].    Council of Australian Governments (COAG), National Disability Strategy 2010–2020, DSS, Canberra, 2011.

  [19].    See ‘National Disability Strategy’, DSS website.

  [20].    COAG, National Disability Strategy 2010–2020, op. cit.

  [21].    S Smith (Minister for Foreign Affairs), R McClelland (Attorney-General) and B Shorten (Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services), Government welcomes convention on disabilities, media release, 3 May 2008.

  [22].    B Shorten (Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services), Government announces Disability Investment Group, media release, 23 April 2008.

  [23].    Ibid.

  [24].    Disability Investment Group, The way forward: a new disability policy framework for Australia, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA), Canberra, 2009, p. 1.

  [25].    Ibid., p. 3.

  [26].    Ibid., p. 3.

  [27].    B Shorten (Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services) and J Macklin (Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs), Disability Investment Group report released, media release, 3 December 2009.

  [28].    Productivity Commission, Disability care and support: executive summary, report no. 54, Productivity Commission, Canberra, 2011, p. 3.

  [29].  Ibid., p. 11–12.

  [30].  Ibid., p. 12–13.

  [31].  Ibid., pp. 13–16. The estimated number of recipients of individualised supports has since been increased to 460,000 people. See ‘About the NDIS’, NDIS website, 2017.

  [32].  Ibid., p. 14.

  [33].  Ibid. The Productivity Commission also recommended a second, smaller scheme, the National Injury Insurance Scheme (NIIS), which would cover the lifetime care and support needs of people who acquire a catastrophic injury from an accident (based on the motor accident compensation schemes that operate in some states and territories).

  [34].  Ibid., p. 2.

  [35].  Ibid.

  [36].  Ibid., p. 3.

  [37].  Ibid.

  [38].    L Buckmaster, ‘Paying for the National Disability Insurance Scheme’, Briefing book: key issues for the 44th Parliament, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2013.

  [39].  Productivity Commission, Disability Care and Support, op. cit., p. 90.

  [40]. J Gillard (Prime Minister), J Macklin (Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs), Bill Shorten (Assistant Treasurer) and J McLucas (Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers), Productivity Commission's final report into disability care and support, media release, 10 August 2011.

  [41]. Legislative instruments known as the NDIS rules set out the operational details of the scheme.

  [42].    C Porter (Minister for Social Services), C Barnett (WA Premier ) and Donna Faragher (WA Minister for Planning; Disability Services), Governments sign bilateral agreement on local delivery of NDIS in WA [and] Western Australia (WA) roll out schedule, media release, 1 February 2017.

  [43].    M Turnbull (Prime Minister), C Porter (Minister for Social Services), J Prentice (Assistant Minister for Disability Services), Western Australia to join the nationally-delivered National Disability Insurance Scheme, media release, 12 December 2017.

  [44].    L Buckmaster, ‘Paying for the NDIS’, op. cit.

  [45].    Productivity Commission, National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) costs: position paper, Productivity Commission, Canberra, June 2017, chapter 10.

  [46].    J Macklin (Shadow Minister for Families and Social Services), Morrison can’t hold the NDIS to ransom again, media release, 9 May 2017.

  [47].    C Porter (Minister for Social Services), Z Seselja (Assistant Minister for Social Services and Multicultural Affairs) and J Prentice (Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services), Guaranteeing the NDIS and providing stronger support for people with disability, joint media release, 9 May 2017.

  [48].       Australian Government, Budget measures: budget paper no. 2: 2017–18, p. 24.

  [49].       Australian Government, Budget measures: budget paper no. 2: 2018–19, p. 32.

  [50].       D Tehan (Minister for Social Services), A fully funded NDIS, media release, 26 April 2018.

  [51].       J Macklin (Shadow Minister for Families and Social Services), Budget shows the NDIS has always been fully funded, media release, 9 May 2018.

  [52].    S Groch, ‘NDIS shake-up after problematic roll-out’, The Canberra Times, 20 October 2017; Productivity Commission, National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) costs: study report, October 2017.

  [53].    C Wahlquist, ‘NDIS costs and demand overwhelming disability service providers, report says’, The Guardian, 4 December 2017.

  [54].    R Morton, ‘NDIS tech bungle delays payouts’, The Australian, 8 July 2016.

  [55].    C Porter (Minister for Social Services) and J Prentice (Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services), Review of the implementation of the NDIS MyPlace Portal, media release, 5 August 2016.

  [56].    PricewaterhouseCoopers, National Disability Insurance Scheme MyPlace Portal Implementation Review–final report, DSS, Canberra, 2016, p. 2.

  [57].    Ibid.

  [58].    NDIA, NDIA submission to Productivity Commission issues paper on NDIS costs, Submission 161, Productivity Commission, Canberra, 2017, p. 15.

  [59].    Ibid.

  [60].    Australian Parliament, Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS, Committee homepage, Parliament of Australia, accessed 16 May 2018.

  [61].    Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS, Progress report, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, 2017.

  [62].    Australian Parliament, ‘Completed inquiries’, Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS committee webpages, Parliament of Australia, accessed 17 May 2018.

  [63].    Australian Parliament, ‘Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme’, Committee homepage, Parliament of Australia, accessed 17 May 2018.

  [64].    NDIA, Improving the NDIS participant and provider experience, NDIA, Canberra, 2018, p. 3.

  [65].    NDIA, New NDIS pathway released to improve participant and provider experience, media release, 17 October 2017.

  [66].    NDIA, NDIS pathway pilot released, media release, media release, 16 November 2017.

  [67].    C Porter (Minister for Social Services), Quality of NDIS services assured, media release, 30 November 2017.

  [68].    Ibid.

  [69].    Senate Community Affairs References Committee, Violence, abuse and neglect against people with disability in institutional and residential settings, including the gender and age related dimensions, and the particular situation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with disability, and culturally and linguistically diverse people with disability, The Senate, Canberra, November 2017.

  [70].    J Smith-Merry, N Hancock, J Gilroy, G Llewellyn and I Yen, Mind the Gap: the National Disability Scheme and psychosocial disability, University of Sydney, Sydney, 2018, p. 4.

  [71].    NDIA, ‘Response by NDIA to the “mind the gap” report’, On the record, NDIS website, accessed 13 March 2018.

  [72].    Australian Government, Budget measures: budget paper no. 2: 2017–18, p. 120.

  [73].    K Mavromaras, M Moskos, S Mahuteau and L Isherwood, Evaluation of the NDIS: final report, National Institute of Labour Studies, Adelaide, 2018.

  [74].    Ibid., p. xiii.

• Licence

  © Commonwealth of Australia

  

  Creative Commons

  With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.

  In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.

  To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.

  Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.

• Disclaimer

  This work has been prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament using information available at the time of production. The views expressed do not reflect an official position of the Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion.

  For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament. All links are correct at the time of publication and are not subsequently updated.

  Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian at webmanager@aph.gov.au. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Entry Point for referral.

Related

FlagPost

Refundable Accommodation Deposits and the Aged Care Bill 2024

By Eleanor Malbon

5 min read

Research Paper

Excess Deaths in Australia: Frequently Asked Questions

By Statistics and Mapping

14 min read

FlagPost

Do Commonwealth carriage service offences apply to voluntary assisted dying?

By Leah Ferris

5 min read