9.1
This chapter considers general issues associated with workforce planning and development for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), and provides an overview of the matters that should be considered in a national workforce plan.
the need for reliable workforce data;
marketing the NDIS as an employer of choice; and
the focus, scope and content of a national workforce plan for the NDIS.
The need for reliable workforce data
9.3
The committee heard that there is insufficient data on the size and composition of the NDIS workforce, future workforce demand, and potential service gaps. Concerns were raised around the lack of 'general' data relating to support workers and allied health professionals (for example, total numbers and geographic distribution) as well as the lack of more granular data such as the qualifications of individual workers and the needs of specific clients. The committee heard that data gaps must be addressed as a matter of urgency, to ensure a complete understanding of current workforce issues and projected demand, and to develop an evidence base from which to develop solutions.
9.4
Ms Melissa Coad, Coordinator, Stakeholder and Professional Development, United Workers Union (UWU), stated that there is a general lack of data on the disability workforce, including the number of workers, types of employment, skills, qualifications and hours worked within defined periods of time.
9.5
Allied Health Professions Australia (AHPA) expressed strong concerns at the lack of consistent national data on allied health professionals, stating that a 'strong and nuanced' set of data is crucial to understanding the current and future NDIS workforce. AHPA noted that this data would:
….need to incorporate not only current disability providers but also the broader private and community-based allied health workforce as these are an important potential NDIS workforce, particularly in areas where there is only likely to be a low volume of NDIS services required.
It will also require the ability to identify where additional granularity is required in order to provide meaningful data about available services. For example, an occupational therapist may work as a mental health occupational therapist providing targeted mental health interventions. Another occupational therapist may provide assessment and fitting support for complex assistive technology such as powered wheelchairs or home hoists. A dataset that only identifies the availability of occupational therapists in a region cannot be considered sufficient to genuinely understand the local workforce.
9.6
A need for additional data on the allied health workforce was also raised by submitters representing specific allied health disciplines.
9.7
The committee heard that there is a specific need for data on the workforce supporting people with psychosocial disability. For example, Mr Tony Stevenson, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Mental Illness Fellowship of Australia (MIFA), observed that:
[B]ecause there is no national register, there's no national accreditation and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare doesn't adequately collect information on that workforce. So we don't have that data, and that is a very big gap in how we understand these issues and how we can plan for this workforce.
9.8
Mr Bill Gye, CEO, Community Mental Health Australia (CMHA), elaborated on the data that may be required:
First, we need a clear, publicly available set of data of organisations that are contracted either as providers in the NDIS or through…[public health network (PHN)] services, and also through the state government mental health services.
…Beyond that, it would also, of course, be good to know the locations of centres, occasions of service and, ultimately, outcome measures achieved. That would be the broad envelope of the data requirements, but this needs some specific detail.
9.9
Submitters also indicated that data that should also be collected at the provider level. For example, the Australian Physiotherapy Association (APA) stated:
Data relating to the location of providers, the setting in which they work and the percentage of their work that is NDIS funded, as well as observing how these figures change over time, would provide valuable insights for workforce planning. Potentially data could be gathered and collated according to the use of physiotherapy line items in NDIS plans.
Adequacy of existing data collection mechanisms
9.10
In addition to raising concerns as to the lack of workforce data, submitters and witnesses observed that existing mechanisms to collect workforce data are not appropriately adapted to the NDIS or the disability sector. Concerns were also raised that there have not been any comprehensive, targeted initiatives to collect data on the disability workforce.
9.11
For example, the Northern Territory Mental Health Coalition (NT MHC) stated that Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) labour force statistics are not collected in a way that enables a complete understanding of the number of workers servicing participants. This concern was echoed by representatives of National Disability Services (NDS):
One of the areas where there is room for improvement is in the development of data that is specific to the disability sector. It is fair to say that the ABS has data for the disability and aged-care workforces, but in terms of segmenting it so that our sector can get a clear view regarding workforce data issues that's still not something that's been done.
9.12
The Health Services Union (HSU) noted that data on the size and composition of the workforce is limited due to the lack of a national workforce census, and the application of occupational coding under the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO). It recommended that funding be made available to undertake a census of the NDIS workforce, alongside a broader review of ANZSCO to ensure that it is fit for purpose.
9.13
Submitters and witnesses also raised concern that data collection often relies on registration with professional bodies. For example, Services for Australian Rural and Remote Allied Health (SARRAH) observed that available workforce data on allied health professionals is based on professionals registered with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA). However, only around half of all allied health professions are registered with that agency. Representatives of AHPA echoed this concern, noting that even where data is available it is often not at the required level of granularity:
One of the conversations we've very recently had with the thin market team within the NDIA is about specific shortages in Katherine of occupational therapists who can prescribe complex assistive technology. So even the membership data that AHPRA or the professional association might hold doesn't necessarily give you the nuance to say, 'We've got a specific shortage of a particular area of expertise in this particular area.'
9.14
Submitters and witnesses also noted issues with state data collection processes, and challenges interfacing with the Commonwealth. For example, Mr Bill Gye, Chief Executive Officer, Community Mental Health Australia, stated that:
[T]here is a long and sad story as to the failure of data collection. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare have wished to do this, but they need state governments to come on board to provide the state data. Western Australia came to the party; the Western Australian Mental Health Commission provided the minimum dataset. Queensland started to do that in 2018–19. But the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare require a minimum of three states before they publicly report that data, and all the other states, despite our continuous ankle-biting, have failed to do it up till now, so we don't have the state data.
Committee view
9.15
The committee notes that, as part of its 2018 inquiry into market readiness for provision of services under the NDIS, it recommended that the Government fund the ABS to regularly collect and publish information on the qualifications, age, hours of work and incomes of those working in disability care, including allied health professionals.
9.16
The Government supported the recommendation in principle, noting that collecting granular workforce data is likely to place a substantial burden on respondents, and may not yield required information. However, Government also noted that the Department of Social Services (DSS) is working closely with other departments and agencies to understand and report on the profiles of the disability sector workforce and the barriers to transition to full scheme. Moreover, as part of the Boosting the Local Care Workforce program, the Government has launched an online NDIS demand map to provide data on the demand for NDIS services and workforce by region—including disability care workers and allied health professionals.
9.17
The committee appreciates that steps have been taken to address the lack of data on the disability workforce, and on the NDIS more generally. However, evidence before the committee suggests that concerns around the lack of reliable data persist. Indeed, they appear to have increased with anxieties as to the capacity of the workforce to meet projected demand. Moreover, existing mechanisms for data collection—while valuable—may not be generating the type or volume of data required to enable effective workforce development.
9.18
The committee therefore considers that the Commonwealth must develop and implement a strategy to collect, refine and publish data on the NDIS workforce in an accessible manner, including developing a national minimum dataset. In the view of the committee, this should help equip stakeholders to understand the size and composition of the workforce, anticipate demand, and build solutions. This work should form part of or sit alongside a national workforce plan for the NDIS.
9.19
The committee considers that, as a first step, the Commonwealth should consult with key stakeholders in the sector, including people with disability, support workers, representative organisations and peak bodies, to determine the kind of data which is required.
9.20
The committee notes that the National Rural Health Commissioner (NRH Commissioner) has recommended that the Commonwealth develop a National Allied Health Data Strategy, including building an Allied Health Minimum Data set. In addition, the committee notes that Commonwealth, state and territory governments are working to develop a National Disability Data Asset (NDDA). According to DSS:
The purpose of the NDDA is to improve outcomes for people with disability, their families and carers, by sharing de-identified data to better understand the life experiences and outcomes of people with disability in Australia.
9.21
The committee encourages the Government to develop and progress a national data strategy for the NDIS workforce with regard to the NRH Commissioner's work and the ongoing development of the NDDA.
9.22
The committee recommends that the Australian Government develop and implement a national data strategy for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), including a national minimum dataset on the NDIS workforce.
Marketing the NDIS workforce
9.23
The committee heard that, in addition to addressing barriers to attracting and retaining appropriately skilled and qualified workers, targeted efforts must be made to 'market' the sector as an employer of choice.
9.24
Catholic Social Services Australia (CSSA) recommended a public campaign highlighting the value of disability support work, noting that it is essential for the workforce to attract staff who thrive in an environment where compassion is paramount. Regarding implementation of a campaign, CSSA stated that:
In the 2018 –19 financial year, the Australian government spent a total of $140 million on advertising across its departments and agencies…The Department of Defence dominated, spending $30 million on recruitment advertising. Australian Defence Force recruitment has received a total of $157.6 million over the last 5 years.
It is CSSA's position that strengthening the NDIS workforce pipeline will require a similarly significant financial investment by the Australian government to create a prominent public campaign to attract new staff to the disability sector.
9.25
Similar views were advanced by Dr Emma Campbell, CEO, ACT Council of Social Services (ACTCOSS), in relation to 'marketing' the social care sector at the state level. However, Dr Campbell emphasised that despite the value in marketing the disability sector, a fundamental challenge will be ensuring that work in the sector is well-paid, rewarding, secure, and thus attractive.
9.26
Some submitters observed that activities to promote the NDIS workforce should clearly articulate different skillsets and working environments related to supporting specific participant cohorts. For example, Mental Health Victoria (MHV) stated that the delivery of psychosocial supports should be considered a career option in its own right—distinct from working in the disability sector generally.
9.27
Submitters also indicated that marketing for the sector should incorporate strategies to increase diversity. For example, Spinal Cord Injuries Australia (SCIA) queried whether there are strategies in place to promote opportunities in the disability sector to people from a wide range of backgrounds.
The role of the tertiary education sector
9.28
The committee also heard that the tertiary education sector has a key role to play in promoting the NDIS. Some submitters also noted that the tertiary sector has not made sufficient efforts to date. For example, the APA stated that:
Disability is not sexy. [Universities] do not do enough to show disability in a positive light. We are the best at person centred care and have amazing relationships with the people we work with. We also need more research to increase the attraction.
9.29
Exercise and Sports Science Australia (ESSA) recommended that the NDIA work with allied health associations and universities to promote the NDIS as a career pathway, noting that professional associations often have established channels of communication that could be used to highlight the value of working in the sector.
Promoting the sector to younger people
9.30
Submitters and witnesses also observed there would be merit in encouraging younger people to consider disability support work as a future career path. For example, Mr David Moody, CEO, NDS, stated that 'the virtues of working in the disability sector' should be promoted not only to school leavers, but also to younger people in secondary school—including those who are undertaking vocational education in the later years of high school:
I think it's reasonable to observe that the vast majority of young students who aren't pursuing studies preordained to support them to go on to university or higher education would be blithely unaware of the virtues of working in the disability sector, or indeed of what it is to be a disability support worker, so I think there's an education/advertising piece in that space that would assist in growing the quantum and, hopefully, over time the quality of workers in the sector.
9.31
Ms Mary Sayers, CEO, Children and Young People with Disability Australia (CYDA), similarly noted that the disability sector could be better promoted to younger people, stating that:
One of the barriers that needs to be overcome is how we train people through their careers guidance that happens in schools that disability work is really meaningful and important work, and then how do we have pathways into disability work?
9.32
The Tasmanian Government provided an example of a program within the state that is designed to support the workforce pipeline by engaging students in secondary education:
Events delivered state-wide, in collaboration with the…Department of Education, include high school and University of Tasmania career days to promote allied health education and career pathways within the sector. Feedback from students indicates that concerns for mental health are a major barrier when considering a career in the disability sector.
Committee view
9.33
The committee has heard that additional resources should be committed to marketing the sector as an employer of choice, as a means of attracting and retaining a workforce with the skills, qualifications and values to deliver safe, quality supports to people with disability, 'professionalising' the sector and—ultimately—improving public perceptions of disability support.
9.34
The committee considers that there would be merit in developing a strategy to 'market' the NDIS to prospective workers. This may include measures to increase awareness of the sector and the value of disability support work, such as targeted advertising campaigns. The committee also considers that there would be considerable value in the NDIS partnering with the secondary and tertiary education sectors, to encourage students to consider the NDIS as a viable career pathway. Potentially, this may form part of a review of existing tertiary curricula (discussed in Chapter 6).
9.35
In the view of the committee, part of the strategy should be clearly articulating the different skillsets and working environments associated with providing support to specific cohorts of people with disability. This is to ensure that prospective workers do not have an unrealistic perception of work in the sector, and to direct workforce development towards areas of specific need. Efforts to market the NDIS should also include measures to encourage people with disability, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and people from CALD backgrounds—among others—to consider a career with the NDIS, as a means of ensuring the NDIS workforce reflects the diversity of the people that it supports.
9.36
The committee appreciates that promoting the sector as an employer of choice is not sufficient, and emphasises that attracting and retaining a suitably qualified workforce will require measures to ensure that workers have secure jobs with pay and conditions reflecting the value and complexity of their work, relevant and appropriate training, and opportunities for career progression.
9.37
The committee recommends that the Australian Government develop and implement a strategy to market the disability sector as an employer of choice.
A national workforce plan for the National Disability Insurance Scheme
9.38
On 23 March 2019, DSS released the Growing the NDIS Market and Workforce Strategy (Workforce Strategy). The strategy outlines four key priorities to optimise the NDIS market and grow a suitably qualified workforce:
Optimise the NDIS market and provide information to support investment;
Invest to build capable NDIS providers;
Fostering a capable NDIS workforce; and
9.39
The committee heard that although the Workforce Strategy is a welcome development, there are gaps in the strategy that should be addressed in developing a national workforce plan (below). For example, representatives of AHPA observed that the strategy fails to recognise the significance of certain barriers for the allied health workforce, to acknowledge that funding initiatives outside the NDIS may be required to address them.
9.40
Building on the initiatives set in the Workforce Strategy, Commonwealth, state and territory governments are developing a National Workforce Plan for the NDIS. On 6 March 2020, the Minister for the NDIS called for organisations across the sector to contribute to development of a 'national plan to build a sustainable and capable workforce needed to support NDIS participants'. DSS sought input from stakeholders across the disability, aged care and community sector on the plan via its 'engage' platform, from 28 February to
27 March 2020.
9.41
At the committee's public hearing on 12 October 2020, Mr Matt Flavel, Acting Deputy Secretary, Disability and Carers, DSS, noted that on 24 July 2020 a meeting of disability ministers considered a draft of the national workforce plan, with a commitment to finalise the plan in the second half of 2020.
9.42
Mr Flavel did not give a specific date for the plan to be finalised; however, he stated that Government is on track to finalise the plan in late 2020 and that the plan will be published. As to what is to be included in the National Workforce Plan, Mr Flavel stated that:
[The Plan] will have a number of initiatives…about attracting workers into the sector, and ensuring that they get the necessary support and training and attention paid to their professional needs, for those who are working in the sector, and also, in keeping with the announcements in the budget, that we try to ensure that for those workers who work across different sectors, including aged care and disability for instance, we minimise the effort that's required for them to be able to work across sectors.
9.43
Mr Flavel further stated that 'various bodies and people…have been consulted' in the development of the plan. However, the committee heard that the consultation that took place failed to engage some key stakeholders in a meaningful way due to its methodology and the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, Mr Lloyd Williams, National Secretary, HSU, observed that:
The first opportunity for a broad section of stakeholders to comment on the National NDIS Workforce Plan was in late February of this year, and it was via a survey on the DSS Engage platform. Originally the survey was open for two weeks only, providing pretty limited opportunity for stakeholders to respond. It was then extended to the end of March, but, unfortunately, this period coincided with the escalation of the pandemic.
9.44
Mr Harry Lovelock, Director, Policy and Research, Mental Health Australia (MHA), observed that MHA was not directly engaged in the development of the plan, stating:
Psychosocial disability has, unfortunately, had a history of being an
add-on in relation to the NDIA and the work it's undertaken and has resulted in it quite often falling off the radar in terms of consultation.
9.45
In relation to consultation with the allied health sector, SARRAH observed that development of the plan involved relatively targeted consultation, and that SARRAH was involved on an ad hoc basis by invitation of the Government.
9.46
Submitters and witnesses expressed a variety of views on the focus, scope and content of a national workforce plan. These are outlined below. Some raised concern that there have been calls for a national workforce plan for several years, with little progress. Mr Lloyd Williams, National Secretary, HSU, observed that:
More than three years ago, the HSU first publicly called for the development of a comprehensive sector-wide workforce strategy which included input from unions, providers, people with a disability and all levels of government—both federal and state. We made that recommendation to the Productivity Commission in its 2017 inquiry into NDIS costs and we've repeated it consistently since then.
Responsibility for workforce planning and market stewardship
9.47
The committee heard that the Federal Government should lead workforce planning. Submitters and witnesses observed that the Australian Government (the Commonwealth), as market steward for the NDIS, has a significant role in influencing workforce conditions such as pay, training and career mobility. National leadership is vital to ensuring consistency across jurisdictions and service sectors.
9.48
MHA, CMHA and MIFA asserted that the Australian Government should be responsible for strategic development and coordination of the mental health and disability workforce. Mr Harry Lovelock, Director of Policy, MHA, elaborated on this matter as follows:
[T]he Australian Government should provide overarching strategic development coordination of the mental health and disability workforce for, while the psychosocial disability workforce is funded directly by the NDIS, primary health networks and jurisdictional programs, it is often the same staff who deliver these services. We also believe the government should be responsible for market stewardship and aligning of the NDIS psychosocial workforce with broader strategic plans, such as the National Mental Health Workforce Strategy.
9.49
According to the MHA, CHMA and MIFA, the integration and management of the mental health workforce would also benefit from the establishment of a national centre of evidence-based workforce development. Such an initiative could be the driver of the types of workplace changes needed to meet future challenges in delivering a person-led mental health service system.
9.50
Issues were also raised around market stewardship and the diffusion of policy responsibility across the Australian Government for specific aspects of the NDIS. Mr Lloyd Williams, National Secretary, HSU, noted that division of responsibility for NDIS policy settings undermines workforce development:
DSS has responsibility for workforce policy and the [NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission] is charged with promoting quality services and applying sanctions when things go wrong. However, this model fails because the NDIA controls the primary levers to influence workforce development and quality assurance, namely by controlling the prices payable for services. Additionally, this model means that the primary Commonwealth agency responsible for the implementation of the scheme…the NDIA, does not take workforce matters into account in its decision-making.
The 'focus' of workforce planning
9.51
The committee heard that workforce planning must not focus too heavily on the size of the workforce, as this risks reducing quality standards and exposing workers to exploitative working conditions. Rather, workforce planning must focus on creating the conditions to enable the workforce to deliver safe, quality services to people with disability. This will require balancing the sometimes competing needs of workers and participants, as well as ensuring that workers have secure, well-paid employment, relevant training, and opportunities for career progression.
9.52
Submitters and witnesses also expressed the view that the NDIS must take a person-centred approach to workforce planning. For example, Indigenous Allied Health Australia (IAHA) stated that the sector requires a methodology applied to workforce planning that 'locates the needs of clients as the primary goal', noting that approaches which prioritise the person and their community is crucial to enabling positive outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
9.53
MHA, CMHA and MIFA noted that the NDIS requires a 'recovery-focussed, trauma informed, culturally responsive, diverse workforce available to support people wherever they live'. As to the focus of workforce planning, MHA, CMHA and MIFA stated that:
The NDIS presents a tremendous opportunity to move beyond defining the workforce by strict, distinct professional roles, and instead mapping the workforce by skills and capabilities. A central question in designing the future NDIS workforce should be: how can we build the workforce for the services that people want?
The importance of collaboration and co-design
9.54
Submitters and witnesses emphasised that workforce planning requires direct involvement of people with disability, support workers and representative organisations—preferably through co-design. However, workforce planning to date has failed to engage some key stakeholders in a meaningful way.
9.55
Some submitters also emphasised the importance of co-design with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. For example, IAHA stated that there must be shared decision-making between policy makers and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and communities—including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the disability sector. SARRAH expressed similar views, noting that community elders, community-controlled health and community service organisations and national organisations such as IAHA must be involved in leading and developing service and workforce strategies that are effective, integrated and culturally safe and responsive.
Coordination between jurisdictions
9.56
Several submitters and witnesses called for a nationally coordinated approach to workforce developments, and greater collaboration across jurisdictions. This is to ensure consistency in workforce planning initiatives and share learning; reduce costs; improve accountability; support the delivery of quality services; and ensure participants do not fall into gaps between Commonwealth, state and territory schemes.
9.57
The HSU noted that it has had 'vastly different' experiences across jurisdictions in relation to design and implementation of workforce strategies. It expressed concern that, despite there being various reference groups and advisory bodies for participants and providers, there is no formal reference group at the Commonwealth level for workforce matters. Mr Lloyd Williams, National Secretary, HSU, also emphasised that coordination between jurisdictions is crucial to ensuing that people with disability are not disadvantaged by gaps in service systems:
What we now have is a disconnection with the states, and those people who have a disability associated with some other existing condition may fall out of the NDIA and then may be subject to the services that are delivered by the states. So we think that, fundamentally, the management of the NDIS should have a greater role with the states. It should be more of a model that is similar to health, where there are federal and state partnerships in order to ensure that people don't fall through the gaps of service delivery between the Commonwealth and the states.
9.58
Queensland Advocacy Incorporated (QAI) echoed these views, noting that coordination across jurisdictions also facilitates the development of industry best practice:
There has historically been a discrepancy in disability services provided between different states and territories. States which have been at the forefront of human rights implementations such as Victoria and Canberra should utilise their learnings and share these learnings with other states and territories to ensure mistakes that have previously been made, are not made again.
9.59
CYDA stated that greater investment and buy-in from states and territories is vital to the long-term sustainability of the NDIS. It recommended national harmonisation of workforce initiatives, and greater consistency in practice, service delivery and workforce modelling to guarantee quality outcomes for children and young people with disability. CYDA emphasised that a 'lowest common denominator' approach must be avoided, and that best practice approaches in leading states and territories should not be lost.
9.60
The WA Government stated that a national workforce plan must allow jurisdictions to adapt the plan to their particular contexts, noting that, for WA:
[This] would provide consistency and facilitate worker portability across Australia. Alignment with State training and employment strategies including the State Training Board, State Training Plan and Department of Training and Workforce Development, should be highlighted.
Coordination across sectors
9.61
In addition to the importance of coordination across jurisdictions, submitters and witnesses emphasised that workforce planning must not neglect other sectors or specific participant cohorts. Submitters and witnesses noted that participants' care needs span multiple service systems; providers deliver both NDIS and non-NDIS services and supports; workers may be employed by multiple organisations and sectors; and there is competition between sectors for skilled and qualified workers.
9.62
SARRAH observed that current service arrangements have attracted criticism for being 'siloed, program- rather than person- or patient-centric, inflexible and lacking coordination'. It noted that increased coordination across sectors and jurisdictions may reduce unnecessary public expenditure; support matching of services to need; and enable greater flexibility such that the workforce can be mobilised for greatest impact relative to cost. SARRAH stated that:
Areas of focus might include streamlining of primary health care, aged care and the NDIS service system requirements, such as registration and accreditation frameworks. For clients, eligibility assessments might also be coordinated and streamlined. This could reduce administrative burden on everyone, including allied health professionals and service managers who may be providing services to [eligible] clients in multiple streams.
9.63
AHPA expressed concern that current regulatory requirements limit mobility, particularly for allied health workers. It stated that the Commonwealth should explore options to coordinate regulatory requirements at the national level, including across funding schemes. Ms Philippa Angley, Head of Policy, NDS, expressed similar views, noting that NDS supports a harmonised worker screening process across aged care and disability. According to Ms Angley, ideally the screening processes should be the same. If this cannot be achieved, there should be mutual recognition of the processes across the sectors.
9.64
Also relevant to cross-sector coordination is information sharing. For example, Carers NSW expressed concern that there is a lack of information-sharing between aged care, health and disability quality and safety bodies, noting that this may expose people with disability to increased risk of abuse or neglect. It also stated that government should plan for the eventual merging of worker registration databases across care sectors, with a view to developing a national body that oversees all care industry workers not covered under pre-existing regulation.
9.65
However, some submitters also expressed concern that increased mobility may hinder effective workforce development. The NT OPG stated that in the NT, the limited total number of skilled workers means that additional mobility between sectors may come at a substantial cost for individual providers.
9.66
Submitters also emphasised that it is important to consider the needs of participants holistically—rather than in relation to discrete service sectors. For example, IAHA asserted that workforce planning warrants engagement with health, aged care and community services, highlighting the importance of shared learning and effective management of the interface between health and disability services. In addition, workforce planning must consider gaps in infrastructure, healthcare delivery and housing services, noting that otherwise the NDIS cannot deliver on its objectives for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in remote communities.
Committee view
9.67
The committee notes that the Commonwealth Government proposes to release a national workforce plan for the NDIS following consultation with the disability, aged care and community sectors. Submitters and witnesses have provided a range of views on the content, scope and focus of a national plan. The committee's views on these matters are briefly outlined below.
9.68
In particular, the committee emphasises that the plan must have a core focus on improving workforce conditions in the NDIS, noting that this will be crucial to growing and developing the workforce to meet demand. Noting that poor workforce conditions may be symptomatic of broader concerns associated with price settings and the funding model for the scheme, the committee considers that planning must also identify, understand and address these concerns.
9.69
The committee is also cognisant of the fact that disability support is a highly skilled industry, and emphasises that workforce planning must ensure that workers possess the expertise to deliver safe, quality care to participants. As outlined elsewhere in this report, this may require review of existing tertiary programs; and increasing and—where appropriate—harmonising the skills and qualifications of the workforce via national accreditation. Measures may also be required to increase investment in the tertiary education sector, and to support transitions from education to employment.
9.70
The committee also considers it vital that a national workforce plan includes measures to support the employment of participants in the NDIS workforce. This is not only to improve employment outcomes for people with disability, but to harness the untapped potential of lived experience. Measures to support people with disability to join the workforce may require the development of new strategies or updates to existing strategies, as appropriate.
9.71
The committee emphasises that the workforce plan must consider thin markets for services—with a particular focus on regional, rural and remote areas and the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Noting regional, rural and remote areas have unique challenges requiring innovative solutions, the committee considers that a national workforce plan must:
recognise that program arrangements designed for the majority of people may not translate to regional, rural and remote communities;
avoid introducing or reinforcing arrangements that apply equally across the system, but have onerous service requirements or impede participant access and outcomes in different locations and circumstances; and
address underlying causal factors (beyond the NDIS) that constrain local workforce and service capacity.
9.72
To ensure the workforce is equipped to meet the specific needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, the committee also considers that workforce planning must have a strong focus on local workforce growth; investment in community-led initiatives; and cultural competency.
9.73
The committee has reviewed and strongly supports the recommendations of the National Rural Health Commissioner, and encourages the Government to consider these recommendations in implementing a national workforce plan.
9.74
Workforce planning must also deliver national consistency. In this respect, the committee has heard that workforce development initiatives often focus on the needs of individual states or service sectors. The committee is of the view that national leadership is needed to ensure consistency across the NDIS; reduce unnecessary duplication and costs; and ensure that participants are not disadvantaged by gaps at the interface of Commonwealth, state and territory schemes. The plan should also clarify responsibilities at the Commonwealth level for market stewardship.
9.75
An effective workforce plan must also consider the needs of other sectors. This is not only to understand and respond to the fluctuating workforce needs of these sector, and how those needs will affect the NDIS' ability to attract and retain qualified workers, but also to understand and—as appropriate—remove barriers to mobility, duplicative regulation and unnecessary costs. Enhancing the interface between the NDIS and other sectors such as health and education will also be crucial to addressing service gaps, equipping the workforce with necessary skills and qualifications, and supporting better outcomes for people with lived experience of disability.
9.76
The committee will closely review the national workforce plan once published, to ensure it captures key matters raised in evidence during this inquiry. The committee also proposes to collect additional evidence before making its final report for this inquiry, including through public hearings. As part of this process, the committee proposes to seek stakeholders' views on how the issues identified in this report have been addressed in the national workforce plan.
Hon Kevin Andrews MPSenator Carol Brown
ChairDeputy Chair