The Rebuttal

Dear all in the NDIA, (Especially Planners and NDIA decision makers)

Hello, my name is Gary Kerridge. I am a retired disability advocate. I comment regularly on the current situation with the NDIS and how it is impacting on people with a disability. Sometimes I am angry and a little controversial. Today, I am reaching out in the spirit of educating and informing.

Although I am experienced across the disability spectrum, my specialty is deafness. I have advocated and supported many Deaf and hard of hearing people with their applications to the NDIS, their reviews and even their appeals to tribunals. Some of these have had positive outcomes, some less so. Of late the negative outcomes for people who are Deaf and hard of hearing have become more frequent. This has aligned with the changes that have been rolled out that have the goal of making the NDIS sustainable.

In the last week, although I am retired, a few people have reached out to me.They are not all participants. Some of them are actually service providers. There seems to be a clear pattern where the NDIA is targeting Auslan interpreting to reduce expenditure in this area.

Allow me to explain and provide you with some recent examples.

Example A:

I have been supporting a participant with their application to the NDIS. They received a plan whereby only $300 was provided for 12 months of Auslan interpreting. Around $4000 or so was provided for assessments for things like hearing aids and technology.

Of course, the Auslan interpreting budget was totally inadequate. The participant is an Auslan user. They are very active in both the hearing and Deaf community. Auslan interpreting was crucial for their community participation. Their needs include private medical appointments, attending hearing functions such as parties/weddings/funerals and to allow the participant to participate in small community based learning like arts and crafts. They also wish to participate in amateur theatre, which is a great passion of theirs.

The plan was reviewed. Extra interpreting funding was provided. But it was still totally inadequate and was only an extra $1300. Around 80 hours of interpreting was requested. This is not excessive. In fact in my time working in the NDIS sector, a standard 72 hours per year was usually provided unless the participant could demonstrate a greater need.

The participant was very disillusioned by this time. After review the only course for them to take was an AAT appeal. They declined, feeling that the stress and time needed to gather all the evidence that would be required was too great. Indeed, by this time they were extremely distressed as they had already submitted comprehensive evidence of their need.

Fast forward a few months. The participant has progressed assessments and quotes to obtain new hearing aids. This week they received a call from the NDIA to inform them that the hearing aids were approved. This is good news, but what is interesting is what the NDIA planner divulged to the participant.

The planner phoned, even though notes on system say to email. Luckily the participant was able to answer and use captions on their phone to communicate with the Planner. The Planner had this to say, “We have prioritised hearing aid funding in lieu of interpreting as it is a lower cost alternative to providing access.” In the interest of fairness, it should be mentioned that the participant commented that the Planner was extremely helpful and empathetic of their needs. This is fantastic to hear.

Naturally, the participant was shocked at what the Planner divulged. What it showed was that the NDIA decision maker for the participants plan did not have a good grasp of the limits that many deaf people have in regard to aided hearing. This is despite provision of a comprehensive report where evidence was presented of speech perception tests and how this would impact in various communication settings that the participant was likely to experience.

The Planner went on to suggest that the evidence provided was insufficient. This suggests that NDIA personnel involved had either not read the report in detail or possibly that they had not understood it’s contents.

This leads to Example B.

Example B

This week I was contacted by a person that provides Auslan interpreting. The person wanted to know if I had any documentation as to why there is a two hour minimum booking for interpreters. I was able to provide them with a link to an article that explains why there is the two hour minimum. The basis of this minimum is that most interpreters are freelance. They have to travel between jobs. They need to catch public transport to various areas, pay for parking and so on.

What this means is that when they are travelling or seeking/paying for parking etc they are not earning an income. So, for example, if they had a job that was thirty minutes and charged only the thirty minutes for the job, then traveled an hour to the next job they are disadvantaged because travel between jobs is a big part of interpreting. When traveling interpreters are not earning.

To cut a long story short, without the two hour minimum, many interpreters would not be able to make a livable income and would not be able to stay in the industry. If this was the case, the Deaf community would be severely disadvantaged. Already there is a shortage of interpreters. Without the two hour minimum charge this would be even worse because many interpreters would not be able to make a living in the industry.

You can read more about the need for the two hour minimum by clicking this LINK

The person who contacted me was asking me this because they were trying to explain to the NDIA, with evidence, why there is a two hour minimum. They explained to me that Deaf participants are being told to rely more on their hearing aids and just use interpreters sporadically and for as short a time as possible.

The reality is that for nearly every booking, the minimum charged will be 2 hours. The consequence of the advice being provided by some NDIA delegates is that Deaf participants are increasingly being denied access to the community, its service and activities. Such access is a major goal of the NDIS. We should not forget the real distress that such drastic cuts to interpreting budgets is causing.

Further, the person that contacted me stated that there has been a massive drop in work since the NDIA has started to cut plans. This has meant that some interpreters have had to drop out of the industry and seek other work. The income that they are getting does not allow them to meet the cost of living. This is a real concern as there is already an enormous shortage of Auslan interpreters.

These examples show, again, that many Planners and NDIA decision makers are not knowledgeable about the needs of Deaf participants. It shows that they do not understand the real challenges that Deaf participants face in accessing interpreters. Nor do they understand reasons for the two hour minimum booking. Indeed many Planners and NDIA decision makers would appear to not even understand that this condition exists.

Example C:

Recently a friend who works as an allied health professional made an observation about how they were feeling in the NDIS space. They had this to say:

” ..It’s so bad atm – I’m not enjoying working as an Deaf OT in the NDIS space for our Deaf Community as there’s just so many funding cuts and knock backs despite the evidence provided. Working so so hard with not much reward.“

I have spoken to quite a few allied health professionals over the last few months and this is a common theme. Namely that they are providing comprehensive reports and evidence, but a lot of it is rejected or ignored. They feel that their experience and expertise is being dismissed to the participants detriment.

What does this mean? Well, many of professionals are considering dropping out of the industry. Indeed, if you look at example two, where my interpreter colleague has mentioned that interpreters are seeking other employment because NDIS cuts have meant that they are not getting enough work, this could be suggesting a trend.

This might be indicate that a large pool of experienced service providers are leaving or considering leaving the NDIS space. This is potentially catastrophic as there are already huge waiting lists and struggles to meet demands for support. For the Deaf community to lose interpreters in an area that is already struggling to meet demand across a range of needs, it is very scary.

Although my focus has been on participants who are Deaf and hard of hearing many of the themes that have been raised in this piece are possibly relevant across the NDIS space. For example:

1. The cuts to plans are causing great distress to participants. Some times unfairly.
2. The changes to the NDIS that have been suggested have the intent of sustainability of the scheme. While this is commendable, it would seem many of the changes are occurring before alternate supports, such as Foundation supports are ready.
3. It is impossible for Planners and NDIS delegates to have an in-depth knowledge of every disability. Some of the Decisions in the Deaf and hard of hearing space suggest Planners and NDIA decision makers are showing an unrealistic expectation of what aided hearing can achieve for many Deaf and hard of hearing participants. The lack of knowledge of specific disabilities is also likely impacting on their decision making across the disability spectrum.
4. The poor decision making, while aiming to cut costs, is actually costing more. It is leading to higher administrative demands and ultimately to appeals which are drawn out and have high legal costs. It also comes at great personal cost and distress to participants that the decisions are impacting.

I am under no illusions that for the NDIS to remain sustainable, changes need to be made. I am also aware that sometimes the suggested cuts to plans are justifiable. I believe that the examples I have provided are common across the NDIS space. I believe that the cuts to plans that are being made are often based on flawed reasoning, while at the same time ignoring expert advice and evidence that has been provided at great cost.

I fear that if we do not address some of the issues that I have raised, there will be a crisis. I fear that skilled providers will leave the NDIS space meaning that demand for supports, already difficult to meet, will not be met. I fear that the constant reviews and appeals will continue to siphon funds away from where they are better spent, and that is to provide much needed support to participants.

Many, many people have worked to try and find solutions to the problems of the NDIS. I do not pretend to know all the answers. What I do know is that in my time working in the NDIS space there was a pool of subject matter experts.

As a Planner I often consulted with them. I did this because I knew my limitations. For example, if home modifications were needed I would contact the subject matter expert within the NDIA who was knowledgeable about they types of modifications that could benefit a specific disability. I could contact them about specifications and legal requirements for the construction of ramps. I would ask for lay persons explanations of technical aspects of prosthetic fittings. I would use this information in my decision making process. It was just good practice.

It seems to me that this important part of the decision making process is now less common. How else can we explain that decisions to cut Auslan interpreting are being made because hearing aids are seen as a cheaper alternative, despite the provision of comprehensive reports and evidence?

I firmly believe that he NDIA needs to look closely at how decisions are being made and utilise the expertise it has within, and I know that there is a lot. Cutting costs is important for the sustainability of the NDIS, but it cannot happen on the basis of poor knowledge and process. It is this that will make the scheme unsustainable, far more than any monetary expense.

With respect, thank you for reading.