A look into the Productivity Commission's draft National Disability Insurance Scheme. - Dona L. Graham, Gateway Editor -in- Chief

Acquiring a disability is one lottery you just don’t want to win. And yet, for 800 Australians each year their number will come up when they acquire a significant disability from injury, accident or criminal injury. Currently the safety net that supports the 360,000 Australians with a disability is just that – a net, with gaping holes which too many people fall through.

At the Gateway we are very excited about the Productivity Commission’s draft National Disability Insurance Scheme to address the current underfunded, unfair and inefficient “squeaky wheel” system under which too many people with a disability and their carers labour.

The draft report seeks to change the system from one that parcels out inadequate and uncertain amounts of money to those with a disability, to one which starts with the needs of the individual and their changing needs over their lifetime, and finds the funding to meet those needs. The Commission emphasises the needs are based on level-headed assessments by professional assessors of needs, not individuals’ wants.

To achieve this end the Commission is recommending two separate insurance schemes. The first, larger and universal scheme, would cover people who are born with a disability or acquire one and need long-term care and support. It estimates this would support the existing 360,000 Australians with disabilities.

The second scheme would cover the lifetime care and support of the estimated 800 new people who each year acquire a significant disability from injury, accident or criminal injury. Under the proposal the workers compensation system would remain separate.

The larger scheme would provide all services, care and support but not income support as this would continue via Centrelink. The funding would be made available under individualised care packages that change with age. Individuals would be allowed to choose their own service provider or use the funds to purchase less formal aid utilising family or friends. Mostly importantly, the support packages would be portable across state borders as would be the system of assessments of need.

The Commission estimates that it will cost $12 billion annually, an extra $6.3 billion a year on the existing allocation, to fund both schemes. Its preferred funding option is a tax swap: States abolish $4.5 billion worth of inefficient and unpopular taxes and the Commonwealth funds the whole scheme by raising an extra $11 billion from general revenue, spending cuts in other areas and raising taxes. The other preferred option is to fund the scheme from existing consolidated revenue.

The transition from a wildly underfunded, understaffed and resourced sector to one with adequate funding, appropriately qualified staff and service provider choice cannot happen overnight. This is why the Commission is proposing a trial of the scheme and its progressive roll out nationally between 2014 and 2020.

If you have not already done so we would encourage you to read the full draft report and consider making a written submission to the Productivity Commission by April 30^th, 2011. The final report will be prepared after submissions have been received and public hearings have been held, which will be forwarded to the Government by July 31^st, 2011.