The Government is accepting recommendations from the parliamentary inquiry into the rural, regional and remote NDIS experience. But will this change what’s happening on the ground or simply describe the problem more carefully?

Accepting the need for change is easy. That’s why government says it’s committed to implementing seven of the ten reccomendations of the Joint Standing Committee into the NDIS experience in Rural, Regional and Remote Australia.

The same for the coalition, which has added its own additional comment and recommendation on pricing (accepted by the government). This is, after all, opposition parliamentary territory.

On paper, this looks substantial. The Government promises simpler access, better guidance, stronger cultural capability, workforce action, First Nations language interpreting, improved CALD communication and better commissioning models.

But the problem has never been whether Canberra accepts the principle. It is whether support arrives.

A participant in a remote community does not need another acknowledgement that services are hard to reach. They need someone to come. They need culturally appropriate supports. They need providers who can stay and in this regard the response is cautious.

The committee asked for greater travel flexibility for participants in remote and very remote areas. The Government did not support it. It notes the recommendation, then points to existing remote loadings, higher price limits and provider travel arrangements.

This matters because travel is not a technical issue. In remote Australia it can be the difference between a plan that exists and support that is real.

______________________________________________________

[continued from the abilityNEWS newsletter]

The Government response contains the right language.

Equity. Cultural safety. Workforce. Local solutions. Commissioning. First Nations leadership. CALD inclusion. Accessible guidance. None of this is wrong and all of it is necessary.

But rural, regional and remote participants already know about these problems. Distance changes everything. It changes the price of support, the availability of workers, the chance of finding allied health, and the ability to use a plan at all.

So do deeper resources, or the lack of them. In most localities there is no deeper social infrastructure to fall back on; no spare money to support needs, or differing cultural understandings of how to move forward. An emptiness still lies at the heart of Australia.

That is why the workforce and commissioning parts of the response matter most.

The Government points to rural health education, allied health workforce planning, training investment, migration pathways and care-sector strategies. These may help. But pipelines take time and have been promised before. Suggesting the NDIS will precede other more basic services seems unrealistic.

The more revealing word is commissioning.

The old NDIS assumption was that individualised funding would create a market. In remote Australia the market often does not arrive. There may be too few participants, too much distance and not enough workforce. The Scheme can fund support nobody is available to deliver.

That is money without service.

The response points to integrated care and commissioning trials in places including the Kimberley, Central West Queensland, South-Eastern NSW, Gippsland, Northern Tasmania and Whyalla/Port Augusta. It also points to alternative commissioning work in Maningrida and Katanning, but this is where the policy argument gets real.

When individual markets fail - or do not and have never existed - government has to shape supply. It has to commission services, pool demand, and support local providers. It cannot simply pretend communities are suburbs with longer roads.

Although commissioning can build services, done badly, it reduces individual control.

The government's response is not empty. It contains real measures but defines the problem more clearly than the solution.

For participants outside the cities, the NDIS is not national because the legislation says so. It is national only when support can be found where people live.