Vision Australia’s response to the Productivity Commission’s preliminary findings on stage one of Human Services reform Email: Response approved by: Karen Knight General Manager Advocacy and Engagement Response submitted by: Kate Begley, Policy Advisor Scott Jacobs, Advocacy Advisor Summary Vision Australia is pleased to have the opportunity to make recommendations to the Productivity Commission to help ensure that the services the Commission identified as being best suited to greater competition, contestability and informed user choice are accessible, affordable and quality and include legislative provisions that consider the needs and rights of the blindness and low vision community. In this submission we will highlight issues that must be considered during development of the reform of the proposed reform areas in human services, including accessible information, access to third party advocates, the protection of thin markets, and safeguarding standards and the stewardship role of government. People who are blind or have low vision are frequently reliant on the six priority areas for reform identified in the first stage of the Productivity inquiry into human services reform. Commission’s The blind and low vision community often experience lower income, lower employment rates, and higher reliance on the benefits system, leading to a greater representation in the grant based community services sector, public dental, social housing, and public hospitals. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have a higher incidence of vision impairment: this, combined with the comorbidity of other health or societal conditions, leads to a greater need for these services; with concurrent geographic barriers to service access. We are concerned about the tension between guaranteeing the quality of services and trying to improve outcomes for people who are blind or have low vision, and the goal of reducing costs through increased contestability and competition. There is a blurring that can occur when introducing competition and contestability to outcomes for service and to seek ‘improved users’ reduce costs, where each is given a false equivalency. One does not always lead to the other, yet
Vision Australia’s response to the Productivity Commission’s preliminary findings on stage one of Human Services reform Email: Response approved by: Karen Knight General Manager Advocacy and Engagement Response submitted by: Kate Begley, Policy Advisor Scott Jacobs, Advocacy Advisor Summary Vision Australia is pleased to have the opportunity to make recommendations to the Productivity Commission to help ensure that the services the Commission identified as being best suited to greater competition, contestability and informed user choice are accessible, affordable and and include legislative provisions that consider the needs and rights of the blindness and low vision community. In this submission we will highlight issues that must be considered during development of the reform of the proposed reform areas in human services, including accessible information, access to third party advocates, the protection of thin markets, quality and safeguarding standards and the stewardship role of government. People who are blind or have low vision are frequently reliant on the six priority areas for reform identified in the first stage of the Productivity Commission’s inquiry into human services reform. The blind and low vision community often experience lower income, lower employment rates, and higher reliance on the benefits system, leading to a greater representation in the grant based community services sector, public dental, social housing, and public hospitals. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have a higher incidence of vision impairment: this, combined with the comorbidity of other health or societal conditions, leads to a greater need for these services; with concurrent geographic barriers to service access. We are concerned about the tension between guaranteeing the quality of services and trying to improve outcomes for people who are blind or have low vision, and the goal of reducing costs through increased contestability and competition. There is a blurring that can occur when introducing competition and contestability to seek ‘improved outcomes for service users’ and to reduce costs, where each is given a false equivalency. One does not always lead to the other, yet
subpfr321-human-services-identifying-reform.docx