Pat Conaghan (Cowper, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Hansard source

I've seen firsthand the life-changing effects that an NDIS package can have on constituents, particularly in my seat on the Mid North Coast—people like Connor Bryant from Sawtell, who I met up with recently, who had an issue with his NDIS package that was ultimately resolved. Connor had a workplace accident and is now wheelchair bound. The NDIS has completely changed his life. We know that individuals who have been provided with the right package delivered by the right service provider at the right time have had their quality of life improved immeasurably. It is a good program. It's a worthy and essential program that has to continue, but it needs to be continually assessed, adapted and made functional in order for it to exist in generations to come. The coalition has always recognised this, and it has been disappointing to see the NDIS used for political pointscoring in recent years and months. If ever there were a program that needed bipartisanship, this is it.

Ironically, each accusation previously levelled at the coalition government has now essentially been agreed and confirmed by those opposite. Prior to the 2022 election, our government was accused of hyperbole, of whispering in the corridors that the scheme—as it currently stands—was unsustainable, of unnecessarily requesting reviews that were only delaying tactics and even of making cuts in the budget. The reality was, of course, that the coalition had invested a record $157.8 billion over four years to support over 550,000 Australians living with a disability. Now, Labor has come into government and assessed the current scheme parameters and its cost trajectory, which, I might add, at its current rate will be $125 billion by 2035 and will eclipse Medicare by almost four times. The Minister for the NDIS has agreed that the scheme is growing in its cost base too quickly and that significant reviews are in fact required.

While it's frustrating to hear those murmurings of agreement to issues years after they were raised by the coalition, it is comforting that we now appear to be singing from the same hymn sheet and moving forward with addressing the plethora of issues plaguing this very worthy initiative as it currently stands. When I say a plethora, that is no exaggeration. The flaws in the system at times feel almost immeasurable. It is time to knuckle down and start plugging those leaks together in a bipartisan way and also to acknowledge the unintended knock-on effects that the scheme has created.

In my electorate of Cowper, the NDIS has outranked every other issue at least two to one when it comes to the volume of commentary from my constituents. I hold mobile offices at least four times a month around my electorate in order to ensure that every township of Cowper gets the opportunity to come and chat with me in person without having to drive to my permanent offices in Coffs Harbour and Port Macquarie. Without fail, at every mobile office I hold, conversations around the NDIS will consume at least half of the available time.

Now, that's fairly extraordinary when you think about it. You can consider the raft of local and national issues on the table for discussion, from the cost of living to health care, local roads, telecommunications and everything in between, yet the NDIS takes up half the time. For a start, there are those coming to me who are currently covered by a package and are either asking for assistance to be reassessed or notifying me of the rampant overcharging they have experienced within their package—and I'll get back to overcharging in a moment. Currently, we are seeing that waiting times for reviews are regularly reported as taking six months or more. That is far too long. These are individuals and families that are desperately trying to access critical services during a cost-of-living crisis that have been unable to afford the care they desperately need for over half a year. We have to do better.

I come back to the overcharging. There are reports of the charge for the installation of handrails and ramps costing three times more when claimed through the NDIS than when they're quoted privately. There are reports of charges of hundreds of dollars to take out a participant's bins once a week. I think that's a reflection on society. When I grew up, we took out our neighbour's bins. There is an example of a builder providing a $750 quote for a chairlift. It is just outrageous. It is rorting and it is fraud.

Then there are those who come to me to report the fraudulent claims of active participants on the system. These are stories that I continue to listen to. I'm privileged enough to have been put on the NDIS review committee. I have travelled to remote locations with the member for Corangamite, who's doing a very good job, and Senator Urquhart. We went to the Northern Territory and to remote locations in Western Australia. These are the most vulnerable people—Indigenous people in remote and very remote locations where it's extremely difficult to get service providers. They're generally fly-in, fly-out service providers, and some of them are very good; some of them provide the services. But there was a waterfall of stories about service providers getting in contact with vulnerable people, offering them cash or fishing gear or laptops to change their service provider over to them and never being heard of again yet charging tens of thousands—indeed, hundreds of thousands of dollars—from individuals' packages.

This is exactly why we have to have a review into the NDIS. This is the ripping off of not the Australian government but the Australian taxpayer. These people are crooks and they should be locked up.

Over the past 18 months I've held forums throughout the electorate covering a large spectrum of issues, from child care to health care, aged care and veterans' affairs, and in each of these forums one of the biggest issues has been the drain out of those industries' workforces and into the NDIS because they can charge more. This is exactly why we need to look at capping those services. Those services should not allow people to walk a participant around a shopping centre on a Sunday for $128 an hour. I have seen invoices where the service provider only provides services on a Saturday or a Sunday because they get double the rate, effectively. You can't blame a nurse or somebody working in aged care in a tough environment where you're physically and mentally challenged every single day and getting paid $35 an hour when you can go out and earn $60 an hour during the week to take somebody for a coffee in a shopping centre. This is not why we designed the system. I know that those on the other side of the floor have heard the same stories. The last speaker spoke of them. It's frustrating. It is really frustrating.

Whilst I support this bill, I feel the need to outline some of the concerns we hold as the coalition with the bill in its current form and reserve my final position until the bill goes through the Senate inquiry. I know I've said this before, but there is a lack of clarity and detail in the bills put to this House by Labor, and this bill continues to concern me. For example, I don't believe the bill has made it clear what a participant can do if they don't agree with the outcome of the needs assessment. I know from the feedback of many in my electorate that NDIA decisions are often inconsistent and ultimately debatable, but this bill currently doesn't outline any avenue for review.

On that avenue of thought, I need to question the consultation process on some of these changes. I have received impassioned pleas from representative organisations claiming that they have had no avenue to comment and have not been consulted. Due to the non-disclosure agreements in place, I haven't been able to effectively assess these claims either. I question why this bill was not open to public consultation. It's certainly not in the spirit of the transparency, fairness, compassion and accountability that the bill professes to maintain.

The bill also states that the applied principles and tables of support will be incorporated as an interim measure to determine what is and what is not an NDIS support, yet it has been widely recognised that APTOS has failed in the past. There are also no provisions around providers of last resort. There's still a lot of work to do to develop a method for more consistent assessing and determining funding levels for housing and living supports, and I certainly don't feel that this bill effectively addresses that.

I also feel it necessary to note that there has been no formal government response to the disability royal commission or the NDIS Review. The release of the bill at this point in time is surprising. It appears that its rushed delivery is to be in time for the release of the 2024-25 federal budget.

In conclusion, I started by saying that we can all agree that there is much to be done, and the time for action was yesterday. We have to stop the waste and the fraud on the system and ensure that there is adequate funding and human resources to swiftly and appropriately support those in genuine need. The success of the proposed reforms will depend on creating a viable sector with quality providers—emphasis on 'quality providers'—and registered providers, and without properly assessing and implementing all elements required to achieve that, including addressing workforce shortages. The NDIS is an essential initiative that can and should continue to assist hundreds of thousands of Australians living with a disability to improve and maintain their quality of life now and for generations to come. I look forward to continuing to work with all sides of the floor towards that resolution.

See this speech in context