Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

There's no doubt that the NDIS, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, has been transformative and has changed life for the better for hundreds of thousands of Australians with a significant and permanent disability, but the truth is also that it's not working for everyone. Too many people have to prove year after year that they are still blind, that they still have the same permanent injury. There's too much red tape, uncertainty, lack of early intervention, and complexity in plans and budget-setting processes. The frank truth is that it's not operating as it was intended: to focus on those Australians with a significant and permanent disability. And so it's important that, through the National Disability Insurance Scheme amendment (getting the NDIS back on track No. 1) Bill 2024 and the reform process, the scheme is returned to its core purpose and that, as the minister has said, it's not the only lifeboat in the ocean.

Reform ideally, for something so significant to the country and to hundreds of thousands of Australians, needs to be bipartisan. It needs to work for people, and the reforms need to stand the test of time. No-one wants to see the NDIS become a never-ending political football. The truth is also that many of these reforms should have happened years ago—especially the action on frauds and shocks. It is not sustainable, morally or politically, that in large parts of the community now, often for people who are not directly connected with the scheme, when you say 'NDIS', people start laughing and think 'rorts and waste'. That's not an acceptable situation. That's not the reality overall for the scheme, but it is endemic in parts of the scheme. The scheme also has to be fiscally sustainable. Frankly, it was not. It's not financially sustainable for the Commonwealth or the country as a whole. Without action, by 2032, over a million Australians would be on the NDIS and it would cost more than $100 billion a year. That's not an effective and efficient use of taxpayer money to provide supports to people with a significant and permanent disability.

We also have to make sure that the scheme is sustainable in terms of community support and confidence, and that the money goes to those for whom the scheme was designed. So I welcome on face value the opposition's statements that they will support the bill through the House. I also note—and I listened carefully to the previous speaker's comments—that detailed negotiations and listening continue. I welcome the government's amendments that the minister has foreshadowed so far to assuage some of the fears and concerns, and I anticipate there'll be more before the bill wends its way through the parliament.

The changes, though, will improve the experience of participants and restore that original intent of the scheme to focus on Australians with a significant and permanent disability. The bill will provide clarity on who can access the NDIS, enable better early intervention pathways for people living with psychosocial disability and children younger than nine years old with developmental delay and disability, and improve how NDIS participant budgets are set, making them more flexible, and provide clearer information on how they will be spent.

Importantly, the bill implements key recommendations of the NDIS review—and I think it's important that we are cognisant of that. I heard the previous speaker suggesting that we should stop, wait and not progress this, and that consultation hadn't occurred and not everyone had been spoken to. With respect, I just don't think that's a fair characterisation of the point we're at and where the bill came from. There was a comprehensive review that engaged more than 10,000 people, considered more than 4,000 submissions and was headed by Bruce Bonyhady and former Commonwealth departmental secretary Lisa Paul. They are real experts—frankly, more expert than, I suspect, anyone in this place. That's actually how good public policy and good public administration should occur—not that we, as parliamentarians, sit there and read 4,000 submissions and talk to 10,000 people. That's frankly ridiculous when you think about the span of responsibilities that the parliament has in every portfolio and every policy domain. It was a properly constituted review. It was a serious piece of work. It engaged seriously and thoughtfully with Australians with a disability and other experts in the redesign of the scheme, and we should give it great weight.

It's appropriate that this bill is the first in a series of anticipated legislative changes that the Australian government will make in response to that properly constituted NDIS review, which was an election commitment of the government.

I see that the next speaker's here, and, in the interests of time, I will wrap up. I've made some of the key points that I wish to make. I really urge all sides of the House to take this seriously to reach a consensus on this, because we can't have the lives of Australians with a disability become a political football. Not every view can be accommodated. This is a seriously good-faith exercise by the government in listening to people with a disability, and I think it will improve the scheme, make it fiscally sustainable and improve the experience for Australians living with disability.

See this speech in context