Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The NDIS is changing the lives of more than 660,000 Australians, and the coalition has a strong record of support for the NDIS. The coalition is committed to a fully funded NDIS, and, for this reason, it needs to be sustainable to ensure it delivers for the many generations to come.

When the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act was passed in 2013, in the dying days of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, we saw a complex and important social reform poorly designed and rushed to implementation for political reasons. One of the most profound problems with the scheme was that it allowed the states to walk away from providing key services to those with a disability. Unfortunately Labor underinvested in the NDIS when it was established, failing to invest in the unmet needs of people with disability. If we look at the numbers over the time of the NDIS, at the time it was established the government committed $1 billion over four years for the first stage of the scheme. In its first year, the NDIS was to provide care and support for up to 10,000 people with significant and permanent disability, increasing to 20,000 people from 2014-15.

This year the budget revealed federal and state government spending on the NDIS ballooned by 21 per cent in 23-24 to $44.3 billion—or $2.4 billion more than forecast—in last year's budget. The Commonwealth picks up about 70 per cent of the cost of the scheme. There was an additional $3 billion in cost write-ups over the forward estimates, which included a combination of spending on participants and government initiatives to reform the scheme. To put this in perspective, the NDIS costs the Commonwealth more than double what the entire PBS program does and three times the expense of JobSeeker payments. The only program more expensive is the aged pension.

The question is: how do we trust this minister to make the NDIS sustainable when he thinks paying $620,000 for a personal speechwriter is a good use of taxpayer money. Based on the 28 speeches on his ministerial website, this equates to $22,000 a speech. This speechwriter was hired by Services Australia for the minister and paid $620,000 over two years, and this is despite the department saying that they have the capacity to provide speechwriting services in-house. The deputy CEO of Services Australia said in Senate estimates, 'It comes down to a question of choice.' There are 201 media and communication staff members currently employed by Services Australia, two of whom are speechwriters. Services Australia officials confirmed its staff had not written any speeches for the minister in the past 12 months.

To assist with the sustainability of the NDIS, the coalition established the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission in 2018 to ensure the safety and quality of NDIS services. After it was established, the coalition made further enhancement to protect NDIS participants from harm, and provided an additional $92 million to resource the commission. The previous coalition government invested a record $157.8 billion dollars over four years to support more than half a million Australians living with disability.

This legislation we debate today is the first in a proposed series of bills that amend the NDIS Act 2013 in response to the findings and recommendations of the independent review into the National Disability Insurance Scheme. For years now, concerns have been raised in relation to the NDIS, its financial sustainability, fraud and eligibility criteria. The last coalition government did not tolerate the misuse of funds intended to support people with disability and had a zero tolerance approach to fraud. The NDIS fraud taskforce saw significant results in 2021, leading to the seizure of millions of dollars in cash and assets acquired by individuals through fraudulent activity, as well as the successful prosecution of criminals who have targeted the NDIS and its participants.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 will provide new, much needed definitions of disability supports and clarify the scope of valid supports appropriately funded under the NDIS. Recent reports have described how some NDIS participants are abusing the scheme and what they use taxpayer funds for. I had a message completely separate to this about an hour ago from a friend and constituent whose daughter's funding had been cut. He's frustrated, like many others, about those that misuse the program when those that really need it don't get access. The following cases are just some examples that have been before the AAT, arguing the case for reasonable and necessary claims: infrared saunas, almost 2½ thousand dollars for security cameras, a two-bedroom apartment for one resident, a water filtration system, a Thermomix, a car fridge and freezer, $30,000 to $40,000 to purchase a new motorhome, horseriding lessons, a swimming pool, singing lessons, ducted air conditioning, sexual therapy or sex workers and the cremation of a participant's emotional support rat. What is and what is not an NDIS support must not be so strict as to not allow a participant to explain why it is reasonable and necessary for a requested support to be funded. However, this does not mean anything you desire is an NDIS support.

The success of the proposed reforms will depend on a viable sector with quality providers. Without the other elements required to achieve that—addressing of workforce shortages, realistic and independent pricing, and a regulatory system that promotes quality and an even playing field—the risk of any reforms not being successful is heightened. Unfortunately, there seems to have been a lack of a co-design approach to developing the bill. It is unclear who has been consulted in its development. Some disability representative organisations were apparently consulted; however, nondisclosure agreements were put in place. The bill makes multiple references to co-design, yet it was not open for public consultation, which comes back to a lack of transparency, fairness, compassion and accountability which this bill is supposed to support.

The bill will provide a new assessment process for gaining entry into the NDIS by way of the two eligibility streams—early intervention and/or disability requirements—and will set out the manner in which an existing NDIS participant will transition from an old plan to a new plan. This makes participants very nervous. Coming up on two years of this government, timeframes and wait times for planned reviews have drastically blown out, with participants now regularly waiting more than six months for reviews. That's six months where participants are without support and families are in crisis. Most of the local NDIS inquiries into my office are about this very issue.

In my electorate of Casey, in 2023, we assisted 23 constituents with complex NDIS cases, where their plans were wrong, late or approved but delayed. That number has now increased by 50 per cent, and we are only halfway through 2024. The common issues that I hear about include: support coordinators who have tried numerous times to contact NDIS with no resolution; and NDIS call-centre staff advising callers to contact their MP or giving advice on how to contact the Ombudsman to make a complaint, which is completely unacceptable. Requests for plan reviews or change-of-circumstances reviews are taking way too long to process. Planning meetings are not happening within 21 days of funding being approved for new participants, so participants are being kept waiting for too long without the support services they have been approved for. Support coordinators are putting in request for funds before funds run out in a participant's current plan, and their plan ends up expiring without those funds being approved, leaving participants without their vital support services, and the process to seek approval for invoices for support provided under the expired plan is challenging and complicated.

I want to share some of the stories from my community so we understand that there are people behind these failures in the NDIS system. Emma, age 47, has a number of physical and psychological disabilities. She lodged a plan review request in November 2023 in anticipation of running out of funds. She has now exhausted all of the funds in her plan and is in urgent need of funds to allow her support worker to attend a court domestic violence matter with her. Hannah, age 39, is a quadriplegic and is wheelchair bound, and her mum relies on support workers to help every day. There are only enough funds to last three more weeks, but Hannah's plan does not expire until September. A review lodged in March has not been actioned yet.

Louise, aged 57, with a psychosocial disability, lodged an urgent plan reassessment in November 2023 to provide additional support hours for her worsening health. This request is still awaiting action from the planning team.

Simon, aged 42, with level 2 autism, was approved for NDIS in December 2023. He's still waiting for the planning meeting meant to happen within 21 days so that he can access the mental health support workers needed to assist him with coping with autism outbursts.

Lachlan, aged 69, waited several months for approval of a quote for an already-approved item in his plan: to replace his prosthetic leg.

I could continue to share more stories from my constituents. Time does not allow it, but I hope this highlights the need for reform. Hopefully, the minister spends less time getting expensive speechwriters and more time fixing the system.

There are also problems that I can see with the bill for which I think we need more investigation and clarification from the government. It is not clear from the bill what a participant can do if they do not agree with the outcome of the needs assessment. NDIA decisions are notorious for being inconsistent and variable. There doesn't appear to be an avenue for review in the new legislation. The review recommendations themselves contain numerous contentious recommendations. The drafting of the bill lacked an opportunity for consultation. This will mean that participants, their families and providers would be scrambling to have fair and equitable access to the scheme and supports they need.

The coalition will not oppose this bill in the House of Representatives, but we do voice our concerns and call on the government to release the modelling that has led to their conclusions here, including the cost of savings to be made by this legislation and also a detailed outline of the inevitable cuts that participants should expect as a result of the changes.

The Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee is conducting an inquiry into the bill and is due to report by 20 June 2024. We will of course reserve our final position on the bill until after the Senate inquiry is complete.

See this speech in context