Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

This National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 makes some significant changes to the NDIS, which are intended to address its sustainability while still retaining the real benefit we've seen from the transition to the NDIS.

I can understand why people are so concerned about anything that's designed to protect this system's financial sustainability. Because of the huge shift implementing the NDIS over the last 10 years, many people feel like they've been fighting the system and legitimately worry that limiting the scheme's future growth will negatively affect the support they receive. I want to talk about why protecting the sustainability of the NDIS is important, the key concerns I've heard from constituents, how government says it will respond to these concerns and how the government needs to be held to account in implementing this bill.

Firstly, I'll speak on sustainability of the NDIS. The NDIS is probably the most significant piece of reform we've undertaken in the last 15 years. It represented a big shift in approach from a block funded welfare approach to empowering people with disability to have choice and control over the support they receive. Now, 10 years after its inception, it makes sense we're reviewing the scheme. With such a big shift it was always going to take some time to embed the necessary cultural and systemic changes.

Let's make no mistake about it: the NDIS is a good thing. At its core the scheme empowers people with disability to use funds given to them to purchase services that meet their unique needs and reflect their aspirations. But when it was designed 10 years ago the architects of the NDIS could not have imagined the cost blowout we've seen. The NDIS is currently the third-largest program as measured by total general government sector expenses, with an estimated expenditure of $41.9 billion in 2023-24. Nearly 600,000 Australians are NDIS participants, with about 6,000 people joining the scheme every month. It's predicted to cost us $100 billion within a decade. Its costs are growing at a faster rate than any other area of spending except interest on the national debt. It needs to be sustainable. We need to continue to provide effective and fair support to people with disability in our community, and we need to be able to afford it.

In 2022 the government commissioned a review of the NDIS, which was released in December last year. It's worth noting the review's focus was on putting people with disability back at the centre of the NDIS and ensuring the sustainability of the NDIS for future generations. The review made 26 recommendations, including designing support packages based on an assessment of the recipient's functional requirements; more foundational supports provided outside the scheme, including a greater role for states and territories in delivery; extra help for people to navigate the scheme; and improving incentives for providers to deliver quality and value-for-money supports to participants.

It seems obvious to me and my constituent liaison officers that the NDIS is not working effectively or fairly for NDIS clients. NDIS issues are one of the main reasons constituents contact my office for help. We've handled more than 120 personal cases, nearly half of which have been in the last six months. Too many people, as well as coping with significant disabilities, feel like they're battling a system that was meant to be person centred but has turned into a bureaucratic monolith. We hear from people who have trouble accessing the NDIS, experience long delays in getting plans reviewed and cannot speak to a person about their plan. If I had to summarise the common elements of many of the NDIS complaints we have, it's that there's a lack of common sense and a complex and bureaucratic approach to solving problems. Governments are just not very good at building systems that put the person at the centre. It's a noble goal but we have little precedent in government systems for a personalised approach.

In this context I can completely understand why people on the NDIS are scared of changes. When you've been fighting a system that requires you to justify your needs again and again, you don't want to lose what you fought for and it's hard to believe anything designed to save money will work out well for you. We cannot, in the reform of the NDIS, make people worse off. We cannot, in passing this bill, make it harder for people with disability to access support. Progressing with this before the Senate inquiry reports raises some issues. I'd prefer the findings of the Senate inquiry to inform the legislation.

I want to go through some of the main concerns I've heard from my community and how the government has said these concerns will be addressed. I think some of these concerns are adequately addressed. For others I'd like to see some amendments to give people comfort. Other concerns will depend heavily on how the legislation is implemented.

The first concern I've heard is there's a lot of decision-making pushed into delegated legislation. One of the problems with the NDIS has been the rigidity of some aspects, which creates nonsensical situations where basically the computer says no. If issues are addressed in delegated legislation they can be changed if something isn't working. Obviously that benefit can also result in a fear that it can be changed easily for the wrong reasons. But there are some checks and balances put in place to minimise the risks of delegating too much power. The bill contains six ministerial instruments which largely relate to how the agency will operationalise the changes. There are 30 new rule-making powers in the legislation. Of these, 23 are category A rules, which require the universal agreement of all states and territories. Two of the remaining powers require a majority of all states to agree, and the remaining five require consultation with the states.

It seems appropriate that the new rule-making powers require the say of the states, given that the system requires cooperation and buy-in from the states so that people don't fall between the cracks. I'll support an amendment to embed the needs for co-design and consultation in the development of this delegated legislation, and I'll also be reviewing delegated legislation when it's made, consulting with disability organisations and supporting a disallowance if adequate consultation on co-design—

See this speech in context