Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll continue on from where I left off last night, when I managed to get a couple of minutes in on this very important bill. As I was saying last night, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 is very important because it lays the groundwork for changes to make the NDIS better and more secure and to support people with disabilities in a way that gives them even more dignity in their everyday lives.

When you look at the NDIS, it's right up there with the great Labor reforms in our history. It's right up there with Medicare. It's right up there with the Chifley government's national taxation system and the pension system. This was certainly groundbreaking back during the Rudd-Gillard era. I recall very well that, in my own electorate, back in 2007, we had a disability forum. The then member for Maribyrnong, who was the minister for disability services, came along and said to me, 'I'm going to test something out in this room.' And he spoke to a room of approximately 150 people in my electorate who were from the disability sector—people with disabilities, parents who had children with disabilities and a whole range of people. He spoke about an insurance scheme, and I recall very well that it went down very well with everyone in that room. From there, the seed was planted for an NDIS. Of course, it took a few years through the minister, who then was Jenny Macklin. I was very proud to be here on the day the NDIS was passed unanimously through this House.

This bill builds on those important steps. As I said last night, we know that in March earlier this year we introduced legislation to the parliament to enable this important and necessary change to the NDIS. The government, by proposing this bill, is delivering on a commitment to build a strong and sustainable NDIS. We're doing this not just through words but by providing a further $468.7 million to get the NDIS back on track. These measures build on the $213.7 million to fight fraud, for example, and to co-design the NDIS reforms with people with disability announced earlier this year. The budget that was announced a few weeks ago will drive the implementation of key recommendations from the independent review of the NDIS, including reforms to the scheme transparency, participant supports, sustainability and services delivery, to get the NDIS back on track. This Albanese Labor government is committed to involve people with disability in the reforms, to improve outcomes for people with disability and to ensure the scheme is here forever and a day to support future generations of Australians with disabilities.

The NDIS is on the same pedestal, as I said earlier, as our remarkable Medicare. People with disabilities and their families know that they can trust this government to continue to protect the scheme, to make it stronger and to get the NDIS back on track. This government is committed to improving the outcomes for the NDIS participants and ensuring every single dollar goes to those who need it the most. The Albanese government will continue to work closely with the disability sector to consider the recommendations of the independent NDIS review and transition towards a disability support ecosystem capable of supporting all Australians with disability now and into the future. We've already said that we want to make it stronger and we've already begun to take that initiative and the initial, immediate steps in response to the historic review.

The investment will provide the architecture needed to bring together people with disability, government and other experts, to support those implementations and those important reforms. The key investments will include $45.5 million to establish an NDIS Evidence Advisory Committee, a clear pathway of $20 million to start consultation and design work to help people with disability navigate the services, and a fresh approach to pricing, which is very important, with $5.3 million to undertake that work to reform the NDIS pricing arrangements to help to ensure that the NDIS participants get the best deal and a fair deal and increase the transparency of how prices are set. These are all important steps. For example, the architecture to implement the reform will strengthen the governance. For co-design in fighting fraud there is $213.8 million of recently announced funding to fight fraud—to fight the things that we saw on the front page of today's Australian, and to co-design and reform this NDIS so that people with disability get the most out of it.

This government is transforming the capability of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission to protect people with disabilities from abuse, violence and neglect, and to detect and prevent fraud. Over the next four years, starting from financial year 2024-25, the Australian government will be investing more than $160.7 million through the DART program to ensure the NDIS commission has the critical technology and the systems required to gather the intelligence and collect and analyse data to better protect the NDIS participants. It will reduce the regulatory burden on the NDIS providers and improve cybersecurity.

This investment will ensure the NDIS commission can focus its activities to better protect those people with disabilities from harm and provide for more effective data sharing between the NDIS commission and the NDIA, as well as other government agencies, to help protect those participants by reducing misuse of the system.

The government and the minister are absolutely committed. That's why they've committed $45.5 million to establish the NDIS Evidence Advisory Committee, and this is a key recommendation of the independent NDIS review. We know that the NDIS Evidence Advisory Committee will provide independent and transparent advice to government on what works for participants. The committee will also provide advice on the evidence base for therapeutic support access through the NDIS, improving outcomes and ensuring better value for participants.

We know key findings from the independent NDIS review highlighted the challenges people with disability, their families and their carers face when navigating this labyrinth to find and access vital supports and services within the current disability ecosystem. The Albanese Labor government is also investing $20 million to begin breaking down these barriers through commencing consultation and design of a new navigation service model for the disability community regardless of their eligibility to access the NDIS. The government will continue to work closely with people with disabilities and the broader disability sector to ensure that the proposed navigational model is fit for purpose and able to meet the diverse needs of the disability community both inside and outside of the NDIS.

Over the last 10 years, the NDIS has made an incredible difference to people's lives. It's made a very significant contribution to Australians living with a disability and their families and those who care for them. This includes many constituents who have approached my office with issues in this space. I'm sure all of us in this House, on both sides, get queries from constituents that are having issues with the NDIS or in the disability sector. One of those constituents of mine that we have assisted recently is Jane, whose occasional therapist contacted me to raise concerns for Jane's wellbeing should she not receive NDIS support. At the time, Jane was in the Royal Adelaide public hospital and was not able to be released. They would not release her until she had some ongoing care at home. Jane is chair bound and suffers from severe lymphoedema, severe arthritis and complex PTSD. At the time, I was advised that Jane had previously applied for the NDIS but was refused for various reasons. I then took it upon myself to make representations on behalf of Jane and to assist Jane out of deep concern for her wellbeing, as her carer was telling us about. The thing is that she couldn't go home without the care, so therefore she was stuck in a bed in a public hospital. It's also worth noting that a situation like this contributes to the congestion in our hospitals. People are in hospital beds because they can't access the support to go home. But I was pleased that, after approaching Minister Shorten's office, he took a keen interest in Jane's case and asked for it to be reviewed. The review resulted in Jane receiving NDIS support and returning home with the support she needed. Her quality of life has improved immensely since then. This is by no means an isolated case. In my office we regularly assist constituents to access NDIS support for themselves and for their family members.

This is why this Albanese Labor government is investing $5.3 million in 2024 and 2025 to undertake the preliminary work on possible NDIS pricing function reforms to strengthen transparency, predictability and alignment, which will then in turn offer those people with disabilities a better service. This government will continue to work very closely with the disability sector to consider the recommendations of the independent NDIS review and transition towards a disability support ecosystem capable of supporting all Australians with disabilities now and into the future.

The NDIS Implementation Advisory Committee will oversee and advise on all of the initial period of implementation and will have representatives from the wide disability sector and government and other experts with relevant experience. The committee will report to the Disability Reform Ministerial Council every six months. I was proud, 10 years ago, when the bill was passed in this place to form the NDIS. I'm still proud of the ongoing work. I know that only a Labor government can be trusted to get the NDIS back on track. (Time expired)

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The NDIS is one of the most important supports in Australia and is currently helping almost 660,000 people to live fuller, richer lives as a result. Over 1,000 of these people live in my electorate of Wentworth, and they and their families regularly tell me about the difference the NDIS has made to their lives. One woman I met recently, who has lived with quadriplegia for the last 28 years, spoke to me about being able to move out of care and into independent living, manage chronic pain, return to work, volunteer and participate in her local community and be more active in her son's life as a result of the NDIS support she receives.

The choice and flexibility that the NDIS provides gives people living with a disability true agency over their lives and allows them to address the specific nature of their disability through the ways best suited to them. It is critical that any changes to the NDIS maintain the focus on choice, control and dignity. At the same time, I acknowledge the critical growth rates that have become a feature of the system. We're seeing alarming trends that threaten the financial stability of the scheme to serve future recipients. For example, one in 10 boys between the ages of five and seven are now on the NDIS and annual expenditure is growing at 15 per cent a year—roughly three times faster than aged care.

The head of fraud and integrity of the NDIS has also identified issues with the system such as overcharging from providers. Even worse, reports have now emerged of criminals exploiting participants and having them purchase unnecessary or illicit products or withdraw funds directly. It seems these are not isolated. The NDIA estimates up to five per cent of the scheme could be being spent in error. These types of revelations undermine not only the financial stability of the system but also the integrity of the scheme and the public's faith in the NDIS to deliver on its objectives. This sort of bad faith behaviour puts in jeopardy the incredible support the NDIS provides to those who rely on its so heavily, and it must be stamped out.

This system, the NDIS, has undoubtedly changed millions of lives for the better but it is financially unsustainable without real reform. Something needs to be done, and done quickly, to more effectively manage the costs of the NDIS while continuing to support the community it serves. While it is never easy to undertake significant changes to a system affecting such vulnerable and worthy recipients, growth at the level we are seeing is only going to hasten the system's decline.

I understand that this bill will be the first in a series of changes the Australian government will make in response to the NDIS review presented at the end of last year. This bill will make several substantial amendments to the NDIS Act, including clarifying the access requirements and supports that the NDIS will provide to a participant, creating a new model of determining a reasonable and necessary budget and giving new powers to the NDIA to request information and change or manage a participant's plan.

Understandably, the substantial changes the bill proposes are concerning many in my community who either have a disability or know a friend or family member who relies on the NDIS, and they want to make sure that we get any changes right. There is a lot of concern because a lot can go wrong when much detail is left out of the legislation.

I am concerned that the new definitions of support will potentially infringe upon the fundamental principles of the NDIS—choice and control. While further prescribing the types of goods and services that can be purchased under public schemes sounds reasonable, it may restrict many people from using funds in a way that works best for them and their specific needs. It may also not achieve the stated objective of managing expenses.

As Occupational Therapy Australia note in their submission, there is a risk of inadvertently increasing costs by excluding types of support from the NDIS. For example, it may be cheaper and more dignified for a participant to be able to purchase a robot vacuum cleaner rather than pay for regular cleaning services or additional in-home care. Similarly, it may be cheaper and more effective for a participant with chronic pain to see a yoga instructor once or twice a week rather than see a specialist physiotherapist once a month. The option and ability to use non-prescribed services also provides some amount of downward pressure on the prices for prescribed services. We already know that some service providers overcharge participants on the NDIS, so it is not unreasonable to be concerned that further restricting the services that money can be spent on will result in further inflation of NDIS service prices. Professor Helen Dickinson, of the University of New South Wales, noted before the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee that the more narrowly we define these supports, the less effective these supports are and the more expensive they become.

This bill also introduces powers to change management plans or revoke status due to noncompliance, but there is a lack of clarity about what might constitute a breach. While I'm not suggesting the current NDIA would seek to use this power maliciously, it creates an opening for a gradual erosion choice and control over time in an effort to better manage costs. Among many possibilities, the implication of this could be that participants lose their ability to hire their own selected staff, some of whom participants have had for many years, and with whom they have developed bespoke and personalised care routines and procedures. While it may be necessary in some instances to take over management, this power should be restricted by the bill to only the most egregious and/or repeated infringements.

I am concerned that the assessment procedures under the bill are not sufficiently detailed and that there are inadequate options for participants to review or challenge a determination of either their needs assessment or their budget—similarly, the powers to request information that could determine whether a person stays on the scheme. As the member for Kooyong pointed out, the rigid timeframes in the current bill are short and could result in eligible participants being excluded from services due to difficulties in seeing the required specialists in time.

A woman came into my office last week and said something that has stuck with me. She said she didn't disagree with the direction of this bill; she understands the system is unsustainable. But she noted that this bill in its current form requires a lot of trust from participants—a lot of trust that the legislative instruments, of which there are many, will be formalised with the correct and proper consultation; a lot of trust that the services participants rely on will not be excluded based on cost alone, either now or in the future; a lot of trust that the assessments conducted to review a person's eligibility will be transparent, contestable and conducted by people with the appropriate skills and expertise; a lot of trust that the states and local communities are ready and willing to step up and provide additional supports no longer covered under the NDIS; and a lot of trust that participants will still be able to choose the people they want to care for them, to support them, to touch their body.

I have discussed my concerns with the minister, and I commend the minister for bringing this difficult and complex issue before the parliament and for being willing to meet and work with me and my colleagues on the crossbench. I will not be voting against this bill, because I strongly believe reform is required to ensure the sustainability of the NDIS for future recipients, but I urge the minister to incorporate considered amendments put forward by people on the crossbench and to acknowledge the trust that my community and I put in his department to get this right.

Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Upon joining the parliament in 2008, the member for Maribyrnong, now Minister for Government Services and Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, was immediately made the parliamentary secretary for people with a disability. In his first speech he stated, 'The challenge for all of us is to abolish once and for all the second-class status that too often accompanies Australians living with disabilities.' Having said that, he took on that challenge, and he continues to serve in this place and, as minister, grapple in earnest with that challenge every day.

The NDIS has been a marvellous innovation, yet it isn't working as well as it might. Australia has had to wait for the election of the Albanese government to find a minister and a government that is prepared to grapple with the difficult process of much-needed reform: making choice and control essential to the scheme, stamping out fraud and waste, and putting the voices of people with a disability back at the centre. The previous government were not prepared to administer the NDIS fairly or well. They didn't put in the work to make the hard decisions to ensure the longevity of the scheme. I hope they will now support the work this government is doing to make the scheme everything it can be and ensure it continues to change futures for people across Australia.

In order to begin the task, which now sees the first of its legislative responses in this bill, the minister launched the NDIS Review in October 2022, soon after the beginning of this parliament. In October last year the minister received the NDIS Review report from Bruce Bonyhady and Lisa Paul. They stated in their preface: 'Ten years into the great Australian idea that is the NDIS, the moment has come to renew its purpose.'

I'll speak to a few of their 26 recommendations and 139 supporting actions, and to the bill, which embodies the report in part. I recommend the report to members and to interested members of the public. It considered almost 4,000 submissions, as you would expect of a scheme that already actively changes people's lives for the better. Recommendation 4 of the report underlines the need to support people to navigate the system. Members will appreciate the importance of this recommendation. Often the people who are most in need of a government service or assistance are also those least able to manage their way through the bureaucratic processes to receive those services. It is accentuated in the case where there is intellectual disability or a mental health issue.

Recommendations 8 and 9 relate to housing and living support. It is a crucial area of consideration and particularly challenging in the current market. Group homes are out of favour, but this shouldn't mean that we can't find a way to create independent living arrangements within a supportive community environment. Recommendation 9 specifically speaks of 'a diverse and innovative range of inclusive housing'. I think that will be key, allowing organisations to provide truly creative ways of meeting needs in community settings and for each to learn from the other as we progress.

A case in point is Building Friendships, an energetic organisation in Kalamunda, in the Perth Hills, that delivers activities and training for intellectually disabled adults. In response to the concerns of the parents of their clients, Building Friendships have, for a number of years now, alongside the enrichment activities they already provide, progressed plans for a community of independent tiny houses with essential shared facilities, on the edge of the Kalamunda township. They are now taking their own expertise and knowledge and partnering with Nesti Housing, a specialist disability housing and community housing provider. Their client focused independent housing development plan promises to bring good design and ecological sensitivity, with independent housing tailored to the particular needs of those people who are choosing to live there, and their families, with much-needed certainty for the future.

Recommendation 14 speaks to improving access for First Nations people. The reviewers acknowledge, on the first page of the report, that First Nations people experience disability at up to twice the rate of non-Indigenous Australians. The reasons for this are a complex of historical socioeconomic factors and the policies of former and current governments, and we must do better. There is no closing the gap without reaching Indigenous people well within the NDIS. The emphasis is on working with community to achieve this.

This bill, based on the recommendations of the review, seeks also to take the first steps to restore trust in the scheme. Fraud, overcharging and the underpayment of NDIS workers by a small proportion of providers undermine the system for all. The fraud issues surrounding the NDIS are significant and serious. The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission stated in June 2022, shortly after we came to government, that organised crime networks are stealing as much as $1.5 billion from the NDIS each year. This government has been working, from the point of election, to address this fraud concern. Just yesterday we saw a report of an occupational therapist being jailed for six years for doing the wrong thing. There are a further 20 prosecutions before the courts and over 200 investigations underway. We are not looking the other way. Most providers are doing the right thing, but a minority need to be weeded out, and some obviously need to be met with the full force of the law. The previous government were clearly not grappling with this issue. In contrast, there has been hardly a week over the last two years where the minister has not made a public statement on these matters.

I also want to stress the importance of proper audit processes. Strong audit processes must exist in order to keep providers, and all those involved in the NDIS, accountable. Providers doing the right thing will not mind this, as they will pass their audit and, I am sure, will want to know that any organisations or individuals not doing the right thing are brought to account. I and, I know, other members receive reports from constituents from time to time that cast doubt on the actions of some of those few providers in the NDIS space where fees are being paid and services are not being delivered. This needs to come to light quickly and be dealt with strictly, for the health of the scheme and in the interests of those services for the people that are expecting to receive them. The amending bill tightens audit processes.

For the NDIS to be successful, it also needs to be financially sustainable. When the NDIS was first conceived, the Commonwealth and the states were fifty-fifty partners. State funding has reduced as a proportion of funding over time, with the Commonwealth now taking on about 70 per cent of the funding. The states, who are active in disability support in many other ways, have nevertheless agreed to provide more funding for the disability services going forward.

The review and this legislation seek to take the NDIS back to its initial aim, which is to provide support for the most seriously disabled people. There are about 600,000 people in this group, while more than four million Australians have some sort of disability. The bill redefines the pathway and creates a new framework that all NDIS participants will gradually be migrated to. The agreement with the states is directed towards ensuring that, when someone has a disability that will not meet the NDIS pathway, they will nevertheless find the services to support their needs. And while the purpose of the bill is to help streamline the NDIS, it does not involve cutting people from the supports they are assessed as needing. The scheme is still projected to grow by eight per cent per year in the forward estimates.

The scheme will be further developed in concert with the people whom it seeks to serve. Recommendation 5 is that the government must provide better support for people with disability to make decisions about their lives. The bill also allows for budgets to be spent with flexibility within the nominated range of approved supports. As the minister stated in his second reading speech on the bill, a critical element of design and development following passage of the bill will be a person-centred model for needs assessment. We will focus our attention on a person's functional impairments and capacities, not on their diagnosis. This recalibration is supported across the sector.

The bill clarifies the pathway into the NDIS; creates a reasonable and necessary budget framework, needs-assessment processes, flexible funding, and funding for status supports under a new framework plan; provides clarity on the supports that the NDIS will and won't support; and adds safeguards around the management of plans and spending. I understand the opposition is generally supportive of the bill, although it's a bit difficult to ascertain, given their negativity in some of this debate. All I will say is: well, for years and years it could have been the coalition's root-and-branch review, but it wasn't. And for years and years it could have been the coalition's largely uncontroversial bill, but it wasn't.

The NDIS is a world-leading legacy program that, as the minister says, represents the best that Australia can be. The review and this legislation will allow us to make it a better and lasting legacy.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in relation to the so-called National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill. At the outset, for completeness and for transparency purposes, I declare that I have a conflict of interest in this space because my youngest daughter, Sarah, is a participant in the scheme. She's one of the 600,000 people on this scheme whose lives have been significantly changed for the better. I thank Julia Gillard, the former Prime Minister, because this scheme was a great scheme. The intent was terrific and it has changed the lives of my daughter and my family, and a lot of my daughter's friends and their families, as well.

There are now some 600,000 Australians who are benefitting from being on the NDIS, but it is irrefutable that the NDIS is falling off the rails.

There is a really good article by Sarah Ison in The Australian today which picks up on a lot of the issues which were identified in estimates last night and over the last couple of days in relation to fraud, and there'll be a lot of discussion around the issues of fraud in relation to the NDIS. A lot of providers will be looking in the mirror this morning and thinking, 'I'm not one of them. I'm not one of the bad guys.' Let's face it, it's always a very small number of bad apples that ruin it for everybody. Most people who are participants in the NDIS are worthy of the support. Most providers providing the support are honest, hardworking people who aren't out there to rip off participants or Australian taxpayers. But, unfortunately, there are those who are seeking to rip off taxpayers. But they're not only ripping off taxpayers; they're ripping off the participants whom this scheme was set up to support, because every dollar that gets fraudulently spent on the NDIS is a dollar that's not spent somewhere else. So all Australian taxpayers and all Australian citizens—everybody in this country—are bearing the brunt of the illegal conduct that has been brought up in Senate estimates.

The fraud and integrity head of the NDIA came to Senate estimates last night and said that up to $2 billion, $2,000 million—let me say that again: $2,000 million—is being inappropriately spent on things like holidays, cars and even illicit drugs. We heard evidence last night of a provider taking a participant to an ATM to get money out so that the participant could be supplied drugs. There are criminal syndicates, criminal crime gangs, which have infiltrated the NDIS. Wherever there is a pot of Commonwealth money, it would seem, it brings out the worst in some of us. This has to stop. We've heard countless stories of NDIS money being spent on prostitutes.

We want a sustainable NDIS system, and I've no doubt that this is a bipartisan view. Do you know what the great thing is about living in Australia, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough? The great thing about living in Australia, unlike many other countries, even the United States, is that it doesn't matter where you live, it doesn't matter what your postcode is, it doesn't matter how much money you earn, if you get sick, if you fall over and break an ankle, if you get hit by a bus—whatever it might be—you know that you're going to be taken to a hospital and you're going to receive world's best medical treatment. Not many countries can say that, and it won't cost you any more than what you pay as your Medicare levy. It's universal health care. That's a great thing. In other countries, if you break an ankle, you get cancer or you have a serious illness or injury, whatever it might be, and you can't work, fate has resigned you, and chances are your family, to a life of poverty. That's not the case here in Australia, and we should be incredibly proud of that as a nation.

On this side of the fence, we talk about building people up, we talk about aspiration and we talk about reward for effort. But one of the principal tenants of the Liberal Party is that we care for those who are in genuine need. If you are in genuine need, we believe that you should be looked after appropriately. We don't just cast you asunder. The NDIS is sort of an extension of that. It's for many people who either were born with a serious, significant disability or may acquire that disability through many ways. We, as Australians, will look after you. And that's something that we should take pride in. But I'll tell you what we won't take pride in, and that's being taken for a ride.

Australians will not cop being taken for a ride. When they hear stories of the fraud and integrity manager of the NDIA saying that up to $2 billion is being spent where it shouldn't be, Australians are rightfully waking up this morning and asking serious questions. In his evidence last night, talking about fraudulent practices, the head of fraud and integrity said:

There's case after case after case … 90 per cent of our plan managers that manage between nought and a hundred plans, that's out of 1000 plan managers, have significant indicators of fraud … We've done the analysis on their claiming behaviours … the bar needs to be lifted.

We have got serious systemic problems with the NDIA.

Recently, we have had an explosion of the number of complaints that have been made to my office. I just shot my constituency manager a message this morning, and she tells me that, from this time last year to today, the number of complaints that my office has received has gone up. I'm just one of 151 electorates in this country, and I'm sure that I'm not the only one here. What do you reckon it's gone up by? 10 per cent? 20 per cent? 30 per cent? 100 per cent? 200 per cent? 500 per cent? It's gone up by 1,000 per cent. There has been a 1,000 per cent increase in the last 12 months in the number of complaints from people who are complaining about access to the NDIS or their plans.

So we've got two problems here. On the one hand, we've got fraud being perpetrated by some providers and being perpetrated by crime gangs. Then, on the other hand, we've got people who are already on the NDIS who are waiting a significant amount of time for their plan to be rolled over. Naturally enough, and I would encourage anybody who might be listening to this and anybody who's in this boat, to contact your federal MP—sorry colleagues—and let them know, because not only is it good for us to know what's going on, but we have the ability to speak to the minister and departmental liaison officers. Also, members of parliament should be able to help you.

I really don't doubt—I'm not trying to make this into a political thing—those on the opposite side and I don't doubt the minister's desire to want to make the NDIS work. But we have got very, very serious and significant problems. Going to the bill, I really doubt that this bill is going to solve them.

I was speaking with Marayke Jonkers, who's President of Persons with Disability of Australia. Marayke lives on the Sunshine Coast, is a former Commonwealth gold medallist—I hope I've got that right, Marayke—and is a role model to my daughter, Sarah. Marayke is a champion for people who live with disabilities. I've had discussions with Marayke about this bill and she is as concerned as I am that this bill is not going to achieve the sort of support that people who are on the NDIS need.

Why does she say that? One of Marayke's main concerns is that under this bill someone's package will be lumped into one bucket—if I can put it that way. They'll get a bucket of money. They won't get a line item by line item or certain budgets for certain categories. She's very concerned, and I agree with these concerns, that the access to rights of review under this bill are shrouded in secrecy. Will people have the ability to appeal to the AAT if they get knocked back by the NDIA? Will people be able to appeal certain sums of money in certain categories? There will be very few categories now, so people don't know how much they're getting for certain categories anymore. That's a real problem. (Time expired)

Daniel Mulino (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill is a major reform of a landmark piece of social justice. I'm very pleased to be able to speak to it today because this is one of the most important schemes in Australia that any government has brought into being over the last half century. Because it's such a major piece of reform, I think context is important and I want to put on the record, before I get to a couple of the specific aspects of this bill, two important pieces of context.

The first relates to what existed before the NDIS. To clarify that, I go back to the Productivity Commission report in 2011 that was so instrumental in providing momentum behind the reform push that led to the NDIS being legislated and funded, but was also instrumental to its design. If we go back to that very, very important report, it said, 'The current disability support system'—that is the one that was in place before the NDIS:

… is underfunded, unfair, fragmented, and inefficient and gives people with disability little choice and no certainty.

That was what was in existence before the NDIS, which I think is critical because we do need to make sure that the NDIS improves from where it is. We need to make sure the NDIS is more fit for purpose for people with disability, we need to make that it is more sustainable and we need to make sure that there is less fraud. Let's be very clear, and this is what I hear from people in my electorate all the time, that what we have now is far better than what existed before the NDIS and that it is absolutely critical that we strengthen the NDIS and make sure that it is permanently in place. That's because we cannot go back to where we were. We cannot go back to a system that was underfunded, unfair, fragmented and inefficient.

The second piece of context I want to talk about is that the NDIS is now a critical part of our broader welfare state. I just want to frame that in terms of a question: what is it that the modern welfare state comprises? I would argue that social insurance and lifetime risk management underpin the modern welfare state. Risk management has been with us just about since human beings started living together. If we go back to the most ancient of societies, subsistence societies, people developed very sophisticated methods of food-sharing so that they could avoid starvation. But of course there have been many, many other forms of very sophisticated risk management and social insurance that people developed all through human civilisation. We know the guilds from the Middle Ages but, way before that, in ancient Chinese society, Greek society, Roman society and Sumerian society, there were all sorts of occupational arrangements where people provided each other with income support and funerial support. Survivors of a wage earner who might have died would have been provided with supports from people in those arrangements. There have been sophisticated risk management safety nets for millennia.

But what changed in the late 19th century, in the 1890s, is that the state stepped in. The most famous example of that was Bismark's Germany in the 1890s, where the state stepped in to provide support—workers' compensation for employment, for disability and for many kinds of risks. All of the key social support legislation in the 1890s that Bismark championed had 'insurance' in the title. Insurance has been absolutely pivotal, I would argue, to so many state interventions over the last century and a half. Bismark's Germany is a powerful example. FDR, after the Great Depression, brought in many critical social supports, including an occupational and disability insurance scheme from the 1930s. That still exists today as the best single protection for people as a major safety net. Again, insurance was at the heart of it. In the UK in the post-World War II period, following the Beveridge report, social insurance was at the heart of the post-World War II welfare state. In Australia, again, we have a storied history with Labor governments in particular, but not just Labor governments. We have the age pension, unemployment insurance and universal health care. All of these mechanisms, I would argue, have insurance either as a key element or as the defining element of them.

I would argue that the NDIS is the next step in this great journey of social protection, and I think it's important to put it in that context. The NDIS, at its heart, is a social insurance scheme and it fills a major gap. Before the NDIS we had a number of major social insurance schemes: we had an age pension scheme that was world-leading, we had universal health care and we had other social insurance mechanisms in Australia. But the NDIS was sorely needed and it filled a major gap, as the PC report highlighted.

I just want to ask: what is it that makes a scheme 'insurance'? In the public realm, we have a number of different kinds of social interventions. We have some schemes that are redistributive by nature and we have some schemes that are universal by nature. I would argue that there are some characteristics of a social intervention safety net that make it insurance. One is that support is provided contingent on some event or some state of affairs. That makes it different to a universal scheme. In some circumstances, a universal approach is appropriate—for example, everybody having access to a vaccination when there's a pandemic. A universal approach is the best one there. In other circumstances, where more targeted assistance is needed, a contingent provision of support is more appropriate. So the first aspect of an insurance arrangement is that it is contingent on somebody having a certain state of affairs or having suffered a certain harm. The second is that in an insurance arrangement there is a promise or a commitment for something to flow from that contingent occurrence. I'll talk about that in a moment. Thirdly, an insurance arrangement is reliant upon one of a certain range of funding arrangements. Those are three core characteristics of a social insurance arrangement that I think are critical, because this bill strengthens the NDIS on all three of those fronts.

First, assistance is contingent upon something happening. Now, this goes to the heart of eligibility, and this bill helps in two ways. Firstly, it clarifies who is eligible to be in the NDIS. To be clear: that is absolutely critical for any insurance scheme. It is critical that it is clear who is in the scheme and who is out of the scheme. This bill helps because it clarifies eligibility for the NDIS. Secondly, this scheme makes sure that those who are not in the scheme don't go without any supports. The additional definition and the additional funding for foundational supports and the additional ways in which this bill and further work being done beyond this bill provides for state, local and federal governments to all work together to make sure that there are additional foundational supports outside the NDIS mean that those people who aren't necessarily in the scheme don't go without, because many people who aren't in the scheme are in need of substantial support. So there's that first question, which is critical to any insurance scheme: Who is in and who is out? What is the contingent state of affairs that leads to support being given? This bill provides significant assistance on that front.

The second question in any insurance scheme is: What is the promise? What is the commitment that is being made to the people who are in the scheme? Now, in the NDIS, I would argue that the core elements of the promise were, first, that there be a package of benefits tailored to the circumstances and the needs of the person. That was one of the key and revolutionary aspects of this scheme. Second and, I think, perhaps even more revolutionary was that there be agency, that the person be in control of what those resources be devoted to. This was absolutely critical and this was something that people with a disability themselves advocated for so passionately. Third was that there be holistic care of the individual. Fourth was that there be uniformity of benefits across jurisdictions to remove some of that inconsistency that the PC had criticised. Finally, there would be assistance to provide people with participation in all of society, including employment. All of those aspects of the promise that was made to people who are in the scheme are absolutely critical.

This bill, again, goes towards providing that promise in a more fulsome way. It retains the packages' integrity, and that's something the minister made absolutely central to his second reading speech. It also ensures that people's autonomy and agency remain central to the scheme. If we're looking at that central core element of this being an insurance scheme, once somebody is identified as being in the scheme, what is the promise? What is the commitment that is being made to them? If somebody takes out an insurance policy on their home, the promise is that the home will be rebuilt if there's a fire or if there's a flood. In the case of the NDIS, the promise is that there be a tailored package that reasonably meets that person's needs and that they be given agency in how those resources are spent.

Finally, there's the third question, which lies at the heart of insurance: the scheme must be sustainable. Now, in some insurance schemes—and we're used to this with private insurance—there's a pooling of resources that comes from premiums. We know that, with home insurance, we all pay a premium, they're pooled and then, if people suffer accidents, whether they be minor or major, as in a natural disaster, the pool is used to provide people with assistance. In some publicly-regulated insurance schemes, the same occurs. Workers compensation, compulsory transport accident—again there's a premium, and that goes into a pool. In other contexts, it's taxpayers' funds that are used instead. So think of universal health care and a range of other social insurance schemes in the public realm where it's not a premium that is linked to the funds but rather consolidated revenue. The NDIS falls into that category. It's consolidated funds rather than premiums paid by the individual. This means that sustainability of the fund in terms of the government's ongoing fiscal parameters is absolutely critical.

Again, this bill goes to this challenge, because this bill materially reduces fraud, which we know has been evolving as a problem over the last decade in the scheme. This bill also puts downward pressure on scheme costs but at the same time is maintaining outcomes through early intervention. We see that, for example, with young children with certain mental health conditions. These are critical for scheme sustainability, which is critical for any scheme where there's not a direct link between premiums and the fund.

Finally, the work that I referred to earlier in relation to foundational supports is also critical because it is absolutely important that people who may fall just outside the scheme also receive the help that they need. What I would argue is that the NDIS is now an absolutely integral part of our broader welfare system but that it is a public social insurance component of our broader safety net and of our broader welfare state and that as a public social insurance scheme those three key elements that I referred to are absolute important to bed down if we're going to ensure that the NDIS is working as best as it can and also that it can be sustainable.

That issue of the contingent eligibility needs to be clarified as much as possible. That is the heart of any insurance scheme. This bill goes a long way towards clarifying that and ensuring that that is sustainable going forward. It's also critical that the commitment, once one is found eligible, is fulfilled. This bill goes to the heart of that also. This bill goes to the heart of the fiscal sustainability of the scheme, which is critical given that it is being funded out of consolidated revenue.

The NDIS, I would argue, is one of the great social reforms of the last half century. Given what occurred before it, given the state of affairs that the PC described in that seminal 2011 report, we can't go back. But what we have to ensure is that the NDIS is fit for purpose, that it is sustainable, that it gives people the right outcomes and that it continues to give them those outcomes with agency, dignity and respect. This bill is a big step forward on that broader goal.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to follow the member for Fraser and the member for Fisher and their contributions in the last half hour on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill. I think they demonstrate to the Australian public just how much support there is in this place for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and show a recognition that there are some challenges after the scheme has been in place for more than a decade to make sure we get the right footings going forward.

Like the member for Fraser, I think it's important to, at the outset, acknowledge how we got to where we are today and what existed, or didn't exist, before the NDIS came into play. He was right to acknowledge that previously the system of support for people with disabilities in this country was fragmented. It was underfunded. It was almost impossible to navigate. Basically, it was a lottery of post codes whether you received the support you needed. People lived in fear of (1) having a child with a disability who needed help and (2) what would happen to their child or their loved one if they passed away. The care simply wasn't there. They had a fear and risk of being in poverty as a direct result of having a family member or loved one with serious disability.

We got to this point more than 10 years ago now where we implemented a scheme and system which, I think, is revolutionary and is a reform that this parliament should be proud of and will stand the test of history. Australians themselves should be proud of the NDIS. It is a world-leading scheme. As I said at the outset, it has enjoyed bipartisan support throughout its history. The debate today is not about whether it should exist; the debate today is about how we make sure it's sustainable for the longer term and how we make sure it continues to keep that promise to Australian families.

I remember conversations with the member for Maribyrnong way back in 2008-09. We were both new members of parliament. He was a parliamentary secretary for disability at the time. He was working very closely with the member for Jagajaga, Jenny Macklin, on this scheme, and I took no convincing when the member for Maribyrnong explained to me what he was seeking to achieve—that this was the direction we had to take. It brings dignity to families and to people with disability to live their best possible lives, and it's important that people with disability have been placed at the centre of this scheme.

I think the way the NDIS is meant to work and the way it aims to assist families and their loved ones is a very noble aim and something this parliament should keep working towards achieving. In that vein I thank the support workers who work in this field. It is a tough job; it is a tough field to work in. The care economy is a difficult economy to begin with. The care industry has many challenges but working with people with disability on a daily basis—while they would all argue, when you speak to them, how incredibly rewarding it is—can be unrelenting and challenging. I thank those workers.

But there are problems with the scheme, and we need to acknowledge that. The member for Fisher touched on this himself: in an environment where we need to maintain community confidence and trust that taxpayers' money is being spent well and effectively, it's critically important we get the settings right for the NDIS going forward. There are some serious systemic issues with the NDIS, and, like the member for Fisher, I have seen a disproportionate growth in constituents contacting me with concerns about how their package is working in their own homes. It is the No. 1 issue that comes through my electorate door in terms of volume and complexity of issues. We have people who are plan managers, support coordinators or family carers making representations for individual NDIS recipients, and for my staff these are often very complex matters to deal with and they take a lot of time. But I acknowledge that while we have perhaps been one of the more frequent correspondents to the minister's office we inevitably get a reply. It is more often than not timely. It's not always the answer my constituent wants, but, I've got to say, the minister and his office are working to help us overcome the bottlenecks and the complexities of the scheme and making sure we can get a response to our constituents in the timeliest manner possible.

The biggest challenge for government—and I think the finance minister and the Treasurer would agree—in relation to NDIS is its sustainability going forward. We know that the annual running cost of the NDIS in 2022-23 was $35.8 billion. Compare that to Medicare, which was $30.8 billion—so the NDIS is now costing Australian taxpayers more than Medicare itself. It's a difficult conversation to have because the people we're talking about are often individuals who have the most complex needs, and servicing those needs is always going to be expensive. The challenge for governments is making sure that the growth in demand for NDIS funding is being met on the ground by the right people receiving the services they need, not fraudulent behaviour ripping off the Australian taxpayers. I think there's an understanding across the chamber that the NDIS is on a trajectory which is very difficult for the budget to sustain, so I endorse the minister in his efforts to try and get this back onto a footing where this government, and future governments, can be confident they can meet the financial demands of the system.

I have some concerns about some of the cultural issues which now seem to exist in the wider community and almost a sense of entitlement developing, where people are expecting government to step in at times when perhaps community and self-help could be more actively engaged in fixing some of the problems we face on the ground. Government doesn't have the answer to all problems. Government doesn't have to fund every individual service in the community, and there is capacity in our community to do more in partnership with government, to leverage off the funding available through NDIS to provide more services in a manner which I think would be more cost-effective going forward. I don't put that out there to make any criticism of community members. If the bureaucrats in Canberra could find ways to look at the local solutions which may exist in some communities, we may be able to find some savings through the system.

I do have concerns that some of the care in the NDIS has become so individualised that it is difficult to see how that's sustainable in the longer term. There may be opportunities for more group activities and group programs where we can use Australian taxpayers' money more efficiently and still achieve very positive outcomes for the individual recipient of the care package.

But the member for Fisher was right. He indicated there were two problems: fraud and getting plans approved. There's a third problem, which I'm seeing in my office on a very regular basis. The prices for services are escalating beyond what I would say is reasonable. What I mean by that is that I think there's a fair bit of price gouging going on here. I think there are people in this system, whether they're plan managers or some unscrupulous providers, who have seen a pot of honey and have said, 'Let's see how much we can collect before the government figures out what we've been doing.' There's no sugar-coating this. There have been some people who are not doing the right thing. In doing so, they have undermined the sustainability of this scheme.

After more than a decade of operation, it is only appropriate, timely and perfectly acceptable for this parliament to have these conversations about how to refresh, reinvigorate, redirect and reset the NDIS to make sure that it will be a scheme that exists long into the future, because we have to acknowledge that this scheme has to survive changes of government. This scheme has to survive the passing careers. As much as we all think we're immortal, we're all going to pass through this place in the years ahead, and this scheme is going to outlive us all. We need to make sure this is a scheme that is a legacy of this parliament that future generations will value.

I think the minister's motives and intent in the legislation he's brought before the House are to be commended. I acknowledge that, in his second reading speech, he points to the fact that he has to tackle fraud, waste and overcharging so that every dollar does go towards a better outcome for the participants and not someone who's trying to make a quick buck.

Something that really concerns me in terms of our nation's attitude to schemes like this or to contracting for projects that are run by governments is that there seems to be a belief that has developed in Australia over a long period of time that ripping off the government is a victimless crime. 'If it's a government contract, take as much as you can. Ripping off the government is a victimless crime.' It's not a victimless crime. For every dollar these fraudulent operators take out of these systems, they are taking dollars out of taxpayers' pockets and increasing the cost of living for mums and dads and families across our nation. Whether it's fraudulent behaviour with the NDIS or fattening up contracts for infrastructure projects, ripping off the government is not a victimless crime. At the end of the day, someone has to pay for it, and it's the Australian taxpayers who cop the bill.

So I do acknowledge the minister's second reading speech, where he indicates he is going to tackle fraud. He has now appointed Mr Michael Phelan, a former director of the Australian Institute of Criminology and a decorated former police officer, as the Acting Commissioner of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. I commend the minister in that regard, and I commend Mr Phelan on his work. It is wrong to be fattening up contracts or overservicing or applying what the minister described as a 'wedding tax' to the NDIS. He's right. People have seen this pot of honey—this unlimited pot of gold or whatever you want to call it—and thought, 'I can charge whatever I want, and I'm going to get away with it.' So I encourage the minister's efforts to reduce the amount of fraud.

I welcome the bill before the House. I think the minister, in his second reading speech, has indicated that he'll work with the states and the opposition to deliver a common vision for the NDIS. I also encourage him, though, to see what he can do to drive localism into the scheme, to look for these local solutions. There are some fantastic operators in our communities—community health providers, sometimes in the charitable sector—who can leverage government money and make it go further, which is the direct opposite of what we find when we go to state governments. They can leverage Commonwealth money and make it go even shorter distances and cream off a bit of money themselves on the way through. The moment the NDIS came along, the state governments said: 'We can step back now. We can cost shift this one. We can get out of here!' You saw them running for the hills. I'd say to the minister: have a good look at what's available locally and regionally. There may be ways we can drive those dollars further just with a little bit of seed funding for some of these charitable non-profit providers or community groups that are trying to do good work in this field.

It's critical we get this right, because trust and integrity and belief in the scheme build community confidence, and the community is the first to know. The community sees the rorts. The community contact me and tells me: 'Do you know what the NDIS providers are up to now?' They can smell a rat. They can see the dodgy stuff going on and they say to us, 'You know, this scheme is out of control. We can't afford it.' The minister's big challenge is to restore that integrity and trust in the system so that the community has confidence in the system and the community feels very comfortable with the fact that their taxes are going to a world-class system. A critical issue for us is building community confidence that we're going to end the rorts and rip-offs in this area.

The other point I'd like to make in regard to the care economy is how the disability sector is now outcompeting other aspects of the care industry. I use the term 'care industry' with some reservations. The care industry or the care sector is the sector where people are involved in child care, in aged care or in supporting our veterans. The disability sector is actually outpricing them, which makes it difficult, then, to attract workers to the other sectors. We need to get some proportionality here to make sure that, in the care industry, as a sector, we are allowing people to focus on the area they want to focus on, if they're predisposed to work in those areas, and we don't have this giant, this behemoth, the NDIS, taking all the workforce away from those other sectors.

Making it sustainable for future generations is a critical element to it, as is building confidence in the community and making sure that the rorts and rip-offs are being exposed and people are being punished if they're up to no good. I will just say in closing that I will continue to approach these issues in good faith in a bipartisan way, and I hope the minister will continue to act in the same way. As I said, the NDIS is going to outlive every member in this place. This system has to work so future generations can get the benefits of it. We need to see the modelling that underpins the NDIS finance sustainability framework, we need to see the cost savings to be made with this legislation, and we need a detailed outline of the inevitable reductions that participants should expect as a result of these changes.

The coalition will reserve its final position on the bill until after the Senate inquiry is complete, but we do acknowledge and commend members of this parliament, and also members of previous parliaments, who have acted in a very bipartisan way on this issue. The NDIS is changing the lives of more than 600,000 Australians, and the coalition has always endeavoured to work constructively on and be a strong supporter of the scheme. We do want to see it fully funded going forward as a demand driven scheme. We've also been clear that it needs to be sustainable in the longer term. I look forward to working as constructively as possible with the minister to help get the NDIS back on track. I do thank him and his staff for their engagement with my office on what have been some very complex cases over the last couple of years, and I commend their work in making sure that the people with disability are placed at the centre of the scheme. I thank the House.

Louise Miller-Frost (Boothby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The NDIS has been life changing for so many Australians with disabilities and their families and friends. Every day I hear of people for whom the NDIS has been transformational. It's enabled them to live independently. It's enabled them to pursue higher education. It's enabled them to take on paid employment or start their own microbusiness. It's enabled them to see friends, have a social life, develop hobbies and play sports. Mostly it's enabled them to live meaningful and rewarding lives with dignity and respect. So many people have really positive experiences from the NDIS, but, of course, that isn't the case for everyone.

The NDIS was developed after decades of lobbying from the disability and carer sectors, which were looking for a service scheme that would support independence, respect and dignity. They wanted a scheme where the services you were able to access were appropriate for the individual support needs, not some sort of postcode lottery.

In 2009 the Rudd Labor government, with parliamentary secretary for disabilities Bill Shorten and minister for community services Jenny Macklin, produced a shocking report into the state of disability services across Australia. The report was entitled Shut Out. It detailed how people with disability were shut out of education, employment, housing, health care, recreation, sport—life. They were shut out of meaningful participation in the community and Australian society. Whereas previously they'd been shut in, in institutions, now they were shut out, and the experience of being out of sight and out of mind was the same. The frustration and the structural and institutional barriers to taking control of their lives were the same in so many ways, whether inside an institution or inside their own home. Accessing the services they needed was a constant struggle. As a result of this report, the NDIS was established, and it has fundamentally changed the experience of disability in this country and the experience of disability services.

The NDIS now provides services to 660,000 Australians and employs over 400,000 people in NDIS related occupations. For those Australians with disability and their families, loved ones and friends, the NDIS represents an expression of their rights as citizens in this country to the services that will provide them with a fair go for a meaningful, satisfying life and to participate in our community. For all Australians, it's the comfort of knowing that, should they, their family or friends acquire a significant and permanent disability, the safety net is there for them. In its 10-year history, the NDIS has changed hundreds of thousands of lives for the better. However, there have been problems.

Some of those problems have been at the individual level. Some individuals have received packages that have been inadequate for their needs. Some have inexplicably experienced sudden cuts in their packages. Some have had to fight to get the services that seem very straightforwardly required, including having to prove and re-prove permanent disabilities. Many have ended up in the AAT in order to get what seems like very reasonable services, and I have a personal experience of that for a family member. Like many, I found that, once I'd gone to the AAT and they realised I would actually turn up and argue the case, the NDIA was suddenly happy to settle in the favour of my family member, rather than continue to a decision that might set a legal precedent. Every interaction is seemingly a battle with bureaucracy, with hidden rules, magic key words and endless resources to continue the battle against individuals with disabilities. And, of course, on a systemic level the growth and the continued growth of the NDIS in the absence of any other disability service systems has been unsustainable.

The NDIS is currently projected to grow to more than one million participants and cost up to $100 billion a year by 2032. Clearly that is unsustainable. The NDIS was designed to help the people with the most complex support needs, but it was never designed to be the total scheme for all Australians with disability. We now need to finish the job of building a more inclusive Australia.

We also know on a systemic level that, when there is a pot of government money, there will be unscrupulous operators, criminals, who will be attracted to try and take a share of that funding. We've heard horrific stories of people with disability being taken advantage of, manipulated and provided with inadequate or dangerous service levels, and there have been tragedies. We hear about the so-called wedding tax where, just like when you're organising a wedding, the prices for services are suddenly so much more expensive. We found unscrupulous operators would hike up the prices for services when they heard the NDIS was paying.

When this government was elected in May 2022, Minister Bill Shorten, the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, knew there were problems with the NDIS as it had been rolled out and was operating under the previous government. At the time, he warned that 'the promise of the NDIS has been betrayed, not yet fatally but still substantially'. He committed to reforming the NDIS so it would, as it had been initially designed to, focus on meeting the appropriate needs of the individual and also be a sustainable, reliable safety net that Australians can rely on. This government is committed to improving the experience for all Australians with disability who interact with the NDIS as well as for their family and their carers.

The work began almost immediately. The NDIS board now has more people with lived experience of a disability on it as well as its first Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander board member. We have slashed the 4½ thousand legacy appeal cases that were languishing in long queues at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. People were waiting 18 months and more to have their cases heard. Many, like me, were successful in their appeal, but, when this was for disability services that they needed, that was 18 months and more without those vital services. We're getting more people with disability who are eligible for the NDIS and medically fit for discharge actually discharged from hospital. This not only was frustrating for people with disabilities stuck in hospitals at risk of picking up infections but also contributes to the bed block we see in hospitals across the country. We've established a partnership between the National Disability Insurance Agency and the First Peoples Disability Network to collaborate on the new First Nations NDIS Strategy and Action Plan.

Early intervention is one of the key principles of the NDIS and the world-leading Inklings Program takes us from a wait-and-see approach to an identify-and-act approach for babies and young children who may be neurodivergent. Neurodivergent babies will still be neurodivergent and they will require support but early intervention is crucial for a life with less reliance on supports later on and provides a chance for every child to flourish.

We also promise to make the scheme safer for people with disability and to tackle fraud, waste and overcharging, so that every dollar goes towards a better outcome for the participant, not someone trying to make a quick dirty buck. I know this is a point of frustration for many people who've had an experience of the NDIS and also for every Australian taxpayer. Taxpayers want their money to go to services for Australians in need, not to criminals and not to waste.

Minister Shorten has stated that in reforming the NDIS Scheme Act 2013 we have four goals. Firstly, that the NDIS provide a better experience for participants. Secondly, that the scheme be restored to its original intent to support people with significant and permanent disability. Thirdly, that the scheme be equitable. Fourthly, that the scheme be sustainable. We're coming at this from a number of angles.

In its first year the Fraud Fusion Taskforce that we established has investigated more than a hundred cases involving more than $1 billion of NDIS funding. Mr Michael Phelan—a former director of the Australian Institute of Criminology and a decorated former police officer—is now the acting commissioner of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. The commission will feature in a new taskforce, alongside the ACCC and the NDIA, to weed out those charging more for equipment and services simply because a person has an NDIS funding package. This is the so-called wedding tax I referred to earlier, but I don't want to trivialise it and we should call it by its rightful name—price gouging—which is an outrageous abuse of the government scheme and taxpayer funding.

We undertook an independent review of the NDIS, which was completed in 2023. Over a 12-month period the review heard from over 10,000 people across Australia and read almost 4,000 submissions. I'd like to thank those in my electorate of Boothby who participated in that review, whether they be people with disability, their family and carers or the disability workers, who I know had lots of valuable information for the review. The NDIS review was designed to put people with a disability back at the centre of the NDIS, restore trust and pride in the scheme and ensure its sustainability for future generations.

The NDIS review resulted in 26 recommendations and 139 supporting actions including a range of legislative reforms to return the scheme to its original intent and improve the experience of participants, which brings us to this bill. The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill packages a series of amendments that enable the government and the disability community to start improving the scheme. These amendments are needed so that the government and disability community can start improving it. The legislative approach taken is to establish an enabling architecture for rules and future reforms to restore the original intent, integrity, consistency and transparency of the scheme. These rules, together with all legislative instruments provided for in the bill, will be developed with all states and territories following genuine consultation with the disability community.

Collaboration with the disability sector on design is essential. This was a clear message from the NDIS review panel. It will be complimented by the design and development of foundational supports to assist people with a disability, including those outside NDIS. These foundational supports have been agreed with state and territory ministers. The 'getting the NDIS back on track bill' will provide clarity on who can access the NDIS. It will enable better early intervention pathways for people living with psychosocial disability and children younger than nine years old with developmental delay and disability. It will improve how NDIS participant budgets are set, making them more flexible and providing clearer information on how they can be spent.

Many of the changes to the scheme will be implemented through the new NDIS rules, which will be put in place following the initial amendments made by the bill. The NDIS rules will set out the details of how the scheme operates. The new rules will be co-designed with the disability community, continuing to keep the voices and needs of people with disability at the heart of all NDIS reform.

Importantly, this bill also includes amendments to quality and safeguarding, providing greater flexibility for the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission in exercising compliance powers and building on our comprehensive forward reforms. These changes will boost the commission's ability to undertake compliance action.

I know the concept of change in this area makes people very nervous, and there is certainly some misinformation circulating in the disability community. Minister Shorten has stated that the term 'reasonable and necessary' remains the core basis on which support needs will be met. He is committed to ensuring that the process is a dignified, person-centred approach; that the result should be a consistent, fair and accurate budget; that the assessment will look at your needs as a whole and won't distinguish between primary and secondary disabilities any longer; and that you will be able to spend your budget flexibly, because you know your needs better than anyone else. But you will need to manage your budget, and the NDIA will be clear about what is and is not eligible for funding. However, importantly, until the new planning rules and legislative instruments are made, current planning rules will continue with no change. This bill is the first step.

I'd like to finish by thanking the Minister for the NDIS for the important work being done on this scheme. The NDIS is life-changing. It's life-supporting. Many, many Australians rely on the NDIS on an everyday basis. We need, as a community, to have confidence in the NDIS. We need it to be financially sustainable. We need to know that services are safe and that they are quality. And we need confidence that illegal actors, criminals, price gougers, are shut down. This bill continues to do this, and I commend the bill to the House.

Max Chandler-Mather (Griffith, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 is an utter betrayal of the disability community and NDIS participants by this Labor government. The bill proposes the most significant changes to the NDIS since it started, more than a decade ago. What does it do? It cuts $14.4 billion from the NDIS. This is in the same federal budget that dishes out nearly $50 billion in fossil fuel subsidies; $175 billion in tax handouts for property investors; and over $80 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy, including every politician in this place, who are still going to get $4½ thousand off their tax every single year. But, at the same time as it is doing all that, this budget will cut $14.4 billion out of the NDIS.

We need to be really clear about what this bill does. This bill threatens the future of the NDIS and the rights of disabled people to live a good life. And Labor had the gall to create it behind closed doors and pressured representatives from the disability community to sign non-disclosure agreements. This alone says all you need to know about what the government thought the community would think of this bill and say in public. This is not a genuine co-design, and Labor knows it. This is a shameful silencing of the voices of those who might speak against the bill. But, as this bill shows, this government doesn't genuinely care about disabled people.

Not only has the government ripped the funding out of the NDIS; it is going to make it harder for anyone to access the scheme. If you're already on a plan, guess what. This bill forces every NDIS participant to transition from an old framework plan to a new plan over the next five years. What this means is that every current NDIS participant's future on the scheme is up for question. That is over 600,000 participants needing review. We already know that the NDIS can't handle the current workload, even with its current funding. It doesn't take a genius to realise that a $14.4 billion funding shortfall and an increase in workload for staff means that people are going to fall through the cracks and suffer. It is so blatantly clear that this is a thinly veiled attempt to remove support for people or just kick them off the NDIS altogether.

The government are going to restrict what supports are available through the scheme, remove provisions for individualising plans and try to standardise assessments. Disability is not standardised and should never be treated as such. Anyone who has tried to get the NDIS, or work with it, knows how frustrating it is. The NDIS is run on a bureaucracy-heavy business model, with endless hurdles and hoops for people to jump through. Just when you think you've cleared a hurdle, or figured it out, they move the goalposts. People are spending years of their lives crushed and exhausted by trying to navigate the NDIS. This bill will only make that situation worse.

I've heard from people in my electorate that are already feeling the weight of all of this. My office has supported a participant and his support worker for months while he has begged the NDIS to urgently review his funding. Through no fault of his own his funds have dried up. He is now homeless, a direct result of the housing crisis, which heavily impacts disabled people in our communities. We warned the NDIS that things would get worse if they didn't act to review his plan. His funding ran out and he was on the streets. Not long after that he ended up in hospital after nearly taking his own life.

Another is a mother whose daughter's communication device broke months ago. She cannot communicate with the rest of the world without it. Again, for months we have been trying to get approval to get it fixed, but she is still left with a broken device today. That means, apart from her parents, she is literally shut off from the world and can't talk to other people and communicate with them. It has been months. This is unacceptable in a wealthy country like this.

Another is a man named Jack, a disabled man in my electorate who needs round-the-clock care. He was being supported in his home by his mother until her tragic passing recently. When Jack's mother passed away, Jack's life changed and so did his needs. Since January, he has been asking for a review of his plan. Since then, there's been nothing. Again, we warned the NDIS that if his plan was not urgently reviewed he would run out of funds. Now, his support workers have had to stop working and he's had to move from his trusted home into temporary respite to survive, all while he waits for the NDIS to approve the request. To be clear, Jack's mother passed away. He already had to deal with the passing of his mother, who was also his primary support care worker, and now he has to deal with the fact that the NDIS still hasn't updated his plan to reflect the fact that his primary carer, his mother, has died. It's already deeply humiliating and awful to go through that.

How many more situations like that are going to occur if this bill passes and $14.4 billion of funding is ripped from the scheme over the next two years? My inbox at the moment is flooded with support workers and participants who are highly concerned about the proposed changes in this bill. These are people's lives. They are not numbers on a spreadsheet. We have already seen the ramifications of overwhelmed workers and lack of funding, and now we have a Labor government that brings forward a bill like this. To be clear, obviously the government inherited the scheme with serious issues. I think everyone in the disability community would be patient about the idea of going and fixing those and increasing funding and making sure situations like that don't occur. But the Labor government has literally turned around and proposed a bill that will make the situation worse and rip $14.4 billion out of the scheme, again, in the same year that this budget found $175 billion over the next four years in tax handouts for property investors and $84 billion in tax cuts for everyone earning over $200,000 a year, including every politician in this place.

What the Labor government are saying with this bill and with this budget is that they have chosen property investors and big gas corporations, who they are still not taxing properly, over disabled people who rely on the NDIS. It is needlessly and indescribably cruel. Many people on the NDIS already knew at the very least that the government didn't care about them. This rubs salt in that painful wound. With this budget and this bill, Labor have sent a clear message to disabled people that they do not care about their goals, aspirations or agency. That's not good enough. It's not good enough for the Greens and it's not good enough for the people on the NDIS.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The NDIS is another life-changing Australian social reform introduced by Labor, like most of the major social reforms we have seen in this country. It has always been a Labor government that has brought them in. It's a reform that responded to the needs of some of the nation's most disadvantaged families, the families that were doing it the toughest not just because of their income being restricted because of the inability of many family members to work because they had to care for a person with a disability but because the costs of caring for that person were enormous. So when Labor came to office in 2007 it was one of the areas that needed to be addressed, and it was. A new NDIS scheme was introduced in this country. At the time, I can recall the figures stating that there was a projected 450,000 people that were likely to be on the scheme within a few years. The reality is that, today, there are some 650,000 people who are being supported by the NDIS. For most of them, it has given them new life, but it has also given new life to the family members that have to care for them each and every day. Many of those family members have also been able to return to work or to participate in other social activities which they otherwise couldn't do, because a person with a disability often requires 24/7 care just as do people in aged care or people with other health problems.

Support for people with a disability doesn't stop between nine and five, when most government services or even private services are available. It continues around the clock each and every day, and the scheme that was introduced had to factor all that in. That is why it was a huge commitment by this country at the time to establish a national disability insurance scheme. I can recall one of the very first meetings in which the minister, who at the time was the parliamentary secretary—the member for Maribyrnong—came to my electorate. We met with people with a disability and we heard several stories from individuals about the difficulty they faced in their life each and every day in helping a family member with a disability. One of the stories that stuck in my mind and is still very clear to me this day was that of a young girl. She was probably 15 or 16 years old and couldn't go to school, because she had to care for her mother, who had a serious disability. There was the impact it had just on that young person, let alone the life that her mother must have been living. As a result of the scheme, people's lives have genuinely been changed—and changed for the better.

Of course, providing the services that are required is both costly and demanding. What we need is competent service providers and administrative oversight if the scheme is to remain sustainable and the personal needs of the individuals are to be met. Regrettably, implementation of the NDIS in its first decade rested with the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments. I can recall the debates in this place because I was here when the NDIS was being debated, and it was very clear to me that the heart of the coalition members at the time was not truly in this scheme. They went along with it because they knew public support would have been a major problem for them if they opposed it, but their heart was never really in the scheme, and that came through with their administration of the scheme when they were elected in 2013. Indeed, they proved to be completely incompetent in administering the scheme. Again, members that have been here a few years will recall the questions to the last coalition government with regard to the scheme and how it was being badly mismanaged.

Indeed, under the last coalition government, NDIS complaints to my office became the leading source of issues that my office was dealing with at one stage. It highlighted how difficult it was for people to navigate the system. They were turning to their members of parliament to try get the help that they needed. I can recall the countless cases that we were dealing with in my office through the period. It continues to be an area of concern, but I have to say it is getting better.

What also became very clear from those people who came to my office at the time was that there was a lot of money being spent—we're talking about substantial amounts of money for each individual case—but much of the money was going to the so-called 'providers' who were either exploiting the scheme or blatantly rorting the scheme. I could talk about some of the stories that were presented to me, but I don't think that's necessary; I think the minister has done that himself on many occasions when responding to questions here in parliament and the like.

The reality is that the scheme was being rorted. I asked myself at the time, when people would come into my office, how the coalition government of the day and the departmental managers who were overseeing the scheme could not see what was going on. To me, it was just mindboggling that they couldn't see what was going on like we could see it when people came to our office. Surely, they must have been getting the same level of feedback as that which was coming to each and every one of us. I've heard other members speaking about the same issue, so it couldn't have been confined to my office alone.

What was needed was structural reform of the scheme, price controls and proper oversight of the expenses. That is not what was proposed by the last coalition government. They simply responded by saying 'We're just going to cut the package amounts,' and they did, and that became another source of complaints. This legislation goes to addressing those very needs. It responds to a review, commissioned by the Albanese Labor government when we came to office, that exposed the problems within the NDIS. It addresses the flaws with the administration of the scheme and it responds to the rorting. I don't expect that this legislation will be the last of the reforms that may be needed. Of course, with any scheme, over the years times change and things change, and there may be other reforms needed, but right now the reforms proposed in this legislation are staring us in the face as to what needs to be done.

Last Sunday, I attended a morning tea recognising the 35th anniversary of an organisation called Lighthouse Disability in South Australia. The morning tea was attended by several other dignitaries, including Lighthouse patrons the Governor of South Australia, Her Excellency the Honourable Frances Adamson, and Mr Rod Bunton. It was also attended by Olivia Savvas MP, the state member for Newland, and by Professor Richard Bruggemann, a longtime disability advocate in South Australia—and right across the country, for that matter. Lighthouse Disability is not-for-profit organisation that began 35 years ago when a band of parents familiar with the challenges and needs of their children with diverse disabilities joined forces to develop accommodation for those with a disability. That the organisation has endured for 35 years and has gone from strength to strength is evidence not only that it serves a community need but also—and more importantly—that the dedicated Lighthouse staff, led by CEO Andrew Ellis and board chair John Harvey, have community confidence. People can see what the organisation is doing and know that it is meeting the needs—particularly with accommodation of people with a disability—and their organisation is now a leading disability organisation in our state in South Australia. Today, Lighthouse Disability, with NDIS support—and I stress that it's with NDIS support—assists more than 250 South Australians through supported independent living and plan management services. At the morning tea it was also interesting to hear the stories from the families and carers of people with a disability. It made it clear to me the life-changing effects that the NDIS has had.

However, there are still shortfalls and improvements to the disability services that can be made and that are being called for. For example, many of the previous state government services that were discontinued when the NDIS came into effect have not been picked up by anybody, and some of those services need to be picked up because they fill gaps that the NDIS doesn't cater for. It's also the case that once people reach 64 years of age they are no longer eligible to come onto the NDIS plan. Whilst I accept that there are aged-care services available, they don't always address the need of people with a serious or severe disability. I understand that young children are not always eligible or entitled to get an NDIS plan, either.

Over the last few days I've been listening to debate on this issue from other members in this House, and in particular from coalition members, who are pointing the finger at this government and saying, 'Look what's happening.' In fact, if you look at some of the newspaper headlines today, there are calls for the $2 billion of rorts that were occurring under the NDIS scheme to be responded to et cetera. All of the problems being raised were occurring under the previous coalition government. The reality is that when the Albanese Labor government was elected it immediately sought to address the problems that people are speaking about, that people on the other side are criticising the Albanese Labor government for. An inquiry was commissioned and it came back with over 20 recommendations. Labor is responding to that and has done so with this legislation.

This legislation is about making the scheme sustainable but also about stopping the malpractice that those on the other side would criticise the Albanese Labor government as being responsible for. They were in office for 10 years, and the very issues that I hear the government criticised for were the issues being brought to my office on a regular basis when they were in office. The reality is: it is Labor that brought this scheme in, it is Labor that wants to make it work, it is Labor that knows the importance and the value of it, and it is Labor that will make the scheme a much better scheme and ensure that it meets the needs of all of those people with a disability and their family members. I commend this legislation to the House.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

More than 660,000 Australians benefit from the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and it's hard to believe it has been in place for a decade. One of those people is my grandson Liam, who is four. He has a version of mitochondrial disease, which means he lives with profound disabilities. He's unable to walk, move or talk and is fed with the assistance of a PEG. Life for this beautiful boy and his parents has been made immeasurably better because of NDIS support. While his plan is not elaborate by any means, it has made a difference in his life. For example, he now has a supported chair that enables him to be strapped in to sit upright so he can be more connected with everyone else in the room and strengthen his little muscles. He now has a bodysuit that assists with circulation.

I want to see Liam and every single person on the NDIS thrive, so I want to see the NDIS thrive. But I'm not sure that it's necessarily thriving at present. Each week, I hear from participants who are experiencing lengthy delays in dealing with the National Disability Insurance Agency, the NDIA. As the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme is in the chamber, I must say that, as a member of parliament, I greatly appreciate the minister's staff and his department and their ability to problem-solve for the many constituents we receive requests for assistance from. But some do wait months on end for decisions, well in excess of the NDIA's own Participant Services Guarantee, with their circumstances becoming more dire over time.

I've also heard from people who are concerned about exploitation by some unscrupulous providers and the 'gold-plating' of equipment, so that a basic wheelchair now costs thousands of dollars. Just yesterday, after Senate estimates, we heard media reports about drugs, cars and holidays, and courts struggling to manage this. The minister himself has said he doesn't know how big this iceberg is, but it's potentially 10 per cent of NDIS funds. That is astonishing and must be addressed. So it's clear that reform is needed. We've heard this from participants and we've heard it from the independent review of the NDIS.

What will this bill change? The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 will clarify how participants access the scheme. It will clarify how plans are set and funds used, with a new reasonable and necessary budget framework comprising flexible funding and funding for stated supports at the whole-of-person level. It will try to address intra-plan inflation and set limits to prevent exploitation and coercion of some participants who may be vulnerable. Further, it will enable strong compliance and enforcement and prohibit involvement of banned persons in auditing quality under the scheme. These are valid aims, because we want the NDIS to continue into the future. We do not want a future federal government to end the NDIS and return clients to individual states where the support originally sat.

I think we do need to acknowledge that when this program started it had a price tag of around $4 billion. To quote the minister:

We want to make the Scheme fairer, more transparent, and more accountable. It is growing too fast. We believe that if we can moderate the growth of the Scheme, it will be there for future generations.

Future generations are what's important. The NDIS is currently the third-largest program as measured by total general government sector expenses, with estimated expenditure of $41.9 billion in the 2023-24 budget papers. Projections are that it will cost as much as $89 billion by 2031-32, not including operational costs. That is an estimated 2.55 per cent of Australia's gross domestic product.

I have to acknowledge that there are concerns with this framework bill, which sets primary heads of power in broad brushstrokes. In some areas it's a bit light on detail—and I do acknowledge the recent amendments that the government has tabled. A key concern—for many of us in this place, I think—is that too much has been put into delegated legislation and won't have the scrutiny which is the purpose of this place. I understand the desire for flexibility in responding to changing circumstances, which is limited when undertaking a full legislative process at every step. But, if these details are not in the primary legislation, the bill must be absolutely clear that development of and changes to delegated legislation, such as the NDIS Rules and ministerial directions, will require consultation and engagement with people living with disability and their families and advocates.

The community is seeking a guarantee of consultation and co-design, with express requirements in the bill to consult with people living with disability and their advocates, rather than simply 'having regard' to their input. Disability advocates are therefore seeking reassurance that participants will have input into the design of the needs assessment that will form the basis for preparation of a participant's plan. We don't yet know what highly technical assessment methods or tools will be developed or who will conduct these assessments. Disability advocates request a commitment that needs assessments will be conducted by health professionals with an understanding of the participant's or applicant's history and needs. I think that's critical.

Beyond this, I'm pleased that eight elements of support set out in the bill are taken from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, but I would like to see the bill also incorporate references to other convention rights, such as the rights to employment and economic participation, with all the benefits—not just financial—to individuals and society which this participation can bring.

I also accept representations that there will remain a need for some flexibility as to the nature of supports set out in the bill, in order to allow for individuals' circumstances. For example, while the explanatory memorandum indicates that air conditioning would not be funded as a support, we know that some disabilities, including spinal cord injury, brain injury, neurodegenerative disorders and muscular dystrophy, can render a person unable to regulate their body temperature, meaning they require such an aid to manage the impact of their disability on their lives. We need to have balance with this.

Disability advocates have also raised concerns that the ability to suspend an existing or new NDIS plan in the case of failure to comply with new, broader information-gathering powers should only be exercised as a last resort. I'm also advised that new constraints on expenditure and the ability to supervise participant spending should be used only if the participant is at high risk of noncompliance, rather than when a participant has perhaps inadvertently failed to comply in a single instance.

Despite my concerns, I do support the need for reform of the NDIS Act. If costs continue to spiral unchecked I'm worried that a future government will abandon the NDIS altogether and it may not survive. States and territories have largely vacated this field, overburdening the NDIS. It was not envisaged under the original agreement; nor does it make for a sustainable scheme. Let's not sink the only lifeboat in the ocean.

Ideally, the bill should not be voted on until members have an opportunity to digest the submissions made to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, with its report not due to be handed down until 20 June. We have seen time and time again the undermining of democratic process when we have the gagging of debate, and I'm very pleased that that has not occurred in this instance—although I feel that the vote on this bill is somewhat rushed. I call on the government to not vote on this bill until we have had the opportunity to look at that Senate committee report. I understand, though, that the reality of this place is that we need to get things through this place and then greater detail happens in the other place. I look forward to seeing what happens with this bill in the other place and then continuing that conversation in here.

In closing, I support this legislation and I am looking forward to a NDIS that is not the only lifeboat in the ocean and a NDIS that is there for future generations.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The NDIS came into being just over a decade ago. It represented a real change for many Australians living with disability. The core of the scheme's intent is that any Australian with disability should be able to live a dignified life. The NDIS was envisaged as a safety net to ensure that individuals with disability and their families would not be left behind. The scheme assists some 660,000 Australians annually, and a further 40,000 are working in NDIS related jobs. This is huge. The NDIS is now a part of the support system we offer to those who need support to make sure that they live in a more accessible and equal society.

But the scheme is not working as well or as sustainably as it could. We have before us a chance to start righting the ship. As acknowledged by the government and many in this place, the NDIS is at risk of losing sight of what it was originally intended to do. To many people, including those I represent in Warringah, the NDIS has become a source of frustration, pain and anger as they engage with the bureaucratic system. Redesigning the NDIS to be a cost-effective and efficient administrator that consistently delivers meaningful outcomes for those supported by it must remain our key focus in this process.

I've had many constituents in Warringah contact me around their engagement with the NDIS and their concerns but also their challenges and success stories. There are many disability services and NDIS providers in my electorate that deliver essential services and employment opportunities. My office is often in contact with those NDIS providers, working through issues and helping where we can. I am very grateful to the minister, his staff and his office for the time they have taken to engage with my office to help constituents but also in the process around this bill, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024. The minister has partaken in a forum in Warringah; he came and answered many questions and spoke to many constituents. We hope to welcome him back soon for another forum to discuss the changes proposed in this legislation.

One of the real insights and highlights I've had in my job as the independent member for Warringah is witnessing firsthand the transformative power of programs that prioritise the voices of individuals with disability. One of these local disability groups, Northside Enterprise, has a program called Bushlink. It employs people with intellectual disability to carry out environmental projects, focusing on bush regeneration. I recently joined their bush regeneration team out on the Long Reef Headland to learn more about the program. Northside has created a program that fosters meaningful employment and community engagement whilst also maintaining and protecting our natural environment; it is a win-win-win. That is exactly at the core of what the NDIS aspires to be for all those in the disability community.

There are many other wonderful organisations in Warringah, such as Pioneer Clubhouse, Cerebral Palsy Alliance and Manly House, to name just a few. They all do phenomenal work, and it's a real highlight to be able to visit them as a local MP. I've also heard, though, of the frustration from constituents who feel overwhelmed by the complexities of the NDIS and the lack of clarity around their plans and ongoing funding. Under the current system, participants need to supply constant medical reports to prove their conditions. Participants who clearly have lifelong conditions still need to regularly prove to the NDIS the ongoing nature of their condition. It's very costly, a time-consuming burden and very emotionally draining for so many participants—and, I would say, the staff of the NDIA.

There have been several cases where my constituents have been unable to supply, for example, medical reports on time due to long wait times to see medical specialists, alongside the often-great costs involved with these appointments and changes to places. Then, due to their inability to supply those medical reports within the deadline provided, participants have had their NDIS plan funding suddenly stopped or cut back. Some constituents have been lucky that they had a community of family and friends that could temporarily step in, but that's a postcode lottery, and it's not how people should receive the support that they need from the NDIS. At worst, unfortunately, some constituents have had to be hospitalised due to their funding being suddenly cut. That's incredibly unsafe for participants, but what's really disappointing is that, if the system were working as well as it could be, it would be completely avoidable.

I have another example from Warringah. One of the frustrations that constituents have with the current system is the lack of flexibility. I have raised this with the minister. Manly House are a wonderful service that provides specialist disability accommodation under the NDIS on the northern beaches. Their residents often need disability transport at short notice for different outings, including medical appointments. Due to the shortage in New South Wales of disability transport and accessible transport, especially public transport or taxis, residents would like to pool their funding to purchase a vehicle to make it much easier for them to plan their outings and live their lives as normally as possible. This is an initiative from Manly House to provide that service to their residents. Third-party transport can be unreliable, often not available at short notice and extremely expensive on the plans. One of my constituents in Mosman, Joey Sulfaro, is so frustrated by the situation in Sydney around this. He's found it so bad that he has started his own local transport service for people with disabilities. The current framework is too inflexible. It doesn't allow that pooling of transport allocations. We need more NDIA services that work for people and make their lives easier, not more difficult. I have advocated for Manly House to be able to pool their resources, but unfortunately to no avail. I note the minister is here, and I will renew my request for that flexibility to be allowed for transport allocations. It's the sort of issue that needs a common-sense approach to be applied, because ultimately there will be savings for government and for the program as a whole.

The legislation before the House is very much welcome. The NDIS review put into perspective the current state of the scheme and made many recommendations for how to right the ship and ensure it's more sustainable and fit for purpose and true to its original intent. The review also shed light on an operational culture that prioritised the wants of providers over the needs of participants. In short, some people were making a lot of money from the NDIS, whilst people with disabilities were often missing out. It revealed an overly bureaucratic and convoluted structure that served to disenfranchise and alienate individuals and their families.

The review made multiple recommendations, the core of which would be, if implemented, wholesale changes to the way people are assessed for support and the way their funding is then provided. The bill before us lays the foundation for implementing the review's recommendations. It also lays out the operational changes needed to make the scheme sustainable and fit for purpose in the years ahead. This is the part of the change that will alarm people the most: the fear of cuts and rollbacks. So it's very important that good, clear communication and engagement are rolled out by the minister, the NDIA and the department to ensure that participants understand and are taken on the journey. I don't believe that it is the government's intent to make cuts and rollbacks. In fact, the minister has been very clear in saying that they're not looking to knock people off the scheme but that they're looking to build efficiencies and sustainability into the scheme. I very much welcome that.

The cost of the NDIS has been increasing rapidly. Without modification, it's estimated that the NDIS will cost up to $100 billion per year by 2032. That just isn't sustainable and it must be managed sensibly, so I will turn to the details of the bill and what it's going to do. Broadly, the key changes which the bill focuses on are about how people access the scheme, how plans are created and how participants can spend the funds allocated to them. Of course, it's also about how the agency can step in if there are concerns that funds aren't being spent effectively and about the powers of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission.

The first change to spell out is about how people are assessed to enter the scheme. The assessment will now be needs based and will form the basis for the overall budget or plan that a participant receives, rather than the current system, where items are basically added line by line. That has meant a very inequitable system, where people with similar disabilities have vastly different plan allocations for no apparent reason—it becomes a bit of a postcode lottery.

The needs based assessment will form the basis for the overall budget or plan the participant receives, but we still need clarity about how needs based assessments will be done and who will undertake them. Many in the disability community are unsettled by the lack of clarity and detail around this assessment. The NDIS review recommended that such assessments must be done by an appropriate a health professional or social worker, and the minister has acknowledged that the assessment will look at support needs as a whole. The near-universal feedback from the disability community is that it's concerned that the assessment won't be genuinely codesigned with a variety of inputs from those with a range of disabilities. This really is a concern; the government doesn't yet have the trust of the community on this front, it needs to be earned. This feeds into the wider issue at hand.

The second major change in the bill—and some say it relies on this excessively—leaves rules and determinations for another day, often to the minister. Whilst, no doubt, this will allow for a more flexible and responsive system to evolve than is currently the case, it's impossible to quantify the changes without further information or clarity from the government. This leads to great concern among participants.

Finally, it remains unclear what will be funded federally and what will be provided by the states and territories. This is another key change and state and territory governments don't appear to be willing to take on the responsibilities they will need to under this refurbished scheme. This lack of clarity remains concerning, and the states need to make sure that they're full and active participants in the scheme to make it work properly—for in the provision of disability transport. We know that this is the responsibility of state governments and that they haven't fulfilled that responsibility adequately to date. Again, transparency is absolutely needed here for the community to have confidence in the government's intentions with respect to the NDIS. I note that there have been a number of discussions, and further negotiations with the minister, about possible amendments from the crossbench. These have very much been led by the member for Kooyong and I look forward to the consideration in detail process that will follow.

It's so important for the government to get this right. The NDIS is an incredible legacy and we need to make sure it works—that it delivers as intended. There is more to do to improve this bill, and I hope the minister listens to the constructive amendments that are going to be put forward. I thank the government and the minister for his engagement to date. There's more to do on this bill. It's only the start, and there is going to be a long process of communication and engagement with the community to ensure the changes that are brought about by this bill are brought in as smoothly and effectively as possible for the participants and the workforce impacted by it.

Andrew Gee (Calare, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024. I do so because I am a huge supporter of the NDIS, which is making a real difference to the lives of more than 660,000 Australians and their loved ones. Many of those Australians live in the Calare electorate, and the impacts of the NDIS have been life changing. The NDIS is truly something our nation can be proud of. It shows the compassionate heart of Australia.

It's no secret that reform is needed. That reform is needed so that the NDIS can continue to support Australians for generations to come. There has been far too much politics attached to reforming the NDIS. The previous government knew that there was an urgent need for reform, but the reality is it hit the pause button on it because they were worried about a scare campaign from the then opposition. History shows that they were right to be worried. So there is some irony in that it now falls to the new government to undertake this work.

But the point is that, when the NDIS is the subject of pointscoring and partisan politics, things just don't get done. There is a lesson in that for all major parties and MPs. The lesson is: keep politics out of the NDIS for the national good. It's positive that the opposition is not going to oppose this bill. They could have done so. They could have gone down the road of political payback, but they have wisely and sensibly chosen not to do that, and I think they are to be commended for that. I believe that the current minister is diligent and hardworking, and getting the NDIS back on track is a huge and difficult undertaking. I believe the minister should be supported in his endeavours and that the states need to do their part as well. Australians want a fair and sustainable NDIS. They don't want to see the NDIS rorted. They want to see help getting to where it's needed.

This bill isn't perfect, but it's an important step forward on work that everyone in this House knows needs to be undertaken. So I wish the minister well with this work and I commend this bill to the House.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present a correction to the explanatory memorandum.

This year marks two years since I had the privilege of becoming the Minister for the NDIS and the Minister for Government Services. In the past two years, the Albanese government, the states and territories, the National Disability Insurance Agency, the disability sector and thousands of people on the scheme have embarked on the big task of getting the NDIS back on track. I've spent every day working with participants and with advocates on how we rebuild the scheme and make sure it's here to stay. I've understood, every day of my time in this job, that we do not have a second, much less a minute or a day, to waste. The NDIS is too important.

We found out on our journey along the way that, whatever one's political differences, most Australians are actually protective of the NDIS in the same way we are of Medicare. We're proud of these policies and we understand that disability is universal. It could affect any of us or someone we love at any time. It's why I've introduced this legislation to the parliament—to improve the scheme's trajectory and to secure the future of our NDIS.

The bill recognises the commitment of the Australian government to delivering better outcomes for people with disability who engage with the NDIS. This bill includes a package of measures to restore the NDIS to its original intent of supporting people with permanent and significant disability within a broader future ecosystem of foundational disability supports. States, territories and the Commonwealth have a common interest and a shared responsibility to support these reforms to secure a future of lasting and meaningful outcomes not just for Australians with a disability engaged with the NDIS, and to make sure all Australians with a disability are included in our society, but also for all Australians.

The NDIS review was commissioned by this government, as we promised at the election. It has worked with the disability community to tell us what's working and, more importantly, what isn't and how the scheme could be improved to achieve the vision desired for people with disability when the scheme was first established in 2013. I'm grateful to the disability community who spent a significant time responding to and engaging with our independent review panel, working toward shaping a vision for how government to: put people with disability back at the centre of the NDIS; restore trust, confidence and pride in the NDIS; and ensure the sustainability of the scheme for future generations. The review panel travelled to every state and territory, including regional and remote communities, hearing directly from more than 10,000 fellow Australians. They worked with disability organisations to reach out and to listen to more than a thousand people with disability in their families. They recorded more than 2,000 personal stories and received around 4,000 submissions. Following this remarkable level of consultation engagement, it's the responsibility of the government to now build on and implement the recommendations by planning for the future of the NDIS.

This bill is primarily enabling in nature. It's establishing the scaffolding within the current legislative framework, supported by new and amended rule-making powers. The majority of changes in this bill do not take effect until activated by future changes to NDIS rules. This will be developed with people with disability and the disability community. It will be agreed by all states and territories, consistent with the existing shared governance arrangements. The bill includes some measures that commence immediately, including a greater emphasis on spending within the allocation of a participant's plan where there are no changes of circumstances, which will insist the scheme's sustainability. This reflects the reasonable expectation that participants should spend up to the limit specified in their plan unless their needs do significantly change and, with appropriate safeguards, when others may seek to exploit or coerce a participant to use their package in a way not consistent with their best interests.

The changes in this bill recognise the government's ongoing commitment to delivering the independent review panel's vision for the future reforms of the NDIS. It's about laying the foundations for continuing to make society more inclusive and accessible for the roughly 2½ million Australians with a disability under 65 years of age, and the 650,000-plus people engaged directly with support through the NDIS. It's about a future ecosystem of support for all people with disability and their families.

Australians with disability deserve an NDIS that delivers the best outcomes for them and a scheme that is safe from exploitation. We cannot afford to wait one moment longer to get the NDIS back on track. While the scheme's doing amazing things, and changing the lives for hundreds of thousands of people, participants face confusion, uncertainty and, sadly, exploitation—in some cases, everyday—whilst on the NDIS. We do hear some of the bad news stories. The legislation before parliament will give us what we need to make the NDIS stronger, and to make it easier for participants and providers to use NDIS funding in the right way.

Any delays would continue the illusion that providers or participants can just exhaust their NDIS funds and continue to ask for more funds without good reason. It would continue to create participant uncertainty about what they and their providers can do with NDIS funds. It would continue to allow the dodgy providers—admittedly, a small minority, but they exist nonetheless—to rapidly draw down funds from plans, enabling hit-and-run frauds by such providers. Every month this legislation is delayed will cost people with disability and the taxpayers $160 million in funds—taxpayer funding going out the door to dodgy plan managers and people ripping off the scheme, or going to providers delivering luxury holidays and even gambles. The good providers—the vast majority—are crying out for us to do something to stop bad providers taking advantage of people with disability. Families and participants deserve to be protected from unscrupulous operators.

I'd like to briefly cover the work we've done in the past two years to get to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS back on Track No.2) Bill today. To describe the NDIS when Labor won government compared to the work we're now doing is like comparing an empty block of land to a building under full construction.

After we won in 2022, I discovered the NDIS was headed in the wrong direction, and it was far worse than I'd imagined. It was growing too fast and too big without proper guardrails in place. It's also important to say, and we found out along the way, that after the years of talking by the previous government, and us talking since, that people seem actually shocked that there is a problem. But there is a problem and it is worse than we imagined.

What we're doing now to fix the scheme across fraud and regulation will protect people with disability and the scheme into the future. We're stopping price gouging, making sure that people who supply services to people on the scheme can't charge a wedding tax for an identical service with someone not on the scheme who isn't charged the same fee. Some allied health professionals hate me talking about it, but the reality is that some are taking advantage of the system, and we owe it to people on the scheme to tell the truth and not see them treated as human ATMs. We've upgraded the NDIS rules with the ACCC to make sure this overcharging is prohibited.

We've invested in the NDIA—the agency running the scheme—to increase its capability to do its job to support people with disability. Every day of the last two years the Albanese government has been absolutely focused on how we can improve the scheme. This legislation is designed to ensure that every dollar gets through to those for whom the scheme was intended and to protect it for future generations. This legislation is the next step in addressing priority recommendations from the NDIS review and return the scheme to its original intent.

The review called for a transition. The proposed changes in this legislation are the start of a journey. The changes will not happen overnight, but the taps have been left on full pelt for too long in some cases. I say to people with disability, 'I understand your legitimate anxiety when you hear the word "change" and you worry that, whatever the imperfections of the NDIS, you'll lose what you have.' That is not the intent of this legislation, but we owe it to the scheme to tell the truth. We'll work with people with disability on an ongoing basis, as well as the sector, the states, the territories and, indeed, the coalition to make sure that Australia has the most accessible and innovative nation in the world for people with disability.

We have a vision to make sure that Australia is more inclusive in our jobs, schools, health systems, justice, public transport and leadership. I work closely with Minister Rishworth on these matters. Australians with disabilities and the people who love them have had to wait a long time to see a better deal. Life is not a dress rehearsal. There's been a five-year disability royal commission and a 12-month review. We want to make sure that the NDIS is not the only lifeboat in the ocean.

There have been some matters offered in the debate which I want to specifically address, which I think go to some of the concerns that people have raised. This bill does not contain new debt recovery powers. There are no changes to the debt recovery provisions. The debt recovery powers remain the same, as per section 182. The changes being made to section 46 are designed to ensure that funds may only be used to obtain supports that are appropriately funded by the NDIS and directed towards a participant's support needs.

Another issue in the debate, this bill does not introduce changes to eligibility or new CEO powers to revoke access. It does make clear that in relation to future access decisions, the NDIS just has to tell participants whether they've entered the scheme because they've met the disability requirements in section 24 or the early intervention requirements in section 25 or both. Currently there is just an access-met decision. Another issue which has been raised by some is that the changes are the same as the previous coalition changes. They are not. There is nothing in this bill that has anything to do with robodebt and there is nothing in this bill that requires or allows automated decision-making or the use of algorithms.

It's also been said that this legislation is a surprise. It is not. Most of the reforms outlined in the bill are addressing priority recommendations from the 2023 review, as I've mentioned. Initial legislative reform was agreed to by the National Cabinet in December 2023 to be brought forward in the first half of 2024. The bill provides the framework for the reforms, which will be developed through deep engagement with the disability community to design subordinate legislation.

I've personally hosted eight events across Australia to discuss the bill following it's introduction, as well as three Department of Social Security webinars. Five thousand community members have joined in person or online. That's on top of the nine town hall meetings I hosted about the review's findings, where another 5,200 participants attended.

Another matter which has been raised in debate which I wish to address is that the financial impact of this bill is unclear. The 2024-25 budget papers show an increase of $1.5 billion in costs over five years compared with 2023-24 and compared to the 23-24 MYEFO budget update. The budget projected, using the data from December 2023, that without further action NDIS payments would increase by $14.4 billion over the years from 2024-25.

Another matter which has been raised in the debate but is not correct is that the legislation is at odds with the NDIS review. The NDIS review made a number of recommendations—recommendations 3, 6, 7 and 8—around access and budget setting that are all consistent with the proposed bill. A core recommendation from the NDIS review is that the scheme should provide a flexible budget for participants based on a consistent and transparent needs assessment. The bill introduces a statutory framework to implement this recommendation, with further details to be co-designed with the community.

There's been some discussion about our willingness to look at amendments—that somehow that makes the bill a bad one. It doesn't. This is how the parliament works. I recognise that all in this parliament and beyond should have the ability to contribute to the formulation of legislation.

There was another matter that somehow funding for the establishment of foundational supports has not eventuated. National Cabinet is committed to funding for foundational supports—supports for people with disability outside the NDIS—to allow for commencement from mid-2025. In establishing more effective early intervention pathways into the scheme, it'll be important to ensure there's alignment with existing foundational supports. My colleague Minister Rishworth is leading this work, and we're working with the states. We've already committed millions of dollars to this process.

There is also an allegation that the bill is changing external or internal review rights. This bill makes no changes to internal or external review rights in regard to participants' plans. Under the proposed new planning framework, participants can seek internal and external review of their plan, which includes their reasonable and necessary budget based on a holistic needs assessment.

Another myth is that this is simply rehashing the former government's independent assessments. This is not correct. The concept of 'reasonable and necessary' remains central to the NDIS. Under the bill, new framework plans will draw on the support needs assessment in setting a reasonable and necessary budget which can be used more flexibly. This departs from the current cumbersome line-by-line determination of individual reasonable and necessary requests, which can produce contested and inconsistent outcomes, according to the review.

Another allegation is that there's no detail on how needs assessments will be developed. I need to be clear: the needs assessment tools—there will need to be several—will be developed through an extensive consultation and co-design process with deep engagement with the disability community and relevant experts. We'll use an iterative process of designing and testing with people with disability, as well as allied health professionals and people with technical expertise in the development of needs assessments. The process will be transparent. It'll involve extensive testing of existing supports needs assessments with groups and disability types for whom they're validated to inform the design of any new needs assessment. These are some of the issues which have been raised with the bill.

In conclusion, we work every day—I work every day—to make the NDIS better. I congratulate the coalition for being willing to engage in a constructive manner—the member for Deakin, in particular. We all understand the NDIS is changing lives for the better—hundreds of thousands of lives. We understand it is an investment, not a deficit. We understand it's creating hundreds of thousands of jobs and careers, small businesses and innovative startups. But it can't be the only lifeboat in the ocean. We do need to tell the truth about the scheme. There is more good news than bad news about the scheme, but some who are most keen on the scheme say that any discussion of the bad news is somehow demonising providers, participants or the scheme. It is not; it is telling the truth. To those who only see the bad news in the scheme and resent the idea of the scheme, it is changing lives. One day, even the critics may well need it. I recommend the bill to the House.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Deakin be agreed to.