National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Ms McKENZIE (Flinders) (20:31): The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 is one of a line of bills which purport to try to fix the NDIS scheme to ensure its sustainability for the future. It is worth remembering the history of the NDIS. Indeed, one might say that the scheme we are trying to fix via this bill was the crowning glory of the former member for Maribyrnong, Bill Shorten, who has never been so successful in his impact in Australian policy as he has been over the last two weeks—albeit to the nation's detriment.
The NDIS was, of course, Bill's baby in this place, his launch pad to greater things. Between 2007 and 2010, he served as Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services. Tomorrow, his 2019 platform of new taxes and the abolition of negative gearing and CGT discounts for investments will be introduced in this place.
But tonight we are giving structure, rigour and, one might say, discipline to the runaway train version of the NDIS which this parliament passed in 2013. The bill makes substantive changes to the operation of the NDIS in an effort to substantially reduce the scheme's expenditure, savings which have already been baked into the budget. In essence, therefore, this bill purports to strengthen arrangements in relation to fraud, compliance and regulation, including by changing the definition of NDIS providers, introducing civil penalties, expanding information-gathering powers, imposing record-keeping requirements, changing claims timeframes and amending plan management arrangements.
It also amends access and planning arrangements, including by defining functional capacity, limiting participant requested plan reassessments, expanding the circumstances in which a person's plan can be suspended, strengthening the link between supports and eligible impairments, changing reasonable and necessary support provisions and allowing the consideration of access to other service systems.
The bill also introduces a power for the minister to reduce funding for specified groups of supports, among other administrative changes. The coalition has provided bipartisan support for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the role that the scheme plays in enabling Australians with significant and permanent disability to live with dignity, independence and greater choice.
This is an important scheme. Earlier, I heard the member for Groom talking about the fact that, in each and every one of our offices, there would be at least one member of staff who works with our community on NDIS matters. In my office, that is the formidable duo of Rocco Labriola and Katie Wilkie.
Never will you meet two people with more compassion—good ears, warm hearts and a determination to do their best for the good folk of Flinders, especially those people for whom the NDIS means the difference between a life of productivity, contribution, application, purpose, dignity and joy, and the alternative of a life without it. The coalition has also provided bipartisan support to changes that must be made so that the scheme will enjoy long-term sustainability.
No program has known growth like that we have seen in the NDIS in both uptake and expenditure. Originally expected to support around 410,000 Australians, the NDIS now supports over 760,000 participants and continues to grow. Estimated originally to be $13.6 billion, the cost this year is around $50 billion, and it is projected to blow out to $70 billion by the end of the decade.
That's more than defence, more than Medicare and more than aged care, and this is not sustainable. Australians understand this is not sustainable. Indeed, those who receive support through the program understand and tell us it is not sustainable.
The government has made multiple attempts to reduce the growth but with no real success. This will now be their third attempt to slow its growth. In their first year of government, the Albanese government tried to reduce annual growth in the scheme to a target of eight per cent, a target they never met.
Then there was a revised target of between five and six per cent over the medium term—again, not achieved. Today the growth in the NDIS spend sits at over 10 per cent. The two per cent growth target that the government now proposes is indeed a substantial reduction.
It will be a vast reduction as experienced by the participants and providers alike, who now fear for the services on which their families and their communities depend. The reality is that many people within our community will be removed from the scheme or receive a significant reduction in their support packages. In making changes in the national interest, we must ensure that people with significant and permanent disability continue to be supported and protected by the scheme.
I want to talk about some of the people in my electorate to whom that scheme means so much. People have come to my office in frustration, increasingly in relation to being given what appears to be the run-around by that system. They come to us in desperation, and we do everything we can to help.
I recently received an email from Kristy in Rosebud, and her expression is one shared by so many. Kristy is autistic, and she has been diagnosed as bipolar but today she lives in constant fear that she will lose the support she receives under the NDIS. I also recently received an email from Aleksia in Mornington.
She's an occupational therapist who works with NDIS participants in my community, and she identifies inefficiency within the scheme from internal systemic issues like lengthy delays in evidence review and decision-making; repetitive requests for updated reports despite minimal change in participant function; funding requests declined without meaningful engagement with the clinical evidence provided; significant back and forth occurring because decisions are often reviewed by staff without health qualification or disability-specific expertise; poor integration of allied health expertise into planning and review processes; excessive administration burden; and duplication in evidence forms.
Aleksia gave the example of one participant who requires a permanent ceiling hoist system to safely complete transfers. The need was identified prior to hospital discharge and supported by clinical evidence from the treating team. However, insufficient funding was allocated within the participant's plan, and the recommendation has continued to be contested despite ongoing evidence provision.
As a result, the participant's funding continues to be consumed by the ongoing higher costs of a temporary ceiling hoist structure. The participant's plan has since rolled over, meaning the scheme has effectively already paid the equivalent cost of the permanent solution and more, while the participant and carers continue to experience uncertainty and reduced quality of life.
Aleksia's observations were recently borne out in the case of Cody from Rosebud. It's hard to imagine someone for whom the NDIS was more envisaged than this young man. Cody has cerebral palsy, severe scoliosis and, as his mum, Michelle, describes it, a long list of medical complexities which will be lifelong.
Today he is wearing a plaster jacket. It gets changed under general anaesthetic every eight weeks at the Royal Children's Hospital. In the meantime, his parents sponge-bathe him because he cannot go in or under water.
When he is more stable, Cody will be fitted with a brace, which he will wear for 22 hours a day until his teen years or when he stops growing. You see, Cody is only three, and he is growing fast. In fact, he grew three centimetres between fittings for his brace.
When he is older, when he's stopped growing, he will have surgery to install rods in his back. His family does everything for him with love, joy, passion and dedication. Their patience is nothing short of remarkable.
But, sadly, it has to be nothing short of remarkable, because the system overseen by this government is nothing less than cruel in Cody's case. A few weeks ago, Cody's frustrated mum wrote: 'I have tried to explain to NDIS on multiple occasions that families do not have time to play games and wait for things to be approved and declined multiple times, with further reporting required.
When we submit these things with all the supporting documentation, we need it ASAP. Not only is it vital for early intervention but also, as in our case, if we do not have these special pieces of equipment approved, Cody will not have anything safe and suited for him to sit in. You can't just have him sit in something into which he's squished or can't do up when he outgrows it.' His mum, Michelle, continues, describing Cody as the happiest, bravest, most resilient little boy, always with a smile on his face.
He is tube-fed three times a day, over 2½ hours, with a 2½ -hour gap between feeds. Without Cody having this safe seating approved, he is at risk of aspirating and, also, all the progress he's made will regress. His mum describes the situation she has now faced in dealing with the NDIS: 'The amount of time, detail, effort, therapy hours used for the report writing and funding which has been used for these only still to be told more information is required—and yet it's clear all documentation provided is not being read—is extremely frustrating—also the fact that there are people working at NDIS who google items in the report because they don't know what they are.
And for them to decline a request for information as they are not qualified is an insult.' On behalf of Cody and his mum, Michelle, we reached out to the minister's office, as no doubt every MP in this chamber has done, pleading on behalf of thousands of our constituents for common sense. A few weeks ago, I am pleased to say, Cody's much-needed Bingo Spex stroller was approved and reflected in Cody's NDIS plan.
His mum, Michelle, was relieved but exhausted, and in her frustration she said to Rocco on my team: 'I really do hope my feedback in regards to the NDIS is taken into consideration in parliament, as there is so much fraud going on in the system it makes my blood boil. The fact is genuine people are having to jump through so many hoops to keep getting declined for what's needed, yet these fraudsters are getting away with all they are.
It is just disgusting.' Well, Michelle, you have hit your target. You have been heard. The minister is in the chamber, and your pleas will endure here in Hansard for the rest of time.
Michelle is one of so many who speak of those deserving of help under the NDIS as passionately as she speaks about her horror at case after case of the NDIS rorting that has been revealed online. Talking about online influencers and raising the case of NDIS rorting on Instagram, Michelle asked, 'Why is it that these two young men are investigating the rorting in the system yet the NDIS itself is not?' Well, that is a fair question, Michelle, and you are right to ask it.
We are all right to ask it. Unfortunately, nothing in this scheme or the amendments we are considering tonight or the scheme's administration by this government—as with other schemes like the aged-care scheme—gives me any real confidence that stories like this will be a thing of the past. The coalition will always support measures which improve the integrity of the NDIS to ensure there are safeguards in place to protect participants and to prevent the fraud and rorting that is rife within the scheme.
While the bill makes an attempt to curb the number of bad actors taking advantage of participants and taxpayers by introducing additional provider registration requirements, I fear it may not do enough, and this is a fear my constituents share. We know that, at present, more than 90 per cent of providers are unregistered. As we spend $50 billion in taxpayer funds on the NDIS this year, we are not confident that the controls and fraud protection mechanisms are sufficiently robust to totally root out rorting.
Indeed, I last week got an email from Tony in Mount Martha, who wrote to me: 'I've personally heard a significant number of NDIS scams and rorts over the past few years. The ones below are just more of the same. The ones I personally know about: my aunty was quoted $71,000 for a ramp to her home that was built for $3,800.
This was following a bathroom renovation, as she needed handrails, that was charged at $45,000. A lady I know was quoted $12,000 to re-lay 22 bricks on her path. A new kitchen and bathroom, and the house sold nine months later for a huge profit.
NDIS charging $29,000 for a wheelchair and a car lift that were $7,000 online. And a teacher I know took 10 days sick leave to accompany an NDIS patient on a holiday to Bali and was paid $1,000 a day as carer.' This is but one of the daily reports of fraud and misuse which we receive in our offices, see online or see on the news at night. Maintaining public confidence in this scheme is essential to its long-term sustainability, but that confidence requires that well-founded fears about waste and fraud be addressed—and be visibly addressed—as well as that safeguards be put in place to prevent abuse of the system.
To date, the thousands of staff who serve the NDIS and NDIA have not been able to clearly quantify the scale of fraud within the scheme. The Australian National Audit Office reported that the NDIA estimated that somewhere between six and 10 per cent of all claim outlays could be non-compliant, fraudulent or incorrect. Law enforcement agencies have also warned that organised crime groups are increasingly targeting the scheme, exploiting weak entry controls and fragmented oversight.
As if the rorting of the Big Build by Labor's best friend, the CFMEU, were not enough, now Labor's lack of leadership and accountability has created another tunnel through which organised crime can thrive. The NDIS is one of Australia's most significant reforms. It has created life-changing benefits for those most in need.
But right now it is drifting under poor stewardship.