This Bill makes some significant changes to the NDIS, which are intended to address its sustainability while still retaining the real benefit we've seen from the transition to the NDIS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first concern I've heard is there's a lot of decision-making pushed into delegated legislation. One of the problems with the NDIS has been the rigidity of some aspects, which creates nonsensical situations where basically the computer says no. If issues are addressed in delegated legislation they can be changed if something isn't working. Obviously that benefit can also result in a fear that it can be changed easily for the wrong reasons. But there are some checks and balances put in place to minimise the risks of delegating too much power. The bill contains six ministerial instruments which largely relate to how the agency will operationalise the changes. There are 30 new rule-making powers in the legislation. Of these, 23 are category A rules, which require the universal agreement of all states and territories. Two of the remaining powers require a majority of all states to agree, and the remaining five require consultation with the states. It seems appropriate that the new rule-making powers require the say of the states, given that the system requires cooperation and buy-in from the states so that people don't fall between the cracks. I'll support an amendment to embed the needs for co-design and consultation in the development of this delegated legislation, and I'll also be reviewing delegated legislation when it's made, consulting with disability organisations and supporting a disallowance if adequate consultation or co-design did not occur. A second concern relates to foundational supports. When we have 10 per cent of Australian boys between five and seven on the NDIS need to look at different ways to address the issue. I have personal experience with my own kids with an individualised approach, it is on parents to access the NDIS, find the appropriate specialist, make appointments and get the kids to those appointments. If schools adequately catered for neurodiversity, our kids' ability to live up to their potential would be less dependent on parents. Building schools' capacity to deal with neurodiversity is no small matter. Over the last 10 years, many block funded state support services have been withdrawn, leaving the NDIS as the only lifeboat in the harbor, as the Minister puts it. I can understand the concern that this bill has been passed without those foundational supports being in place. Rebuilding that capability will take time. People cannot be allowed to fall through the cracks. The Minister assures me that the implementation schedule will reflect the preparedness of the states to step up in different areas. It will be important that there is transparency on the implementation progress of those foundational supports and that these supports are co-designed with people who have lived experience with disability. Another thing the minister assures me will happen. A third concern that has come up is their new needs assessment mechanism. The bill introduces mandatory national assessments for all participants. As the scheme currently operates there is a huge discrepancy on how support is provided to people. In some cases with numerous individuals with similar needs being provided with vastly different packages. Currently, the size of your support plan can depend a lot on your ability to advocate. If you or your family or support coordinator or plan manager able to argue your case, you may get a better plan. Using a common functional assessment tool should ideally apply a consistent commonsense approach. There is no-one assessment tool for every disability. The Minister has said there will be multiple assessment tools focused on the whole of the person, not just their diagnosis and these will be developed in consultation with disability expert and advocates. These assessment will need to be based on the medical advice provided by experts and will need to be driven by clinical and functional needs, not financial KPI's. It is not clear what qualifications these needs assessors will have or where they will come from. It is also not clear what relationship the assessors will have with medical experts or our families will be involved in this assessment process but these concerns will be vital. This will be a significant challenge in implementation and it is crucial the government builds trust in the new system by ensuring the workforce is well equipped to do this role. A fourth concern I have heard repeatedly that there is no merits-based review pathway. The Minister has told me this bill has no impact on the review pathway available. The ability to challenge a reviewable decision based on its substance will still exist under section 100 of the NDIS act. A needs assessment will be an input to the statement of participant supports which remains a reviewable decision. You will be able to see your support needs assessment and the budget outcome including a draft, hopefully this will mean that any concerns can be addressed at the draft stage rather than having to wait for the formal statement of participant supports and go through a formal challenge. I will be supporting amendments to require participants sign off on the draft plan and statement of supports to ensure this is developed with the participant. But if you don't think the assessor has made the right call on the assessment that informed your statement of participant supports, you can seek internal and external review. In other words you can still challenge your package through the administrative review Tribunal. The fifth concern I have heard is that only limited types of supports will be available. Under this bill there was going to be a limited list of types of support that can be funded. In response to evidence given at the Senate inquiry the government has removed this with section 10 amendments so now the same range of supports should be available as are currently available. The sixth concern I have heard is people want to be able to use unregistered providers to provide NDIS services because it gives them choice and control. Currently NDIS recipients who self manage their plans are usually not required to use registered providers. In fact only 9 per cent of providers receiving payment last year were registered. But there are growing concerns about the quality of care they provide patients. The government has absolutely no oversight over unregistered providers. Given we are talking about some of the most vulnerable people in our community it seems reasonable that providers should meet some minimum standards, as long as the registration process which it is currently being reviewed, is not to onerous. The seventh concern I have heard is in relation to accommodation. People who have been living alone in supported accommodation for a long time are now concerned they will no longer be eligible for that level of support, and may be forced to move into group accommodation. Some assurances have been given that this is not the intention. If delegated legislation is passed that is contrary to this I will be supporting it's disallowance. The final key concern I have heard in relation to a change of circumstance top ups. They will always be a need to top up plans when circumstances have changed but at the moment we are spending $3.4 billion a year on top ups when plans have already been fully spent before the end of the year. This is not a sustainable situation and there is evidence the system is being abused. The department tells me there are currently twice as many of these applications as last year, and about three-quarters of these participants don't even know that a change has been lodged on their behalf. Communication with participants has broken down. There seem to be plan managers working the system at the moment with anecdotal evidence of people being told to spend all their money because they can apply for a top up. We cannot run the NDIS like this. There will always be a need for a top up when there are legitimate changes in circumstances but this should be proven. The Department is currently working through what the appropriate evidentiary burden should be for a change in circumstances. This will also require adding more specialisation in the agency so the people assessing the change in circumstances have an understanding of the relevant disability. I take all these concerns from constituents very seriously and have passed them on to the Minister. I thank him for his genuine engagement on this legislation and his willingness to make some amendments to address constituent concerns and provide greater comfort on how this reform will be implemented. In conclusion the NDIS is a good thing but it needs to be sustainable. It is currently in need of reform, both to make it sustainable but also to put people with disabilities at the centre of decisions and ensure common sense prevails. I appreciate the amendments agreed to and the assurances provided by the minister and I will be watching implementation very carefully. If there are issues in implementation, and I suspect they will be as with any reform of this size, I will continue to bring issues to the attention of the Minister so that they can be addressed and will support disallowance of delegated legislation if needed. The NDIS should be something Australia is proud of and I believe it can be.