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

The National Disability Insurance Scheme is one of the most important social policies in this nation. Equally, I think it's fair to say, it's also been the public policy problem child for successive governments since its introduction by the Gillard government. The NDIS was created with the best of intentions. Prior to the scheme, support for people living with disability was managed by individual states. Services were largely block-funded and subject to the vagaries of state budget cycles, and access to service depended largely upon your postcode.

In 2011, the Productivity Commission estimated that a national scheme would cost $13.5 billion per annum. A national system providing tailored support for people living with disability was certainly visionary. But what has eventuated has been a policy disaster of epic proportions, overwhelmed by fraud and inequity. The Productivity Commission's estimate has quadrupled, and when talking to people in my community many say the scheme has not materially improved their lives. Big differences can be seen in the level of supports provided, often due to the quality of supports participants can afford, and many people with disabilities—and their loved ones and carers—are fatigued, gripped with fear that their plan will be cut or cease with the changes that are before us. This fear is compounded by the knowledge that outside of the NDIS there are very few supports.

This scheme is absolutely plagued by fraud. In the 2025 September quarter, more than 7½ thousand fraud tip-offs were reported to the National Disability Insurance Agency. Reports of organised crime and inappropriate, mischievous or fraudulent claims are estimated to cost up to a tenth of its budget, or around $5 billion annually—and I believe that that's quite conservative. Realistically, that figure is likely underreported, given Minister Butler states the NDIA has no visibility of 90 per cent of invoices. In the February 2026 Senate estimates, John Dardo, the head of the NDIS Fraud Fusion Taskforce, reported that just 53 individuals were referred for prosecution and that there were just 16 matters before the court. Troublingly, Mr Dardo stated that in 2024 there was not 'sufficient judiciary to process the cases we have in the pipeline in the country'. Imagine that—not enough lawyers! Whoever would say that!

The recent declaration by Minister Butler that NDIS spending needed curtailment was expected, and it is indeed necessary. However, the message largely dominated by the announcement was that 160,000 people would be removed from the scheme. That not only leaves many people fearful; I believe it completely misses the mark on how to properly deliver a sustainable national disability program. The minister said that the goal is for most providers to be registered in the future. However, it is impossible for any government to have proper oversight when there are 320,000 providers, and that's from the December 2025 NDIS Explore data report, which said 320,778 providers existed. Now, the NDIA report to ministers says it's 276,000, and the library tells us it's somewhere in between. That is an extraordinary number of providers in the system. That's approximately two participants per provider across Australia, and 96 per cent of them are not registered.

In the Adelaide Hills, Fleurieu and Kangaroo Island parts of my electorate, 94 per cent are unregistered and only six per cent of providers are registered. In my electorate, we actually have more providers than we have participants, and of those who are registered, a minuscule number are actually certified as being accredited. It's just unbelievable that we would allow a system that is full of unregistered, unaccredited providers delivering services to our most vulnerable people. We don't know what qualifications they have. It's no wonder there is fraud rampant and it's no wonder we have organised crime and every man and his dog—320,000 of them—becoming NDIS providers. It's no wonder they all have stickers saying 'I love the NDIS'.

For context, Support at Home, the government's new national aged-care program that assists over 300,000 older Australians, has around 900 providers. Workforce Australia, the national program that assists over 600,000 Australians into employment, has around 1½ thousand providers. Each one of those, with respect to employment providers, had to apply through competitive tender, and they needed to demonstrate governance and expertise, and each one's audited annually. But with NDIS, we don't have that at all. Basically, put up a sign saying you deliver NDIS services and away you go.

And we are dealing with people. This is supposed to be providing services to our most vulnerable Australians. Investigative reporters have found that many padlocked shops are empty, yet the invoices to the NDIS continue. I've even heard from reputable sources of overseas-based support coordinators submitting invoices. This system is an unmitigated disaster, and that is what the government should be focusing on, not putting more fear into people who are trying to get by, supporting, in many cases, their children on a plan.

The optimist in me says that it's not too late and that we can address this. If I was the government, instead of looking to cut those 160,000 people, I would formally be putting to tender, region by region, services to deliver so that you had a group of services—organisations that were reputable and had qualified staff in them—and you still had choice for participants within that region. It seems insane; you're never going to get to the bottom of the problem of fraud when you have over 300,000 providers.

When we're looking at the challenges around the NDIS, what does this bill do? There are some parts of it that I do support in relation to integrity and responding to fraud, but there is much more that the government can do. This bill takes some positive steps towards better managing fraud, with plan managers to be the gatekeepers for other providers by setting up a provisioning model for the plan manager cohort. I do wonder, though, whether we are putting all of the burden on plan managers and not enough of the burden on the government department to actually curtail the number of providers that we have in Australia.

The government advises that providers of the high-risk services will be the first required to be registered. How they were not already registered just beggars belief. I would prefer to see all providers not just registered; they must be qualified and appropriate service delivery organisations and they must be accredited, because people who are living with disability, I believe, deserve the very best of supports. This should be our focus.

The legislation sets out a new definition for 'functional capacity' as a threshold to access the scheme. That is going to render many applicants and participants ineligible for the NDIS. I understand why the government's doing this, but there is a real fear in the community that there aren't alternative foundational supports. I was listening to the previous speaker, and she was saying how the Labor government is the first to try and curtail this scheme. That is not true. I was here when the previous government was attempting to legislate for independent assessments, and, I've got to say, the then Labor opposition fought so hard against that. We actually wouldn't be in the mess that we're in now if we'd had more bipartisanship in trying to address this behemoth of a scheme for the last decade.

I have much more to say about this, but I will say this: the government needs to focus on ensuring that we address the fraud, the rorting and the organised crime that is costing this nation billions of dollars and on providing and ensuring that there are the best quality supports for people who are living with disability. That is where the focus needs to be. I'm continuing to review this legislation. I'm continuing to hear from my community. My hope is that that will be the focus of the government in amendments to the Senate.

See this speech in context