Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Regional Health) Share this | Hansard source

In continuation, I want to turn now to the changes to eligibility and access in relation to the NDIS. The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 proposes a new framework based on 'substantially reduced functional capacity', with new thresholds to be introduced in rules. On the face of it, consistency and evidence-based assessment are things we should support, but the reality is this: the thresholds have not yet been defined. We are being asked to pass a framework without knowing how restrictive it will ultimately be. We are told that, from 1 January 2028, new participants will be assessed under these new rules, while existing participants will be progressively reassessed. That raises some serious concerns, because, for many Australians, reassessment is not just a bureaucratic process; it is a very stressful, very intrusive and deeply disturbing and distressing experience. We must ensure that people are not being forced to repeatedly prove their disability.

The bill also tightens access to unscheduled plan reassessments. We are told this is necessary to control cost growth, but we must consider the other side of the ledger. For participants, flexibility is essential. People's circumstances will change and their needs will evolve. Unexpected events will occur in their lives. We've just got to be cautious not to lock people into plans that no longer reflect their lived reality.

One of the elements in this bill that I have concern with is the restriction of supports to those directly arising from a person's primary impairment. That might sound like it works in theory, but in practice people do not live with a condition in isolation. Health conditions often overlap and complications can arise. Under this proposal, supports for related or secondary conditions may no longer be covered. Instead, people will be pushed back into an already stretched health system, and that risks creating gaps in care and, ultimately, it risks shifting costs, not reducing them.

The bill also grants the minister the power to reduce funding across categories of supports. This includes areas such as community participation and capacity building, two really important parts of what the scheme set out to do. While critical supports are preserved, these categories are not necessarily optional luxuries. They are supports that help people build independence. They are the supports that help people gain employment, and they can help people engage with their communities. I think that, in some ways, as a society and as a parliament, we've lost sight of that—that we wanted to give the support to people with disabilities to help them not just do nothing and manage their disability but get involved in the community, get involved in employment, if they're able, and build that independence.

The introduction of fixed plan end dates and the removal of rollover funding is another significant change. For some participants, this may improve structure and accountability, but for others it may create pressure, particularly where services are delayed or they're difficult to access. This is common in many regional areas, and participants should not be penalised because the system fails to deliver supports in a timely manner. In changes to travel arrangements, we've already seen some regrettable changes to the provision of necessary services for people in regional areas. Again, I believe it's sometimes Canberra not understanding how things work out in regional Australia, where your primary service provider might be a two-hour drive away.

The bill also expands the minister's ability to set limits on what is considered 'reasonable and necessary'. This includes caps on funding, staffing ratios and frequency of supports. Again, we've got to be consistent, but flexibility is essential, because every individual is different. As I stated at the start of this contribution, we've got to make people feel like they are people. They are members of our community with families and needs, not just numbers in a bureaucracy. We must ensure that decisions are made based on real needs, not on administrative convenience.

There are elements of this bill that the coalition supports, particularly those aimed at strengthening integrity in the system: improved provider registration, stronger compliance powers and civil penalties for misconduct. I wish the parliament could have come together previously to sort some of this stuff out. It really did drag on too long, and I don't think the then Labor opposition did everything they could to work with the Morrison coalition government to try and straighten some of this stuff out. But these measures are necessary because fraud and exploitation undermine the scheme and erode public trust. We must be clear that the problem is not the participants. The problem is the bad actors in the system, and they do exist and they should be called out and held to account. Not only are they abusing the Australian taxpayer by rorting our money; they are also taking away from a scheme that needs every resource focused on giving meaningful and true help to people with disabilities. We've got to target that bad behaviour and hold it to account.

The bill also introduces automated decision-making processes, and I know that might improve efficiency, but we've got to proceed with caution in relation to that. Decisions about people's lives cannot just be reduced to algorithms. It's a tool, and I get that the world is moving in that direction, but none of us really understand exactly where that's going to go. I think that, in relation to these sorts of things, we need to use it as a tool to assist decision-making, not see it as a decision-making tool in its end. What that needs is human oversight and safeguards.

Finally, I want to address the transitional provisions, particularly the inclusion of what we call a Henry VIII clause. This allows rules to effectively override primary legislation for a limited period. That is an extraordinary power, and it should only be used in the most limited and justified circumstances. It is essential that this aspect of the bill is fully examined through a Senate inquiry, because parliament—it doesn't matter who's in government—has got to retain oversight of fundamental legislative changes. That's a really important principle that our democracy is based on.

In closing, the coalition believes in a strong, sustainable NDIS. I thought it was a really good moment when the then Gillard government presented the NDIS legislation and then Tony Abbott, the then opposition leader, talked about the NDIS as 'an idea whose time had come'. Everyone believes in the principle and the intent, but we've got to tackle the fraud and waste. We want a scheme that can support future generations, but we believe in protecting participants. We're not going to support changes that create uncertainty, undermine confidence or place vulnerable Australians at risk. We're going to engage constructively with this legislation. We're going to listen to participants, families, carers and providers—many of us have been doing that in our electorate offices across Australia—and we'll use the Senate inquiry process to properly interrogate these reforms. Getting the NDIS right is not just a fiscal responsibility; it is a moral responsibility.

The parliament must ensure that, in seeking to secure the future of the NDIS, we go back and understand what its purpose was. What was the principle in setting it up? I think that principle is to support Australians living with disability to live with dignity, independence and, critically, opportunity.

See this speech in context