Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. I begin my contribution with something deeply personal that reflects what is at stake when it comes to these NDIS reforms. In my hometown of Geraldton, my friend Clara has a beautiful son, Sam, who is 27 years old. Sam comes into my office every week and helps with shredding documents and stacking the photocopiers. But what he really brings to the office goes far beyond that. The best thing Sam does in my office is share his smile—lots of fist bumps and lots of hugs. If you are lucky enough to receive one of those hugs, you'll know how genuinely special you are to Sam.

Sam is nonverbal and will never live independently. Clara and other carers provide a level of care for Sam that is continuous and unending. Yet, even with that incredible love and commitment, the announcement of changes in this bill has left Clara with a profound sense of fear and anxiety. She said:

I absolutely hate the fear that the never ending threats from/to the NDIS cause families.

The lack of clarity and certainty is chronically stressful. It's crucial to understand that Clara is already a burnt-out mum. She's spent years navigating a life filled with appointments, red tape, fighting for services and daily advocacy to make sure that Sam has access and opportunities.

This story of Sam and his family is not unique. In fact, we've heard many similar stories throughout the contributions to this legislation. In Durack, our electorate, there are more than 4,500 NDIS participants. Each of them has a story, a family and carers who are likely stretched to their absolute limits. These reforms are not abstract policy adjustments; they are decisions that will shape the daily reality of thousands of Australians, let's face it, many of whom are doing it really tough, particularly in regional and remote communities.

The coalition remains firmly committed to the NDIS. It is one of the most important social reforms in our nation's history. For many Australians, the NDIS has transformed lives by providing independence and support. But, for it to continue to achieve these outcomes, it must be sustainable, properly governed and delivered with clarity and certainty for participants and their families. We acknowledge that the scheme has grown significantly from an original estimate of 410,000 participants to more than 760,000 participants today. Costs have risen accordingly, from an estimated $13.6 billion to around $50 billion this year, and are projected to reach $70 billion by the end of the decade. That trajectory is clearly not sustainable, and it is entirely responsible for any government to address this. But addressing changes to NDIS does require proper consultation. Inexplicably, the Labor government has failed to consult. What is deeply concerning families like Sam's is not whether reform is needed but how it is being done and the fear and uncertainty it is creating. That is what happens when you fail to consult.

This bill introduces a fundamental shift in eligibility, moving from diagnosis based access to a functional capacity model. While the intent is to improve consistency and evidence based decision-making, the government has not yet provided the operational details. The thresholds, tools and assessment processes have not yet been released. That vacuum of detail is already creating widespread anxiety. Families are asking, quite understandably, whether they, their children or their loved ones will continue to qualify for support. At this stage, the government cannot provide a clear answer.

We are also facing a major administrative challenge. Existing participants will be progressively reassessed between 2028 and 2030. With over 760,000 Australians in the scheme, that represents an enormous workload and, more importantly, a very deeply personal and stressful process for individuals and families who may have—I'm sure they have—already undergone many, many assessments throughout their lives. For parents like Clara and Damian, the administrative burden of having to repeatedly provide the same information, navigate the red tape and endure bureaucratic delays, coupled with the high needs of an independent child or adult with a disability, I think we will all agree, could be incredibly overwhelming. It can lead to depression, relationship strain and significant financial pressure.

I'm sharing Clara's experience with her consent because she wants other parents who may be feeling similarly isolated or overwhelmed to know that they are not alone. Clara, at a very low point in her life, believed that putting them down or out of their misery was the most practical and rational option available to her. That meant murder-suicide was a very real possibility. Thankfully, Clara sought support, and life is very different now. This is not hyperbole. These are real people in real situations trying to do the best for their children with significant and permanent disabilities. In this place, we owe it to them to do better.

The bill also tightens unscheduled planned reassessments, restricts who can request them and narrows the circumstances under which they can occur. While there are legitimate concerns about misuse and system integrity, we must ensure that participants whose needs genuinely change are not left unsupported. Changes to planned structures, fixed end dates and restrictions on unspent funds also raise serious questions about responsiveness. The NDIS was designed to adapt to changing circumstances, and that flexibility must not be lost. Similarly, the new framework for reasonable and necessary supports, including the minister's expanded ability to set funding parameters, must be implemented incredibly carefully. While fiscal discipline is important, it cannot come at the expense of participants' independence, participation and general wellbeing.

The integrity measures in this bill deserve support. Stronger record keeping, tighter claims timeframes, improved provider regulation and enhanced fraud prevention powers—I think we'd all agree that they are necessary. The scheme has been subject to misuse, and, of course, that must be addressed. But integrity alone is not enough. Transparency, consultation and careful implementation are critical to give participants confidence, not confusion. In short, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We must also ensure that plan suspensions, eligibility reviews and compliance mechanisms do not inadvertently penalise vulnerable participants due to administrative or communication barriers.

At its core, the question before us is whether we are building a system that is financially sustainable but humanly sustainable. In regional areas like Durack, access to allied health services is already limited. Families travel long distances, wait months for appointments and pay significant out-of-pocket costs for essential care. Any increase in administrative burden or uncertainty compounds these challenges.

I'm reminded that I spoke in this place in only 2025 about Labor's snap NDIS decision to remove regional loading and reduce travel support, which, of course, impacts rural and regional therapy providers and recipients. At the time, I spoke with NDIS providers across the Kimberley, the mid-west and the Pilbara, and they told me of their issues with the travel reforms and the inevitable impact on essential service delivery. It's clear to me, and to all of us, that the NDIS has blown out of its original intent, but surely it was not the place to start with the remotest and our most vulnerable people in our country—people who have real health needs? Labor was urged to consult more broadly on those proposed changes, and I'm not convinced that they did.

We owe it to the participants and families to get this latest round of changes right. That means clear rules, genuine consultation with the disability community and a transition that does not leave people in limbo for years. The NDIS must remain true to its founding purpose to support Australians with permanent and significant disability to live with dignity, independence and opportunity. That purpose must not be overshadowed by fiscal targets alone.

The coalition is committed to working with the government to get the NDIS settings right—unlike Labor when it was in opposition. It took every opportunity to politicise the NDIS and resisted all attempts by the coalition to make NDIS more sustainable. I've listened to many speeches here today from Labor government representatives, all laying the blame for the way the NDIS was rolled out more recently at the foot of the coalition. But I've sat here during these years—I've been here since 2013—and I know that our ministers have worked very hard and worked very closely with Bill Shorten when he was the opposition spokesperson for NDIS, and I'm telling you that it was politicised beyond comprehension. So it really sticks in my gut to hear this rubbish coming from those opposite about what we have done to NDIS. It was politicised by them from day one. I think they should hang their heads in shame.

If we fail to provide clarity and certainty in how these reforms are implemented, we do risk undermining the very trust that the scheme depends on. Ultimately it is that trust between families like Clara's, participants like Sam and the system itself that must be protected above all else. Sam and his family remind us every day why this work in this place matters. Sam may never speak with his voice, but his presence, his smile and his hugs communicate what all of us in this House must understand: the NDIS is about real people, real lives and real dignity. In this parliament and within this bill and its implementation, we must never lose sight of that fact. I thank the House.

See this speech in context