Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to take note of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme's Annual report No. 1 of the 48th parliament. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I was a proud participant in this inquiry, and I was particularly proud to have brought the voices of people with disability into the parliament as well as the disability community as a whole. The report made some very important recommendations, but there are some further issues relation to the NDIS that were not address within this report that I would now like to touch on.

A crucial part of the picture when it comes to the NDIS and NDIS participant safeguarding are the harmful impacts of the 2024 NDIS bill and indeed the harms that it meted out upon participants and the harm that is resulting right now from NDIS policies and actions. Let me be very clear. Removing the reasonable and necessary criteria as the basis for funding supports and moving instead to a strict in and out NDIS support list has meant that many people are now unable to access the disability supports that they have relied on for years and are essential to their daily needs. The safety and wellbeing of many disabled people need to be at the centre of the planning process because they are particularly at risk, and the support and wellbeing of all disabled people within the scheme should be at the centre of everything that the NDIA does in relation to decision-making. The in and out support lists are too restrictive. It blocks access to individualised supports that people need, especially people with co-occurring disabilities. We need to return to the reasonable and necessary definition, the basic criteria, of a reasonable and necessary support as the basis for supports funding.

Now, people who blow the whistle, who speak up about harm within the NDIS should be protected not punished. Currently, the safeguards within the NDIA act do not provide these protections. The disability sector is the only sector within the purview of the government without these safeguards. They exist in aged care and they exist for those in the broader parts of the corporate economy. Disabled people deserve the same protections. Let me give the Senate a tangible example of the impacts created, of the risks that are run, because these protections don't exist. A worker at an NDIS provider witnesses harm against a participant. They resign and they report it to the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. Because they are a former employee they aren't covered with whistleblower protections. They have no legal protection. The commission investigates, but since they under no obligation currently to protect the identity of the whistleblower they don't. The result is that someone who did the right thing by reporting harm is financially punished. The Greens would like to see stronger laws that increase protections for whistleblowers. It is so important that people feel safe enough to report harm that they witness with the NDIS.

Another big concern is that the upcoming bill introduces a new power that allows the NDIA to request information from a participant or a provider as they submit a claim. These are broad, new powers. There is no limit on the scope of the information that can be requested, and there are no privacy protections in place. That, in and of itself, could result in a system where you are asked, as a participant or a provider, to produce information that you can't produce—not because you don't want to but because you don't have the paperwork—and for that you are punished. We must address these gaps in the system. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.