Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Women) | Hansard source

I thank Senator Steele-John for all of his work on the NDIS, particularly work we have done together—in committees on community affairs and, in the last couple of weeks, on this legislation, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.

I challenge anybody that sat through any of those hearings to not be affected by that evidence. I challenge them to suggest that this legislation, as it stands, is acceptable to the community, to the people, to the participants and to the Australians that rely on it for their very lives. I challenge them to ask them whether they think it's fit for purpose; to believe them when they say they are afraid of what this will mean for them; and to actually believe them, which I do, when they say they are afraid they will die.

It is not very easy to sit in a room, whether you're there in person or remotely, and hear somebody tell you, 'I am afraid that I will die if this legislation passes.' Why am I here if not to listen to those people? Why are we here if we are not going to hear the voices of Australians who are directly impacted, and we are going to go ahead and do what we've designed because we think we know best. That's why people in this country are angry with us. That's why we have politics of grievance in this country, because we are not listening to the voices of the people that are impacted by the things that we are doing, and it is time for that to change.

Disabled Australians are paying the price for the failures of this government in relation to the NDIS. Disabled Australians are paying the price for the complexity of the scheme. Disabled Australians are paying the price for the inability of the NDIA to manage the behemoth of a scheme that it's become. They just can't do it. It's too hard. It's too big. There are too many moving parts. Disabled Australians are paying the price for the intentional fraud that targets them. These are absolutely all problems that must be fixed, but why is it that disabled Australians are the ones that will be carrying the burden of this? That, to me, is unacceptable.

The minister has spoken about the fraud, and she has commented that there is too much fraud. I agree with that. Not only have I spent a couple of days on the inquiry in relation to this bill; I sit on the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We have heard from the Fraud Fusion Taskforce, from the NDIA, from the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner, from the AFP, from the ATO—you name it. We've heard from them, and guess what they have told us? They can't quantify the amount of fraud. They don't know how much it is. They call it 'integrity leakage' because they actually can't segment how much of it is intentional fraud versus how much is operational or administrative error, which is people making mistakes, or how much is system error.

An example that somebody gave me was: 'I had to upload my invoices and my claim. I uploaded them both. There was a system failure. Only one invoice was successfully received by the NDIS.' Even though they uploaded both, that is captured as fraud. Sorry; apologies—that is captured as 'integrity leakage' and counted in the whole bucket of fraud. That's not fraud. We need to know exactly how much of this is intentional and how much of it is to do with the fact that the system is so burdensome and difficult to manoeuvre for participants and for providers.

The Fraud Fusion Taskforce told me in multiple hearings that international organised crime has targeted the NDIS. That's a fact. That's not something that we're assuming. It's not something that we've concocted to frighten people. It is a reality, and we are having a great deal of trouble managing that. Surely we should put the resources into the appropriate mechanisms so that we can be clear about what that fraud is; so that we are not frightening disabled Australians if they make an error; or so that, if there is a system problem, they are then not pointed to as being part of this fraudulent cohort called 'integrity leakage'. We need to be very careful about what we are doing here.

It concerns me that we haven't had appropriate scrutiny of this legislation. Our shadow minister in this space, Melissa McIntosh, has repeatedly called for a six-month inquiry. I don't understand why we can't have that. Why can't we properly listen to all of the stakeholders, the people who have the information that we need, and then make our decisions together? That is what Australians expect of us.

I'm going to read to you some additional comments from a report into the NDIS that we published in March:

Coalition members are concerned that the Government and the National Disability Insurance Agency have been unable to clearly quantify the scale of fraud within the Scheme. Without a clearer understanding of the magnitude of fraud and non-compliance, it is difficult for policymakers and the public to assess whether current enforcement measures are adequate.

If we are going to target something, we need to know how much of it there is. We need to know what to target and where. The report says:

Robust integrity systems are critical not only to protecting taxpayer funds but also to protecting NDIS participants from exploitation by unscrupulous providers.

This is a report that we tabled in March. These are the basic fundamentals that the government should have been looking at in developing this legislation, and they haven't. Instead, it's the packages of the disabled Australians that are being primarily impacted.

I noted that the minister also spoke about registration. The Fraud Fusion Taskforce spoke to me about the importance of registration in enabling them to identify the different providers in the market, and I do understand that, but one of the reasons that many providers don't register is because it is complex and costly. I've been told it costs between $10,000 and $15,000 for the paperwork to register.

If you are a physiotherapist in a regional town that may have two clients on the NDIS, it's not feasible for you to do that, but you are a professional who has qualifications—an allied health professional—and you need to go through this process. It the same process that, perhaps, someone who's doing some domestic duties for a participant goes through but doesn't have any credentials or qualifications. Why are we setting the same standard here? Why can't we have, for example, a fast-tracked enrolment process for people who have qualifications, whether they're a physiotherapist, a speech pathologist or some other professional? Why haven't we looked at that? Why are we once again, in this chamber, looking at a 'one size fits all' approach to solve problems? It doesn't work.

No two people living with disability in Australia have the same problem and the same need. Everyone's needs are different. Some of these changes particularly impact people in regional and remote communities, where there are what we call 'thin markets': markets where there are not enough providers already. What does that mean if we drive them out with some of these changes? That means that a disabled person living in a regional community can't access services in that community.

If they need to see a physiotherapist, they can't see that physiotherapist in their town because that physiotherapist just can't afford to operate under the NDIS. So, they're going to have to travel an hour or an hour and a half to go see their physiotherapist. Guess what happens then? Then there are transport costs to get them to that physiotherapist; to go all that way and then to come back. Again, these are unintended consequences of the impacts of some of these changes and, potentially, there are ways to solve these, but we don't know because there hasn't been adequate consultation and there hasn't been adequate time to deal with these issues. There should be; there absolutely should be.

Another element that people have consistently spoken to me about in relation to this legislation is in regard to the ministerial powers. I fail to understand how a minister of government will be able to determine how any particular Australian living with disability is going to have their needs best met. I don't get that. In particular, if I go back to fraud, the minister today currently does not know how much actual intentional fraud there is in the NDIS, yet that same minister is going to make a determination about what someone's plan should look like—or they'll have the power to. Is that right? That doesn't sound right to me. I don't understand what we are doing here, if we are not going to listen to the people who are experts in this space.

There is a significant burden on all of us here to ensure that this legislation, if and when it passes, doesn't look like it does today. There need to be changes to this legislation, and those changes need to take into account the devastating impacts on disabled people, their families, their carers and their communities. Again, I talk to the fact that people are afraid. There was one moment in one of the hearings where someone made a comment that we shouldn't be whipping up fear. This isn't about anybody whipping up fear; people are genuinely afraid. There were people in those hearings that wept in front of us because they were so afraid. I have received emails and messages from parents, from carers and from family members who are afraid. I've received messages from people who are good-quality providers who are afraid they'll need to close down, because they will not be able to afford to operate within the constraints of this system.

I'm going to read to you a message from one of those individuals. 'The Labor government's legislation before the Senate is the cornerstone of their proposed budget, a bill that diminishes the basic human rights of the most vulnerable people in our communities. Over the years, I've seen many people fight the NDIS for access, for basic supports, for a holistic approach to their disability needs. This government has allowed syndicated fraudsters to operate successfully but have framed providers in the media operating in good faith as ripping off Australian taxpayers. It costs more to be compliant, yet anyone can offer services and get paid by the government, with no accountability for what they are providing. This government closed down all state-funded programs, making the NDIS the only lifeboat in the ocean; they closed down important mental health programs, made us transition all of our clients to the NDIS—and, now, the very cohort they want to kick off the scheme, and will, when the bill is passed. I'm not saying the NDIS doesn't need to change. Maria, look back at the disability royal commission and the NDIS review recommendations. This bill completely ignores it all. It places vulnerable people in an untenable position. It places good-faith providers and their amazing staff on their knees. I am disgusted that we are going to sell the rights of people with a disability to the Australian population.'

How can you read that and not be impacted? These are clearly people who know what is going to happen and know what the impacts of these changes are going to be. We need to listen to them, and we need to understand what is and isn't workable in this legislation. We cannot ram it through without considering those elements, and we cannot ram it through without appropriate amendments to ensure that the very people that it was designed to protect are actually protected and not harmed in its implementation.