Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise on behalf of the Labor opposition to speak to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Transition Mobility Allowance to the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Bill 2016. Can I commend the member for Macquarie for her speech. It showed that the member for Macquarie, who is living in an area which has had this NDIS scheme rolled out, understands the issues intimately. She has put on record some of the very practical issues that need to be dealt with in terms of the NDIS rollout. I commend her for her understanding and knowledge that has just been displayed to this House. The Labor opposition is going to refer this piece of legislation to an inquiry in the other place, and we reserve the right to do so until further information is received. I will undertake to explain why we are taking that position. It is because there is so much uncertainty about this particular aspect of the NDIS scheme. The most prudent thing for us to do would be to recommend that this issue of the transition mobility allowance be explored in an inquiry in the other place. But I am happy to speak today on the proposed social services legislation, as I have said. I note from the outset that we are still evaluating our position on this legislation, which covers a very complex area. We acknowledge that there is a need for the stated aim of the legislation: to deal with the funding gap for current recipients of the mobility allowance who are ineligible for the NDIS. That is very important. There are going to be many, many people with disability who will not be eligible for the NDIS, and we must not forget this very large cohort of people in our discussions about disability and, in particular, about the NDIS.

I think there is the assumption in some quarters—I am not saying in this House, but in some parts of the community—that if you have a disability, then you are going to be automatically eligible for the NDIS. Of course, we know that there are thousands and thousands of people who have significant disability which affects their wellbeing who will not be eligible. It is important that the mobility allowance be in place, particularly for those people who, as I have just outlined, will be ineligible for the scheme. As the shadow minister has said, we look forward to receiving more information on the proposal and we reserve our right to decide it on its merit until our queries are answered through the inquiry process. I think that is a very prudent way to go: it is not saying that Labor will disagree with this piece of legislation; it is saying that there are aspects to the legislation that are unclear, and that it would be irresponsible to take a solid position on the legislation until those queries are cleared up. Having said that, the stated intention of this legislation is to prevent anyone falling through the gaps. I certainly welcome that aim, as does the Labor Party. It is absolutely crucial that we keep in mind that group of people who will not be eligible for the NDIS.

Those who currently receive the mobility allowance must continue to receive support during the rollout of the NDIS. Most importantly, it must be a priority that they not be worse off as a result of the rollout—hence Labor's view that this should be examined by an inquiry. The mobility allowance is available to those with a mobility-limiting condition, depending on whether they meet a number of criteria. It is intended to assist in covering some of the costs associated with limited mobility. There have been some very disappointing media reports about those receiving the NDIS who have had their mobility allowance cut before they have begun to receive NDIS funding—and I am glad to see that the minister has joined us to participate, as he has been today, in this discussion. We are aware of one person, at least, who has had her mobility allowance cut before any determination about her being a recipient of the NDIS funding. I would ask the minister to respond to this particular issue in his response to this debate. The story, Minister, was in The Age in October this year and told the story of Jessica Eshel's sister Antonella who, having been given a sub-par NDIS plan, had her mobility allowance cut, even though she was still waiting to be reassessed. I am not saying that there was any deliberate action by the department in taking away Antonella's mobility allowance before she had received a determination, but it is something that we need to be very clear about, and certainly—I think you would agree, Minister—not an acceptable situation. This left Antonella $90 out of pocket, and made managing her expenses far more difficult. And we do know—and this is something that we must keep in mind in this discussion and in the determination—that the people who we are talking about are not, in the main, people who can afford to forego $90.

As it stands now, the National Disability Insurance Scheme lets Centrelink know that a person is eligible for the NDIS—but that may occur weeks before they actually begin to receive NDIS funding. If passed, the current bill will phase out the allowance entirely from July 2020, and significantly limit its availability from January 2017. That would mean that anyone who exits the NDIS would be unable to re-claim the allowance in the future, leaving them significantly worse off—which is an issue that I think the government needs to address. I would also ask the minister to attend himself to that. It would also mean that from 2020 the situation for 30 per cent of current recipients who are not eligible for the NDIS would be unclear.

Rolling the mobility allowance into the NDIS is not in itself a bad decision. In many ways, it makes sense; helping to make the process simpler for those who need to be assessed by the NDIA, and ensuring that they are not left worse off. I do have questions about the decision to end the allowance entirely, given that there are 14,000 people who will be ineligible for the NDIS but claim the allowance today. I would suggest very strongly to the minister that this needs to be thought through. While this bill gives them some stability in the short term, by continuing to support them, it does not provide them with any clarity over the longer term. I am also concerned that the bill before the House goes much further than the original proposal, by reducing the continuation period from 12 to 4 weeks, and by introducing a cut-off age of 65. At first inspection, this appears somewhat excessive. It is also problematic given that the majority of those that currently claim the allowance are also in receipt of some other government support. There is no doubt these individuals already have a great deal of difficulty managing their budgets. I would be concerned that this legislation may make their lives considerably more difficult.

The NDIS is a proud Labor achievement. It went through with bipartisan support. But rushing such a huge reform could let people fall through the cracks. The NDIS was designed, funded and introduced—to an empty chamber, I would say—by Labor, and I am pleased that it is being delivered on time and within budget. It will change lives, and I know many of the community are eagerly awaiting the rollout in their areas. In the next three years, 430,000 people will enter the NDIS. On this side of the chamber, we acknowledge that this is a monumental task but one that will be worth it.

One of the reasons I am concerned is that this government has a bad track record when it comes to the most disadvantaged members of the community. We have seen it in a few ways: the treatment of people receiving a disability support allowance, for example. We have seen individuals with the most chronic intellectual disabilities threatened with having their support cut if they do not jump through bureaucratic hoops. The age pension has an enormous waiting time, and many age pensioners are forced to wait hours on the phone for routine inquiries. The fact is that the Turnbull government is still stuck in the 'lifters versus leaners' mindset. It is a distressing situation when you see a country that has a social safety net and yet the government is determined to make out that those in receipt of that social safety net are lifters or leaners or crooks trying to defraud the system. This is not the dialogue that should be surrounding those people that are the most disadvantaged within our community. It is cruel and it is heartless.

These issues must be resolved, and I have to say, in relation to cutting further staff at Centrelink, that the pressures and the morale issues at Centrelink are extreme. There was a case of a family being pursued by Centrelink debt collectors over a $230 bill owed by their recently deceased daughter, who had been tragically killed in a car accident. These things should be picked up by a minister's office. The government has displayed a callous lack of empathy, so it is with good reason that we have some concerns. I am concerned about this government's approach to Centrelink clients. We have seen today that derogatory language is so prevalent that an FOI request for instances of language of rorters, double-dippers and fraudsters will require too much time to process. It seems to me that the government has been on a long campaign of talking down those who receive assistance, and I find the language it uses in referring to recipients of disability and age pensions troubling. People do not choose to have serious disabilities, to get older or even to be unemployed. That is why I support a comprehensive welfare safety net and the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

The NDIS will be transformative, as I said, but we need to be very clear and very careful about its implications. There are many other examples of the way in which Centrelink is letting down many people in the community that I do not have time to talk about today, except to say that just last week my office was contacted by a constituent who was scared and worried because the FaHCSIA funding she currently receives to provide support and applied behavioural therapy for her young autistic son was due to be cut a full year before the NDIS was to be rolled out in our area. She was scared because she believed that her son would miss out on vital early intervention. I am still hopeful that this will not be the case. I think her case provides a useful example of the need for government to act with empathy. I am very proud that this place has a bipartisan commitment to the NDIS, but we should remember that part of the process needs to be communicating with those who need it so that they understand what is going to happen to them. People with disabilities and their families have many things to be uncertain about. We must not add to that list by rushing into legislation when the facts are unclear.

Labor will do everything it can to support the NDIS, and that is why we will not rush into decisions without all the necessary information. We will not oppose this bill in this place but, as I said, we reserve the right to make amendments and to finalise our position once we have received advice through the committee process. I draw the attention of the minister to the issues that I have raised throughout my intervention in relation to this piece of legislation, and it is the responsibility of the minister to respond to those particular direct cases that I have raised. As I said, many people will not be eligible for the NDIS, and this piece of legislation is critical to those people. There is, in my view, a bipartisan approach, and that is absolutely appropriate, but I am sure that the government will understand that bipartisanship is not a race to the bottom; bipartisanship is knowing what all the facts are to be able to make informed decisions, which is why Labor is taking the position we are on this piece of legislation.

See this speech in context