Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Ignorance, self-interest, ideology and political interference—they were the four principles that Insurance Council Australia outlined in the Productivity Commission report that informed the disability scheme. They were the big risks, and they are exactly what this bill breathes life into. I will take independence—ACOSS. ACOSS said to the Senate inquiry that this arrangement:

… gives greater control to the Commonwealth and removes independence from the management of part of the Scheme's funding base. This has rightly caused concern amongst the disability sector, as a core part of the NDIS is the independent management of Commonwealth and State government funds by the NDIA.

The Disabled People's Organisations Australia also pointed to the concerns undermining the arrangements and the neutrality and the independence of the NDIA's structure. But do not worry—the government plans to review the operation of this special account by 30 June 2027. That is right—10 years on and seven years after the NDIS reaches full scheme, the government will finally get around to having a look at it to see whether it is working or not. ACOSS points out that waiting 10 years is too long and will lead to perverse outcomes.

At the start of my remarks I outlined a range of concerns: IT, the ACT rollout, the stuff-ups in the agreements with the states. I would also draw the House's attention to the Auditor-General's report and, again, I quote:

… there was no published overall work plan which sets out timeframes and deliverables.

That:

There is limited evidence of a strategic approach to the use of the Commonwealth’s $146 million Sector Development Fund …

And:

Within NDIS’ intergovernmental governance arrangements, the processes and timeframes for collective decision-making have been inconsistent with the timeframes for the rollout of the Scheme.

So, in summary, this bill is unnecessary. It is built on the lie that the NDIS was not fully funded. It is a distraction—a distraction from the failure of the government's own budget management and, listening to the speakers opposite, you would forget that they are actually in government. It is smokescreen and a charade. It is a charade to disguise welfare cuts which pick on the vulnerable, especially the disability support pension reviews. It is an excuse for more nastiness to come by setting up a fund and then pretending: 'Oh shock! Horror! We can't fund the NDIS. We've got to run over here and take a few more bucks off people who have nothing.'

It undermines the key principles of the scheme: independence—funded from general revenue, free from political interference. This is what the Productivity Commission said was necessary for the scheme, and it is confused. How does it relate to the fund that Labor set up with the extra Medicare levy, the DisabilityCare Australia Fund? No-one knows. It is creeping politicisation of the scheme but it is consistent with this government and that side of the House's pattern of great social reforms: we build it; they stuff it up. Medicare—let's freeze it; let's cut it. Superannuation—let's stop the rises; let's protect the rich's tax rorts in the scheme and now the NDIS.

See this speech in context