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

After listening to that, I have to say, if the member's speech were filed in a bookshop, I think it would be in the science fiction/fantasy section—but nevertheless. I want to refer briefly, before commencing my substantive remarks, to the comments of the member for Jagajaga, who spoke before. She recounted the case of constituents of mine: Mrs Johnson's sons, who were being reviewed. I note to the House and draw the House's attention to the fact that I wrote to the Minister for Human Services on 7 October regarding this tragic case and systemic issues arising. I received an acknowledgement on 20 October from the department saying a response would come. I wrote a letter to the minister on 20 January asking if he proposed to respond to the letter. In desperation, after listening to his kind offer in question time last week to raise constituent matters with him, there are now some questions on the notice paper today asking if he proposes to respond and, if not, could he resign and give someone else a go, thank you.

The NDIS is one of the most significant social policy reforms of recent times. It is a remarkable initiative introduced and fully funded by Labor. It joins the list of social policy reforms that will stand the test of the ages. Indeed, it was first proposed through a major inquiry by the Whitlam government. But, unfortunately, as history records, that government was felled before reforms like an NDIS could be fully delivered through legislation. The Hawke and Keating governments instituted Medicare, which those opposite have done their best and continue to do their best to smash. And I note that a Fraser government refused to back an NDIS or Medicare.

This bill purports to allow the Commonwealth to meet its funding obligations in relation to the NDIS. Given Labor had that sewn up three years ago, the very purpose of this bill is redundant and it is a political stunt. It is one more pointless pieces of legislation by a government intent on incremental cuts to social security measures that hit the most vulnerable. If only they would put a fraction of this effort into budget repair that was fair. But, no, sadly, it is no surprise that the Senate inquiry by the government dominated Community Affairs Legislation Committee recommended that this bill be passed despite the number of submissions calling every aspect of this bill into question. It built on ominous signs, under this government, of the first stages of the rollout: mounting government stuff ups, the failure to resource the rollout, stuffing the IT rollout, failing to reach agreement with the states on time—although they do seem to have eventually got there—and the outrageous report in the ACT of secret caps on government services.

To summarise our concerns with the bill, the first one is the Liberal lie that we left government with the NDIS unfunded. The basis of the bill is deceptively simple. It seeks to establish a special account, and what can be credited to it to fund the operation of the NDIS, but it is a flawed starting point. In 2013 to 2014 Labor set out the funding arrangements for the first 10 years of operation—well past full implementation. There were various reforms—and those opposite actually voted for most of them—to the private health insurance rebate; to retirement incomes; an increase in the Medicare levy, which all Australians pay; and a number of other long-term savings measures, most of which were supported by those opposite. They have been clearly outlined and there is no shortfall. Consolidated revenue is used to fund the NDIS in accordance with expenditure priorities.

Clearly what is lacking is not the funding that was provided at the time but this government's commitment to the NDIS as a national priority. Listening to the previous speaker, the member for Ryan, I heard much talk of the economy. It is a separate debate to try and explain to those opposite that fiscal management of the budget is actually a separate thing from management of the economy, but that difference is lost on the small-minded bean counters that seemed to populate the ranks opposite. History shows they cannot manage the economy, much as they spend their time focusing solely on the budget. Really, the government's complete mismanagement of the budget is a separate issue and a debate for another day. It is true that the budget situation has deteriorated under this government, with outrageous spending commitments that they did not offset and did not fund. If only they had had the same fiscal discipline as the previous Labor government and the member for Lilley when he was Treasurer, we would not be in this situation.

Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—

You can have a look at it!

Ms Ryan interjecting—

That is true; exactly. Let the Hansard not record laughter. The Productivity Commission, in its inquiry report Disability care and support, at page 85, recommended:

… year to year through the NDIS should be viewed as a core funding responsibility of government and met from claims on general government revenue …

That is from the Productivity Commission. In its submission to the inquiry by the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee into this bill, Children and Young People with Disability Australia said, 'This,'—that is, this piece of legislation—'puts funding for the NDIS in a precarious position.'

There are two funds for the same purpose, because this bill would muddy rather than clarify funding arrangements for the operation of the NDIS. The Disability Care Australia Fund established by Labor is credited with funding from the 0.5 per cent increase in the Medicare levy. So we will have two accounts for the same purpose, if this bill passes—to what end? It is worth noting that the NDIS special account will sit within the Consolidated Revenue Fund, according to the explanatory memoranda, so it is even more pointless.

In its submission to the Senate inquiry, Children and Young People with Disability Australia said:

… it is critical to recognise the Scheme as a core area of government spending.

…   …   …

The need for a 'special account' in addition to the DisabilityCare Australia Fund to hold funds for the NDIS is therefore unclear.

Those on this side of the chamber know that the real reason for this legislation is as a further excuse to dismantle the Australian social safety net and to pick on the vulnerable, and to try and park those savings there. It is really no different from the pea-and-thimble trick that is the childcare reforms they introduced recently. It is an excuse to prosecute the 2014 budget which was roundly rejected by the Australian people. It is no surprise—

See this speech in context