Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Fraser for his question. This goes to the issue of the industrial relations reform and the NDIS and misinformation. Just to set the scene for the House, there are 610,000 participants in the NDIS. There are about 325,000 workers in the sector. They're employed by a variety of ways—principally, enterprise agreements, awards, casuals. A relatively small number, about two per cent, are employed at any one time through NDIS provider platforms. An NDIS provider platform refers broadly to businesses who are online intermediaries connecting workers with participants. Some of the online providers—there are about 12—are registered. Some are not.

Maple is a for-profit unregistered NDIS provider platform. It charges 17 per cent on every dollar transacted, 10 per cent from the worker and 7.95 per cent from the disabled person. Recently Maple has made some regrettable, arguably paranoid, comments to some NDIS participants about the new IR reforms. For me, the judgement about these reforms in terms of the NDIS starts with the principle that NDIS participants have a right to quality services and to safe services. Therefore, the industrial relations issues concerning people on these care work platforms are important. We need a fit-for-purpose industrial relations system to help the NDIS focus on participants receiving safe and high-quality services.

In addition, disability workers should have quality careers, secure work, basic standards, and they should not be underpaid. However, in evidence given to the disability royal commission, in March this year, Dr Fiona Macdonald, of RMIT, said that there are concerns that the care work platforms are controlling labour, setting prices, disciplining workers while avoiding the risks and costs and responsibility of employment. The proposed changes go to the responsibility to maintain minimum standards for disability workers. Adhering to minimum standards builds quality workforces and secure workforces and ultimately delivers higher quality, safer services for people with disability.

I hear daily from participants and their families about the need for high-quality services. But participants and families shouldn't have to choose between flexibility on one hand and quality on the other. The NDIS is driven by the principle of people being able to choose the service which best suits them. In a competitive market, service providers who deliver quality and flexible services will be absolutely attractive to NDIS participants.

The IR legislation reforms do not change any of the above. There is a place in the NDIS market for digital platforms, and, in some cases, Australians with disability find them convenient. The IR reforms are not changing the form of engagement or the technology; they're just providing guardrails to protect workers. For me, this is ultimately a debate about the safety of participants. So, I say to Maple: loopholes are not a business model in the NDIS. Intermediaries between providers and participants shouldn't be able to cherrypick the bits of the law they like and the bits they don't like.

See this speech in context