James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Waste Reduction) Share this | Hansard source

I commence by putting on record my strong support, as all of us in the coalition have, for the principles of the NDIS. It's a very important support for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. John Howard always used to talk about how some of the great heroes in our society were the carers and people that looked after our most vulnerable. Before the NDIS, it was a very patchy framework across the country with how people with complex disabilities got support from their governments. Invariably, state governments in particular that had carriage and responsibility for this area had too much of a one-size-fits-all mentality or approach, and the principle of the NDIS—giving people individualised and tailored support for their specific needs—is one we strongly support here in the coalition.

It is interesting to have this bill, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024, before the House because the now Minister for the NDIS, when he was the shadow minister for the NDIS, didn't think there was anything wrong with the scheme whatsoever and didn't think there was a need for change. In fact, he made the comment as the shadow minister: 'You can't move around the corridors of parliament in Canberra without tripping over a coalition minister whispering the scheme is unsustainable. I'm here to tell you today that is a lie.' Now we have the same former shadow minister, now the Minister for the NDIS, bringing before us a bill which, if I read the screen correctly, is, as quoted in its title, the 'getting the NDIS back on track No. 1 bill'. So something has changed from the perspective of the minister, the member for Maribyrnong, between commenting that it was a lie to suggest there were any issues with the sustainability of the scheme and bringing a bill before the parliament entitled the 'getting the NDIS back on track bill'. Nonetheless, we in the opposition are prepared to consider supporting this bill, to let it go before a Senate inquiry and make sure we look at all the potential implications for what's being proposed here. We are indeed open-minded to anything that is genuinely about improving the NDIS.

As our shadow minister, the member for Deakin, has very sensibly put in our second reading amendment, we think there's no reason whatsoever why the government isn't prepared to release the modelling it's undertaken that underpins the NDIS Financial Sustainability Framework within the bill, and to talk about the cost savings that are going to eventuate from the passage of this legislation and be honest with people about the impact of potential or inevitable cuts that participants might expect as a result of these changes. Those points articulated in the second reading amendment from the member for Deakin are very important points to make, and ones that I expect the House will support when we have the chance to vote on this.

I look forward to the minister's summing-up speech because we've learned today he's got an excellent speechwriter. I'm sure we're going to get something between a Gettysburg Address and a Martin Luther King style summation to this bill because, if the cost of a speech from the minister is anything to go by, that's what we should be expecting in this chamber—$620,000 for a speechwriter that the minister is employing, beyond all the resources of his department and office, for two years work. I looked at the minister's website; I think he's got 28 speeches on his ministerial website, so 620 grand is about $22,000 a speech—pretty good work! I made a big mistake in choosing to be a humble member of the House of Representatives when I could have been writing speeches for the Minister for the NDIS—$22,000 a speech! Some of those speeches were really just reading speeches for other ministers and one of those 28 speeches was reading the minister's message at a citizenship ceremony, which we as members of parliament all do. I didn't know the person who had copied and pasted that or printed that off for him would make $22,000 for the taxing task of doing so, but I congratulate the person that has managed to leverage that kind of spectacular financial gain from the minister. But, nonetheless, we do wait with bated breath for his summing up speech on this bill given what we are led to believe will be the $22,000 standard of closing remarks that the minister will give to us.

It is important that we look at opportunities to genuinely reform the system because there are concerning examples that have been given to us or that we have heard about the way in which the NDIS operates. Every genuine dollar that is spent through the NDIS for people that genuinely need its support is something that we in the coalition support and every wasted dollar is obviously a dollar that can't be given to someone that genuinely needs it. There are some bizarre things that we have had reports of the NDIS funding being spent on. Surely the most ridiculous is this claim that NDIS funding was provided for the cremation of an NDIS participant's pet emotional support rat? I had never heard of the concept of a pet emotional support rat. I suppose that's discriminatory. You tend to think of dogs and other animals. I have never known a rat to be an emotional support animal, but maybe that is my ignorance. Certainly funding the cremation of that emotional support rat I would query or question whether or not that's what the proud day of legislating the NDIS envisaged the funds being invested in. Let's be serious now.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has had cases disputed for what had been claimed to be reasonable and necessary, including an infra-red sauna and botox treatments. Someone tried to claim a Thermomix through the NDIS. There was tai chi and singing lessons. The most concerning, really, is the expenditure of NDIS funding on sex therapy and sex workers. Let's be honest: that's patently ridiculous. Commonwealth funds through the NDIS are there for genuine investment in helping people with a disability. I won't ever be convinced that paying for—not a legal activity, I might add—sex workers and sexual therapy through the NDIS is what the scheme was ever envisaged to be funding.

So we welcome genuine reform that closes those loopholes, things I don't think anyone ever envisaged was what NDIS funding would be directed towards. We would invite and welcome Minister Shorten in his $22,000 closing remarks to this bill to talk about how this bill addresses those serious and significant issues within the system, because none of us, I am sure, want the fund to be investing in those sorts of faux supports that are taking dollars away from genuine supports that people no doubt are entitled to through the scheme. This is taxpayers' money. This is taxpayers' funds. Every dollar that is spent inappropriately in any part of government, whether it's the NDIS or anywhere else, is a dollar out of the pockets of hardworking Australian taxpayers. We don't want to see those sorts of things being funded through the NDIS.

I would invite and encourage the minister to talk about those sorts of issues and advise us whether or not this bill is going to address them. As the member for Deakin has indicated in his second reading amendment, there is modelling and other impacts of this legislation that the minister could reveal, publish and explain to give us a better understanding of how this bill is going to lead to genuine reform of the NDIS. We stand ready to support anything that is going to lead to genuine reform of the NDIS. It's abundantly clear that there are changes needed despite the current minister's view when he was in opposition that there was no need for any of these reforms and that.

He claimed coalition ministers were whispering that the scheme was unsustainable. I'm here today to tell you that is a lie. He's obviously changed his opinion on that. We welcome his conversion on that and his newfound recognition of the fact that we need genuine reform to the NDIS. We merely ask the minister to outline, in his response to the second reading amendment from the member for Deakin, exactly what the impact of these changes is going to be, exactly what that modelling is and exactly what reductions in services are going to be. Hopefully, those reductions are no longer paying for the cremation of pet rats, infrared saunas or sex workers. Will he properly outline to people what the effect of those changes will be to service deliver in this scheme?

With those remarks, I commend the member for Deakin's second reading amendment to the House.

See this speech in context