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

I'm going to briefly respond to the member for Ryan's intellectually dishonest submissions, which the Greens party has been perpetuating. She didn't actually go to any of the amendments that are in front of us, but I'm going to call out the lies.

The member, who clearly doesn't know too much about the NDIS—although she might have helped some constituents through contacting my office to help them—said that we are proposing lists and that this is a terrible new development. I have news for the member. There have been lists since day one in the scheme.

If you read the act, you'll see that it spells out that there are things which are the responsibility of other services, and then it says there are things which money should be spent on and things that it shouldn't be spent on. All we are doing is converting from an operational guideline to a regulation.

Furthermore, on the cowardly outrage fanning the flames of fear from the Greens, they neglected to say that the disability community, for the first time, is being consulted on the list. I note that neither you nor anyone in the Greens party in the last 10 years has ever complained about the list not being consulted on. But, all of a sudden, the member for Ryan has found her voice. What's worse about it is that the Greens political party put up several amendments, but they've been running behind those amendments—wisely, the member for Ryan didn't even bother—and accusing the government of getting rid of the concept of 'reasonable and necessary'. 'Reasonable and necessary' will be at the core of the scheme. I don't expect the Greens to have the honesty to withdraw the lie, but they're wrong; I've put it on the record. We will keep the concept of 'reasonable and necessary'. We're told by the Greens that there is no co-design. Under me, the NDIA has 23 co-design groups, and you're welcome to come and visit; I'm not holding my breath. So there have been lists.

The real debate here is that there are three options for the future of the scheme. Unlike the member for Ryan, I was there at the start of the scheme. I was there before there was a scheme. You weren't. There are three options for the future of this scheme. The first is to do nothing—to just let it keep growing at 20 per cent. That would be very dangerous. Heaven help Australia if the Greens political party were ever actually in charge of the NDIS. You would be a train wreck for people with disability. They say that this is a cut. Lies, lies, lies! Every year that Labor has been in—and, to be fair, every year that the Liberals have been in—the investment in the NDIS has gone up, not down. We want a growth of eight per cent; 20 per cent is unsustainable. The Greens are lucky enough to live in a world where money doesn't matter, where it just grows on trees—all things to all people. I love the NDIS.

There is another option to the Greens' neo-conservatism, to the 'do nothing' approach. There is slash and burn—cap it; we're not doing that.

The third option is just to make it better for the participants. I haven't been stuck in a traffic jam of the Greens and their white political limos coming to see me about their constructive future. They are willing to drive past the rorts, the frauds and the overservicing. When I proposed new regulations to make it illegal for a service to provide a higher price to an NDIS participant than someone not on the scheme—the so-called wedding tax, where someone sees the NDIS badge and ups the price—do you know how much correspondence I got from the Greens on it? Zip, because they don't know what's happening. Every time Labor proposes a change, they look at it through the political calculus of 'How can we gain a few more votes?' Don't shake your head. The reality is that the Greens political party lied about the standardisation, they've lied about the lists and they've told lies about cuts. The reality is that we want this scheme to grow.

Under Labor—and now with the support of the coalition, which I acknowledge—we're aiming at an eight per cent target. We do want to build supports outside the scheme. The Greens have very little to say about building inclusion outside. The NDIS is a great chapter in the history of disability in Australia, but it's not the book. We want to write a new chapter about foundational services working with the states. Heaven help us if the Greens were ever in charge of the NDIS, because they are dangerous.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That Senate amendments (3), (49) and (68) be agreed to.

These are amendments moved by Senator Thorpe. Senator Thorpe has proposed amendments that the government is willing to support. They amend section 127 of the NDIS Act to provide that the minister must ensure at least one board member is an Indigenous person. Fortunately, we've already done that, even without the requirement of legislation. We've got a great Larrakia man on the board with lived experience—Dr Richard Fejo, whom I appointed in March 2023. I'm pretty sure I never had a letter from the Greens on that.

I accept a future minister may have other ideas of who would be best on the board, but this is an appropriate way to ensure that the board always has Indigenous representation. We are pleased to support the amendment, which, as a recommendation of the disability royal commission, is consistent with Closing the Gap priority 1 to establish formal partnerships and shared decision-making. I acknowledge Senator Thorpe's significant work and contribution on priority reforms, embedding Indigenous leadership in the government's NDIS and highlighting the importance of culture in the social and emotional wellbeing of participants of the NDIS.

Question agreed to.

See this speech in context