Louise Markus (Macquarie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying earlier during this debate, unlike this government which has incessantly sought to utilise and manipulate the NDIS as a tool for attacking non-Labor state governments, the coalition will continue to place this issue above politics and are prepared to work with the state and Commonwealth governments towards a better deal for people with a disability.

While we supported the government's commitment of $1 billion to the NDIS in the federal budget, absolutely, we have significant challenges reconciling this figure with the $3.9 million the Productivity Commission said would be necessary over the forward estimates for the first phase of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We can only assume the government will account for this and make appropriate provisions in the upcoming budget.

The bill establishes a framework for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the National Disability Insurance Scheme Launch Transition Agency. This will enable the scheme to be launched and the agency to operate the launch in five sites across the nation from July this year. The first stage of the scheme will benefit more than 20,000 people with disabilities, their families and carers living in South Australia, the ACT, Tasmania, the Hunter in New South Wales and the Barwon area of Victoria. The agency created in this bill will function in line with legislative instruments called the NDIS rules. Subjects covered will include eligibility and assessment criteria.

The bill therefore is essentially a framework and establishes the transition agency, the board, the CEO and a general definition of eligibility. But the guts of the scheme, the mechanics, will be established by the rules. What is of concern to the coalition is that the discussion paper on the rules, released by the government on 1 February, contains little information, posing only a series of questions. Unfortunately, it does feel that I have made the following statement every time I have risen to speak in this place during the tenure of the current government. Despite the enormous opportunities offered by the creation of the NDIS, the government is risking the full and effective functioning of the system by attempting to push through legislation providing for its processes without appropriate expert review or consultation.

The bill is currently being inquired into by the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, which will report on 13 March 2013. A recurrent theme in evidence presented thus far by witnesses is that it is hard to offer advice or pose questions or plan for the launch sites in the absence of the rules. These need to be released quickly and well before the passage of the bill through the parliament, particularly as the Prime Minister has indicated that she intends to bring the final version of the bill to a vote in the budget session.

It is tremendously difficult to gain a complete picture of how the NDIS will unfold, limited as the coalition, stakeholders and the wider Australian public are by insufficient information. The work of the Senate committee is critical and it is to be hoped that they will have the benefit of seeing the NDIS rules and the operating guidelines for the agency before they conclude their work. In the absence of these other two elements it is difficult to determine if further amendments will be required to this legislation.

The coalition support the National Disability Insurance Scheme and we want the establishment of the launch sites to progress effectively. Although we have serious concerns regarding the actual functional structure of the NDIS, the coalition stand ready to work with this government and those of the states and territories towards making the National Disability Insurance Scheme the integral core of Australia's support for people with disabilities, their families and their carers.

John Alexander (Bennelong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In this debate on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2013, it gives me great pleasure to speak in support of a national disability insurance scheme to assist some of our nation's most vulnerable people. The concept of a national disability insurance scheme has gained momentum over the past five years, with a strong grassroots campaign that I have consistently supported. The electorate of Bennelong is a great example of a community that holds high its obligations to those facing some of life's toughest challenges. The need for the NDIS should not overshadow the incredible work and tireless, thankless efforts of so many whom I wish to recognise here today.

As patron of Achieve Australia I have been fortunate on many occasions to witness firsthand the support services they provide to approximately 550 local people with disabilities, assisting them to become independent through employment and accommodation. Achieve Australia boasts many local heroes. In particular, I would like to highlight the efforts of Jo and Don McKerrell, who have volunteered for community disability service organisations for nearly 50 years. Jo and Don work with Achieve Australia, where their daughter is provided with accommodation services.

Minimbah Challenge, located in Marsfield, assists over 60 people with disabilities through respite programs. Formed 30 years ago by the Epping Branch of the Challenge Foundation, Minimbah use a person centred planning model which encourages individual independence and autonomy. This initiative is organised by Amanda Murphy, the development coordinator, with the help of care support workers Anita, Sarah, Jeff, Shayla, Beth, Khyati and Kyle. As their federal MP I am proud of the Commonwealth funding that assists the facilitation of Minimbah's Saturday respite program for schoolchildren and young people with intellectual disabilities.

Ryde Area Supported Accommodation for Intellectually Disabled, or RASAID, is run with passion and with very little funding by local mum Jenny Rollo. Formed in 2004 by 19 families with disabled children, RASAID aims to secure long-term accommodation, particularly as the parents approach retirement. RASAID supports 20 adults in their 20s to early 50s with dependent intellectual disabilities. I have spoken in this place previously of the immense respect I have for these parents and the courage they show in the face of such difficult circumstances.

Catholic Community Services Northern Sydney are based in Meadowbank and assist school leavers to find work through their transition to work program. North Ryde Community Aid and Information Centre assists people with disabilities by hosting morning teas, lunches and special outings for those with mobility issues. I again in this place commend the general manager, Helen Crouch, for the great work that she and her organisation do. ESTIA Foundation is an initiative of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia and provides 24-hour respite care for young adults with physical and intellectual disabilities, from their respite homes in Gladesville.

The NDIS concept was conceived by John Walsh, a partner in PwC, and progressed by Bruce Bonyhady, the president of Philanthropy Australia, and was first canvassed at the 2020 Summit in 2008. In 2009, the federal coalition supported the government's referral to the Productivity Commission of an inquiry into an NDIS. The final report of the Productivity Commission inquiry was publicly released on 10 August 2011 and confirmed that the current system of support for people with disability is broken. This conclusion was endorsed by the federal coalition and all jurisdictions. Agreement has been reached with five states and territories—New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and the ACT—to host launch sites commencing in July 2013 or, in the case of the ACT, July 2014. In December 2012, the New South Wales state government and the Commonwealth government concluded an intergovernmental agreement for a full state-wide rollout of the NDIS beyond the Hunter launch site. Further expansion of the NDIS will be dependent on the Commonwealth negotiating and concluding further bilateral agreements with each jurisdiction.

Yesterday commenced in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation as we joined together in support of the historic Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill.

It is fitting that, 24 hours later, this important issue brings with it another example of cooperation and bipartisanship. In this election year, it is too easy for us all to fall back into familiar positions of conflict. Yet there are some issues, such as those regarding our Indigenous people and those with disabilities, that are just too important to be bogged down in partisan politics. The Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly said that the NDIS is a policy whose time has come. It should give all Australians immense pride that the introduction of a national disability insurance scheme has cross-party support at both federal and state levels of government.

This bill provides for the establishment of a national disability insurance scheme with established rules and the creation of an agency to oversee the implementation of the scheme. This covers eligibility, assessment criteria, registration, compensation, review processes, support plans and governance. The scheme will provide funding to individuals or organisations to help people with disability participate more fully in economic and social life through the provision of an entitlement enabling things such as aids, equipment, supported accommodation or personal attendant care. The agency will have a board, consisting of a chair and eight members, who collectively will possess an appropriate balance of skills, experience or knowledge in the following fields: the provision or use of disability services; the operation of insurance, compensation or long-term liability schemes; and financial management or corporate governance. The minister will appoint the chair and must obtain the approval of a majority of jurisdictions before appointing members.

The legislation also establishes an independent advisory council that will include at least four people with disabilities; at least two carers; at least one person with skills, experience or knowledge in the supply of equipment or provision of services; and up to five more members. The legislation also provides for an independent review of the act after two years of operation. The bill is essentially a framework. It establishes the transition agency, the board, the CEO and a general definition of eligibility. But the guts of the scheme, the mechanics, will be established by the rules.

The bill is currently being inquired into by the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs and will report on 13 March 2013. A recurrent theme in evidence presented to date by witnesses is that it is hard to offer advice, pose questions or plan for the launch sites in the absence of the rules. These need to be released quickly and well before the passing of the bill through the parliament. In her second reading speech, the Prime Minister indicated the government's intention to bring the final version of the bill to a vote in the budget session. The rules need to be released soon. At this point in time, developing a complete picture of how the NDIS will unfold is limited by insufficient information. The work of the Senate committee is critical and it is hoped that they will have the benefit of the NDIS rules and the operating guidelines for the agency before they conclude their work. In the absence of these two elements it is difficult to determine if further amendments will be required to this legislation.

The concept of the National Disability Insurance Scheme has gained momentum over the past five years. It is appropriate to acknowledge the role played by the member for Maribyrnong in helping to elevate the public policy profile of disability. But the lion's share of the credit goes to people with disability, their families, their carers and the organisations that support them. They came together, they spoke with one voice, they decided enough was enough. We want the NDIS to be a success. We want the launch sites to be run smoothly. We stand ready to work with the government and all jurisdictions to make the NDIS a reality.

Regardless of the heroic local stories I outlined earlier, everyone present in this chamber knows that the system of support for Australians with disability is broken. Perhaps this is why we hold so high these heroic acts as the last strains of fabric that offer hope to the most needy in our community. The current levels of support available are determined by a vast array of factors, like where they live and when and how they acquired their disability. These people require a new system of support that is based on a much simpler equation—need. The individual needs to be central to the process, in charge and able to pick the supports, aids, equipment and service providers of their choice. This is the vision of the Productivity Commission's landmark report into long-term care and support for people with disability. This is the vision of the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

As one of thousands of members of the Liberal Party I am proud that the coalition have enthusiastically supported each milestone on the road to the NDIS. We supported the initial work by the Productivity Commission, we supported the $1 billion in the last budget, we supported the five launch sites, we supported the agreement between the Commonwealth and New South Wales for a full state-wide rollout after the Hunter launch and we support this legislation. The Leader of the Opposition has demonstrated his personal commitment to Australians with disability and those who care for them by dedicating $540,000, raised by the 2012 Pollie Pedal charity bike ride, to Carers Australia. Along the 1,000-kilometre route Mr Abbott met with people with disability, carers and disability organisations. The next two Pollie Pedals will also be in partnership with and raise funds for Carers Australia. On a personal note I have extra pride that a Bennelong based business, Amgen Australia, supports these charitable initiatives as one of the primary sponsors of Pollie Pedal.

The coalition believes an NDIS can be delivered within the time frame recommended by the Productivity Commission by a prudent government that strongly and effectively manages policy and the economy. It is vital that we have an open, honest and constructive conversation to ensure we can make the NDIS the best that it can be. The coalition stands ready to make this commitment and to work with government to see the NDIS delivered as soon as possible.

As I remarked earlier, this issue is too important to be tarnished by partisan politics. Yet, despite the coalition's wholehearted support, it is disappointing that many Labor members and senators choose to position the NDIS as representing quintessentially Labor values. It does not. The NDIS represents Australian values—a fair go and helping those who face challenges for reasons beyond their control. No side of politics has a mortgage on these values. The NDIS is a person-centred and self-directed funding model. It is aligned to the objectives of empowering the individual, removing government from people's lives and reducing red tape.

The coalition believes that the full implementation of an NDIS would be nothing short of a new deal for people with disabilities and their carers. We have to get this right. This is a once-in-a-generation reform that will unfold over the life of several parliaments. It should be the property of the parliament as a whole, on behalf of the Australian people, rather than that of any particular political party. To get this right will require a very high level of consultation and attention to detail not just now, not just in the launch sites, but from now to full implementation.

The coalition has called for the establishment of a joint parliamentary committee, to be chaired by both sides of politics, to oversee the establishment and implementation of the NDIS. This oversight committee would lock in all parties and provide a non-partisan environment where issues of design and eligibility could be worked through cooperatively. The member for Dawson has had a motion before the House to establish this committee for some time. Regrettably, it has not been brought forward for a vote. Senator Fifield moved a similar motion to establish the oversight committee, but Labor and the Greens combined in the Senate to vote it down.

The Leader of the Opposition reiterated this offer in his Press Club speech last week, saying:

The Coalition is so committed to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, for instance, that we’ve offered to co-chair a bi-partisan parliamentary committee so that support for it doesn’t flag across the three terms of parliament and among the nine different governments needed to make it work.

The thousands of Australians that will be directly impacted by this bill will hope that the government accepts our offer of a parliamentary oversight committee. The coalition intend to give the government, the Greens and the Independents an opportunity to accept our hand of cooperation by moving an amendment to this bill to establish a non-partisan oversight committee. The offer, and this amendment, should be accepted.

The coalition will continue to place this issue above politics and are prepared to work with state and Commonwealth governments towards a better deal for people with a disability. While we emphatically supported the government's commitment of $1 billion to the NDIS in the federal budget, we had some difficulty in reconciling this figure with the $3.9 billion the Productivity Commission said would be necessary over the forward estimates for the first phase of the NDIS. We assume the government will account for this and make appropriate provision in the coming budget. (Time expired)

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the member for Page, I ask members of the opposition to please take the chocolates on their desks with them as they leave the chamber. I do not have a problem with them, but I would hate to see any of those beautiful chocolates squashed and smeared all over the chairs. I call the member for Page.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure the chocolates are there because of Valentine's Day—they look tempting!

I rise to speak in strong support of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012. Like a lot of things, it has been a long time coming. It pleases me to be able to stand here and say that I am part of a group—the federal parliamentary Labor Party—that did the work and got to the stage where we can have a bill before the parliament. At this point I would like to thank some people. I think it is important to do so.

Firstly, I would like to thank ministers, particularly Minister Shorten, who was previously the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services. This was already a big issue, but he was able to make it a big issue in a political sense so that a lot of people took notice. I thank him for doing that when he was in that role. When I talk to local people in my electorate, who welcome this scheme, they always mention his name. He visited my seat of Page and met with a lot of those people when he was parliamentary secretary.

Secondly, I would like to thank Minister Macklin, the Minister for Disability Reform, for her support, her leadership and her detailed work on this issue. It is not easy to say that the system is broken and that we have to reconstruct it into a whole new system—and that is what we are doing. This is a new system that is being built on a patchwork of systems, projects, programs and services that exist across the country, across jurisdictions. A lot of that is done in the states and territories but also with Australian government involvement.

I would also like to thank former Prime Minister Rudd and Prime Minister Gillard for their leadership and support in working to make sure this bill could come to fruition. That is really important, because it is not an easy thing to do.

I would also like to thank a local person, the late Jacob Baldwin. Jacob was a friend of mine over decades. Jacob was a disability activist, having once done a tour of Australia in his wheelchair to highlight the issues faced by people with disabilities. I can report that some more good things will later be flowing out of the early advocacy and work that Jacob did. For many years Jacob talked about how we could have a different system, how we could have a national insurance system that guaranteed that people with disability would be included and able to participate in life. Jacob was a strong advocate for the services following the individual, not the other way around, so that service delivery is not a model for the service that applies; rather, the person gets the service that they need. That was Jacob's dying wish, and he knows that this work is being carried on. It pleases me to be able to stand here and thank the late Jacob Baldwin.

This bill establishes the framework for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the National Disability Insurance Scheme Launch Transition Agency—the agency, as it will become known, which will enable the scheme to be launched. Commencing in July 2012, the agency will launch the scheme in five sites across Australia. The first stage of the scheme will involve and benefit more than 20,000 people with disability, their families and carers living in South Australia, Tasmania, the ACT, the Hunter in New South Wales and the Barwon area in Victoria.

Like everything, everybody in Australia wanted it to be in their area. But it is a transition agency and it will launch it and it will finesse it, so it is good that it is on the road.

The bill also sets out the objects and principles under which a national disability insurance scheme will operate, including giving people choice and control—and choice and control are the two key words—over the care and support they receive. That means they have independence in a way that they cannot when they are offered services and told, 'These are the services you can have.' So choice and control are very important for all of us.

This bill, with its objects and principles, also gives effect in part to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which sets a really good standard and a universal standard that we all subscribe to. But, importantly, it gives expression to the Australian value of a fair go. We talk about a fair go; that is an Australian value writ large in our nation. It is a bit of a hackneyed expression, but we do know what it means. It means fairness, it means access, it means inclusion—and all the things that flow from that to give people with disability that choice and control over the care and support they receive.

The bill also sets out a process for a person becoming a participant in the scheme, how they develop a personal goal based plan with the agency and how reasonable and necessary supports will be provided to participants. I am sure in the future there will be a lot of discussion about reasonable and necessary supports. It is important to have that language in there to work out just what sort of support will be available for people. People will be able to choose how they manage their care and support and how they can receive assistance from local coordinators should they wish to. A lot of people with disability are of course adults or growing into adults, and often they have families who assist them with their care and their daily lives. It is always about the balance of working their family and their carers into the care that they receive so they have still got their independence but there are other people involved in their life in providing that care. It is a perennial issue but one that we have to be mindful of as well.

There are a few other things I would like to say about the bill. There was a Productivity Commission report called Disability care and support. The Prime Minister released that report in August 2011. All governments agreed with the recommendation to establish a national disability insurance scheme. That was the easy part—everybody agreeing—and we are now facing the challenging part in rolling it out. But it is not beyond us. In Australia in public life we have done other great things, nation-building things that are about infrastructure—this one is about people's lives—so it is not beyond us. Also it is not beyond us to get the right mix with the states and territories to make sure that we have got the best scheme we possibly can. People with disabilities deserve the best. For too long, while there has been extremely good care and support in some places, in others it has been patchy. All of us need to be focused on that and not on some of the argy-bargy that can go on in this place.

There are a couple of other things and people that I would like to mention. Another person in my area who has been an advocate for this is Michael Lockrey. Michael is profoundly deaf. When Michael and I have conversations we do it by email, Facebook and all those other written forms. He recently met with me in my office to discuss some issues to do with people with disability, particularly the deaf community. He has his technical equipment with him so that when I speak it is converted into text and he can read it online. I use that technology as well sometimes. I have got it on my computer and I have been using it for quite some time—Dragon dictation. I think, for occupational health and safety reasons alone, a whole lot of people in this place would be better off if they used that technology as well—talking to their computer instead of sitting there writing all the time.

When Michael came to see me, we talked about the NDIS and we also talked about something that goes to the heart of this whole national disability framework, and that is the things we take for granted, like watching television. We watch television and we hear it, but people who are deaf obviously do not hear it. You see a lot of captioning on television now, and that is administered under ACMA. We had a big discussion about that. I put in a submission to ACMA on its draft Broadcasting Services Television Captioning Standard 2013. I said there were two main types of captioning services available to consumers and one is better than the other. The two types I referred to are block captioning and live scrolling captioning. The pre-prepared block captioning is essential for all non-live content as it provides the best possible outcome for people who are deaf or have a hearing loss. The live scrolling that you see is understandable for live events such as sport and live crossovers, but it is the worst way to go and it is disrespectful to consumers when used on non-live programs.

I just want to take this opportunity—I will not go through my whole submission—to say that that is a key issue affecting people in our community who are deaf.

Also, there is a process under ACMA for exemption, so media can apply for a whole lot of exemptions. Currently, I am in discussions with ACMA—I cannot cover that here—about the whole exemption process. I stand to be corrected, but my reading and the advocacy I am getting from Michael Lockrey and others indicate to me that exemptions are given too easily. I am taking up that issue directly with them on behalf of the community. I just have to do some more reading in that area to get right on top of it. But, as I said, at first look it does not excite me. It appears that those exemptions are given too easily.

In closing, going back to the bill, I would like to say a few things about its actual content. First of all, the scheme will consider the whole-of-life context of people with disability. It will respond to each individual's goals and aspirations for their life and will plan with each person to take account of their individual circumstances. This will include looking at how to support carers to sustain their caring role and will take account of their needs, goals and aspirations. It goes back to the issue that I discussed earlier in my contribution about how to involve carers but still give the person receiving care their independence. The bill will also cover other crucial elements of the NDIS, including interactions with compensation schemes, registration of service providers, appointment of nominees in certain circumstances and merits review.

Recently, I was lobbied by some senior people who are talking about the scheme. I have yet to have a look at that information and give that some consideration as well. I have received a few emails from some of my local people asking me to look into that.

The agency will be overseen by a board made up of people with extensive experience in the provision or use of disability services; in financial management and governance—both those are essential; and in the operation of insurance schemes. There will also be an advisory council made up of people with lived experience of disability and caring. That is absolutely critical to adding to the management and the success of the scheme, and the ability to review, and to ensuring that people are getting the services they need.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012. The core function of government is to provide support for the disadvantaged. Outside of the defence and security of our country, the government has a core responsibility to provide for the disadvantaged, including the profoundly disabled and their carers, who sacrifice so much. I would suggest that perhaps they are the highest priority among the disadvantaged. Yet, in my eight years as a member of parliament, the most illuminating issue for me in my local electorate and the thing that has surprised me most is the observation, over time, of the number of people in local communities who, in all sorts of ways, are profoundly disabled. For many of the carers of those people, it is almost a life sentence. They make enormous sacrifices. Some have devoted their whole life to looking after a loved one who is profoundly disabled. In many ways, because they have led a life all-consumed with that problem and that responsibility, many of them are not well placed to be champions for that issue in those areas of responsibility that the government has.

We as parliamentarians tend to get appropriate representations from people across the community dealing with all sorts of other legitimate disease issues, expressing grave concerns about all sorts of other social issues; and, in many cases, they are very well represented by champions, as they should be. Celebrities and others have often taken up the cause of any number of different, well-known diseases and problems in our community and, as a consequence, a fair proportion of what available moneys there are is devoted to many of those areas.

But, in many ways, in the case of the black spot, the black hole, the unseen one—and I have also seen this in particular with mental health because of the stigma and for the same reason—there are no champions. Quite frankly, the profoundly disabled are in the worst situation in terms of their ability to grab the national attention and to get what is and should be a significant focus on dealing with their needs before we deal with many others.

This bill—this debate, this issue—has progressively emerged in the last few years and I think now, quite properly, there is a clear focus on it. We now need to move forward and put in place, in a very systematic, efficient, effective and compassionate way, services that will meet the needs of the disabled, particularly the profoundly disabled. We have to make sure that we draw this distinction not in totality but in terms of where the priority is, and I will come back to that a little later in my comments.

This bill is the first step towards providing appropriate support through a national disability insurance scheme, the NDIS.

As the Leader of the Opposition and many of my colleagues have said, it is an idea whose time has come, and I agree. This is something that should be above politics, and the coalition lend our unequivocal support to this bill. The coalition have enthusiastically supported each milestone on the road to the NDIS. We supported the initial work by the Productivity Commission; we supported the $1 billion in the last budget; we supported the five launch sites; we supported the agreement between the Commonwealth and New South Wales for a full, state-wide rollout after the Hunter launch; and we support this legislation.

The NDIS is a once-in-a-generation reform whose development will unfold over the life of three parliaments. It is complicated, it is comprehensive, it is enormously expensive and it has many components. As a piece of public policy it needs to be properly considered, and we need to carry the community with us in this exercise. If we are to fund this, it will in many ways put pressure on other programs; but, again, government is about setting priorities. As I said at the outset, if there is one core responsibility of government on the social side, in my view it is looking after the profoundly disabled.

The coalition maintains that the establishment of a joint parliamentary committee to oversee the implementation of the NDIS is not only appropriate but essential. The track record of the Rudd and Gillard governments in regard to program implementations suggests that the government alone cannot be relied upon to implement the best possible NDIS. Given the complexity and the state nature of much of the services, a multigovernment approach to this is needed, at this level, so that over several terms of office we have bipartisan commitment and carriage of this process. This process requires proper and extensive consultation and attention to detail.

A parliamentary committee would lock in all parties and provide a non-partisan environment where issues of design and eligibility could be worked through cooperatively. This issue should not go to party politics. This is a golden opportunity for this place to demonstrate that some issues are clearly above party politics. There is no ideological difference on the issue of looking after the profoundly disabled. It is regrettable that the government has rejected bipartisanship on many occasions in a bid to claim ownership. George Christensen has had for some time a motion in the House to establish this committee, but it has not been brought forward for a vote. Senator Fifield moved a similar motion to establish the oversight committee—Labor and the Greens combined in the Senate, sadly, to vote it down. From the outset, every Australian government and opposition, state and federal, endorsed what the Productivity Commission proposed. It takes special skill for a prime minister to turn this into a political bunfight. I hope that she will reconsider the approach that has been taken to date.

Sustainably funding a full NDIS is crucial. Beyond the first $1 billion for the trials, the government has provided no insight into how this might be achieved. If the assistance is not sustainable, expectations could far exceed the ability of the taxpayer to support it. We have to be very careful that there is a clear understanding in the community of what is involved in a financial sense. We need to carry the community with us in developing this. Even the $1 billion does not reconcile with the $3.9 billion the Productivity Commission said would be needed for the first stage. It is one-quarter of what was suggested by the Productivity Commission. What does that mean for a proper rollout—for design, preparation, planning and all the rest? It is totally unclear.

An NDIS can be delivered within the time frame recommended by the Productivity Commission, but only by a prudent government. It comes down to priorities and deciding what is important. It also comes down to clearly identifying who will be eligible, who will qualify, for NDIS support. In the announcement of support for this proposal, it seemed like the government was making policy on the run. No prior thought seemed to have been given to it, including through discussions with the states. There seemed to be no idea of the reach and cost of the scheme. We now have seniors concerned that at 65 they will be cut off. These sorts of issues should not be emerging; they should have been given some thought before a formal announcement of the NDIS. There is an issue here which needs to be remembered: expectations have already been raised because of the vagueness in the process to date, the lack of definition of what was being considered when the announcement was made.

I suspect there are well over a million people who think that their needs, often legitimate needs, will automatically be covered by the NDIS. The profoundly disabled probably number 300,000 or 400,000. They and their carers are the priority. They must be the ones that get the detail. They are the ones that need the services. And those who are beyond the expectations need to be managed; otherwise, we are going to have a very disgruntled community, with lots of unnecessary political debate, disagreement, and people feeling totally let down. It is unnecessary. We need to carry the community with us in this process if this whole thing is to be properly accepted and implemented and if it is to do what it must do.

We need to be in a position where government can fund the scheme. This goes back—and I will not dwell on this—to the whole substance of economic management and prudence. We are now paying $7 billion in interest each year on debt. These things are relevant to issues like this. That amount could perhaps cover much of the Commonwealth contribution, but it goes off in interest. We can only assume the government will make appropriate provision in the coming budget. The whole notion of the NDIS is to provide a ubiquitous level of support for those eligible, wherever they live. As it stands, the level of support can vary depending on things such as the state or region you live in, whether your disability is congenital or was acquired, and, if it was acquired, whether it was acquired in the workplace or in a motor vehicle—and the list goes on.

We need a new system based on need, not on rationing, with the entitlement to support resting with the individual. The NDIS is a person-centred and self-directed funding model. It is aligned to the objectives of empowering the individual, removing government from people's lives and reducing red tape—very important principles in the design of this program.

There can be no full NDIS without an intergovernmental agreement with each state and territory, and it was a welcome development when New South Wales Premier O'Farrell and the Prime Minister signed such an agreement in December for a full state-wide NDIS rollout after the Hunter launch project. It is now up to the Prime Minister and the government to continue this constructive approach.

Momentum for an NDIS has gathered over the past five years. Those with disabilities, their families and carers and the organisations which support them have formed a loud and single voice. Much credit must go to them for bringing this important issue to the forefront of national political consideration.

In my own electorate I acknowledge organisations which provide an enormous contribution to supporting people with disabilities, organisations such as MOIRA in Hampton East, led by the very competent Warwick Cavanagh. Then there is Bayley House, an outstanding organisation which has been in the community since 1951 providing a wide range of services; Bruce Salvin, the CEO, is running an outstanding and wonderful organisation. Of similar quality is Marriott House in McKinnon, with CEO Dan Romanis, which provides a range of programs, including employment support, for adults with intellectual disabilities. Other groups include Autism Victoria in Black Rock and Hampton; CareChoice in Elwood; NIDKIDS Support Group in Caulfield; and Berendale School, a wonderful school at Hampton East under the guidance of Paula Barnett.

These sorts of groups you find in all electorates. There are people all over our communities looking to support, but in many cases the services that they can access are disjointed, not available, inadequate, or good in some places and not in others. These things must be addressed and hopefully will be addressed as we move forward with this very important project.

We want the NDIS to be a success—a huge success. We want its launch sites to be run smoothly. We stand ready to work with the government and all jurisdictions to make the NDIS a reality, and to ensure that, in particular, the profoundly disabled and the carers who have sacrificed so much, while expecting, in so many cases, little in return—their demeanour just inspires me when I meet these people—are looked after. These people deserve to be looked after by us, and we will look after them if we get this bill in place properly. (Time expired

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012. I follow my good friend and colleague the member for Goldstein and his contribution, which I thought was a particularly good contribution to this debate, summarising the issues very well. There would not be a member of this chamber who has not been touched by people in their community and groups in their community who are living with the challenge of disability every day. We all have such groups and individuals who have approached us, who are our friends, or who we meet as part of our jobs as members of parliament and whose organisations we get around to, and we have seen how difficult it can be to live with disability, particularly profound disability, as the member for Goldstein said, and the challenges that it brings.

It is one of the hardest things to see children with disabilities. We have been very fortunate to have three healthy and active children. Watching parents who are living with disabilities just reminds us of how lucky we are. It also reminds us of how we have to deal better with this issue, because clearly the level of intensity about this in recent years indicates just how hard it is and how badly we have been managing this issue over time.

I want to make three major points in my contribution to this bill. Firstly, the coalition absolutely supports the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We have been in lock-step in support of this policy for some time now. The shadow minister for disabilities, Senator Mitch Fifield, has done an outstanding job in getting around the country to talk to disability groups, moving around electorates, understanding the issue deeply, and applying his ample intelligence to what is a very significant challenge.

As the member for Goldstein said, this is a policy which has to be done in conjunction with not only both sides of politics but also the states. So the coalition has indicated it supports this—to the extent that we have moved motions in this House, through the member for Dawson, and in the Senate through Senator Fifield, to bring this to a bipartisan committee to watch over the implementation of it. This is such a complex scheme that we think it is important to have a bipartisan commitment to ensure that it is done properly.

It is not an issue that the electorate wants to see politicians playing politics with. They want plans. They want this well thought through. They do not want it to be another of the debacles we have seen so many of in the last five years. They want to see a genuine commitment, and they do not want to see prime ministers and leaders of the opposition trying to use disabled people as political toys in the lead-up to an election. I think that has been one of the disappointing aspects of the debate in more recent times. We hear lots of claims that this could only be implemented by a Labor government. Well, of course that just ignores the fact that the coalition has been in lock-step in committing to this for some time.

In fact, it is very much a scheme which is directly related to the values which bring the Liberal Party together. The NDIS has a person-centred and self-directed funding model. It is aligned to the objectives of empowering the individual, removing government from people's lives and reducing red tape. That is very much what drives us and is the commonality between so many of us on this side of the parliament.

We believe that people are much better with their money and their resources, are able to make choices for themselves, do not need to be told by government what they should and should not have and should not be waiting desperately for a minister to hand them their next important piece of infrastructure to ensure that they can get on with their lives. In South Australia—as my colleagues in the chamber know—in recent years we have seen the now-Premier, who was disabilities minister, completely mess up the way that disability was run in South Australia. It is an absolute disaster. Children wait years for specialised wheelchairs because the Labor government has cut funding, and when they get the wheelchair, the wheelchair is too small because they have grown. And the Labor Party made him Premier! Honestly, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is exactly the sort of scheme, exactly the sort of model that we have been arguing for, for a very long time.

This has been so badly handled in South Australia to the extent that there was such community outrage that at the last state election, Kelly Vincent, who lives in my electorate, ran on the Dignity for Disability party ticket and got elected to the upper house. That is the level of intensity that we find in this debate, because it has been so badly managed for some time, and thus we do need a bipartisan committee to ensure that this is implemented properly, and that it is not just a political promise to try and run an election scare campaign that we see day in and day out right now from a desperate and dying government.

It is a tragedy that in Australia there is different treatment for the same injury, depending on how you got that injury in the first place. If you are injured at work and you are left disabled, you are treated very differently than you would be if you are injured falling off a ladder at home. That is an issue which has to be dealt with, and this bill, this scheme, is a way to deal with that inequity in the system. Ultimately, as the member for Goldstein said, government is about priorities. There is a limited amount of money that a taxpayer pays each year, and the government needs to make a decision on how to use that money, and we say that this is a priority for the federal government. The federal government should be managing this within its means because it is something that we think is very important. That is why we are committed to it, Mr Deputy Speaker. That is why we have rejected proposals to apply a new tax to fund it. We think that this is about government priorities, and that we should be delivering upon the commitment to have a National Disability Insurance Scheme within the current framework of the government. That is why we say that this is such an important issue and that it should have a bipartisan committee which oversees its implementation.

We do not want to leave it to the most incompetent government in the history of the Commonwealth to stuff it up on the way through. It is too important for that. And as the member for Goldstein said, we have already seen that the Productivity Commission's recommendations are completely different to what has been implemented by this government. I think the commitment the Productivity Commission suggested was $3.9 billion, and what we have seen from the government for these trial sites is $1 billion. What we saw from the government in its negotiations with the states was an attempt to wedge the Liberal states and create a political flight. The electorate just does not want to see this on this issue. What they want to see is bipartisan commitment to getting this right, not the implementation of a scheme where you put pink batts in people's roofs and you burn their houses down; or you build overpriced school halls; or you change your border security laws, which creates a blow-out of billions and billions of dollars. They do not want to see that level of incompetence applied to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. That is why we should have both sides sitting around the table, looking at how this is being implemented and implementing it properly, because we need the states on board and we need a commitment—a long-term structural commitment—to ensure that this can be funded and funded well. We need groups who are unsure about whether they are covered or not by the scheme to have some clarity about that, because as the member for Goldstein said, we are already seeing different groups in the community concerned about whether the government's commitment will indeed cover them or not.

These sorts of questions, this lack of detail which is in these announcements, do not fill people with a lot of confidence. We have had, for some time now, the member for Dawson with a motion before the parliament to establish a committee. The Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Prime Minister some time ago, but sadly, unfortunately, those on the other side do not want this to be a bipartisan issue. They want to try and politicise it in the lead up to the 2013 election. That is the sad reality of where we sit with a government that is looking at an electoral disaster and is desperately running around looking to try and find a wedge issue. They will not have a wedge issue here because we are absolutely committed to ensuring that this scheme is implemented properly.

As I began, each of us in our own electorates have many stakeholders, many people, many friends, that we know who are dealing with this on a daily basis. I am fortunate enough, when I can, to be a member of a small disability housing board in my electorate in the Adelaide Hills, with a dedicated and extraordinarily hard-working mother of a disabled son, Judy Francis. She has been working tirelessly for years, raising money to provide better housing facilities for disabled people, particularly when the parents, who have been carers for a long time, are getting older and finding it more difficult to continue in that role. It very much fits with the idea of this scheme of empowering people to make choices for themselves, and giving people the opportunity to make their own choices. It is exactly those sorts of principles that drive the Liberal Party and which are front and centre of this scheme; it is exactly the sort of pursuit that Judy Francis and her group have been pursuing in my electorate. There are so many people in all of our electorates who are touched in some way by the issue of disability, and it is a challenge which we have to deal with in a better way, with a national approach, working with our states to ensure that people are getting access to better services, that they have access to better choices.

Government is about priorities and that is why we have put this as an absolute priority. We will have to make the hard decisions to ensure the funding is there to implement this properly. Again, that gets to planning this well, working through the detail, working through the detail with the states and not rushing out to announce things just to get a headline for the next 24 hours. This is far too important to be left in the hands of, as I say, the most incompetent government in the history of the Commonwealth.

This is an issue that should be dealt with in a bipartisan manner. We should be at the table. I call on the government, I urge the government to rethink their politicisation of this scheme, to come back to a genuine commitment to a long-term strategy to implement this properly, and to engage with the shadow minister, who knows so much and who has done so much work in this space. He is to be congratulated for the efforts he has gone to in understanding this complex issue and for working with the stakeholders on this scheme. He is also to be congratulated for giving us a genuine understanding on our side of politics about how it will operate if we enter into government and what work needs to be done to ensure this can be implemented properly and well so that it is not done in a fashion that does not meet the expectations of the people who are out there needing these services delivered in a far better way.

The other ways of managing disability services across the country have failed. They have failed certainly in South Australia. There has been no worse example, in my view, of the failure of the implementation of disability services than by the current Premier of South Australia when he was the disability minister. It was a complete and utter debacle. That is why you need a far better system, a system which focuses on the individual, that is well defined and clarified and that is prioritised by governments everywhere to look after those people in our society who need assistance. Ultimately the responsibility of what we do with welfare is to look after those who cannot look after themselves or who need our assistance to be able to live a fulfilling life. That is exactly what the disability sector has been asking for. That is the commitment from this side of the House. We want to do it in a structured, thought-through way. We do not want this to become another policy debacle. That is why the government should come to the table and should work with this. We should be doing this in a bipartisan fashion because it is too important to play petty politics with.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to commend the speech by my friend and colleague the member for Mayo. He has rightly pointed out how we on this side of the chamber believe that the time for a national disability insurance scheme has most certainly come. No one in this place thinks that we have got support for people with a disability right. In fact, I think both sides of the chamber can agree that the status quo is not working for the benefit of those with a disability to meet their needs and it is not working for the families or carers of people who spend their lives ensuring that their loved ones get the care that is required and so desperately needed.

At the moment one of the reasons the disability funding is not right is that there are so many different ways that people with a disability are funded. Currently, support and disability funding depends for some people in some states on whether they were born with a disability or whether they acquired it in a particular way. The sort of support that you get depends on how you acquired that disability—for instance, whether you acquired it in the workplace or whether you acquired it through a motor vehicle accident. In fact, we see differences from state to state. So unfortunately people in one state who have acquired or been born with a disability in one instance may receive completely different care to somebody in another state. Clearly, we need a better system that meets the needs of the people we are trying to ensure receive our care and our help.

The Productivity Commission delivered an excellent review on this. It pointed out very specifically:

The current disability support system is underfunded, unfair, fragmented, and inefficient, and gives people with a disability little choice and no certainty of access to appropriate supports.

It also pointed out:

The stresses on the system are growing, with rising costs for all governments.

So we are not under any misapprehension here. The number of people we are talking about who would require assistance under the National Disability Insurance Scheme, according to the Productivity Commission, would be around 410,000 people. When we look at that figure and think beyond it, we are looking as well at their family members who support them. It is clear that there is a problem with disability funding and it is clear that we need to do something in this place about it.

It is important to note that the coalition has been strongly supportive of a national disability insurance scheme from day one. Let me say at the outset that we commend the conception of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the work done by John Welsh AM, who is a partner at PwC, and Bruce Bonyhady, the president of Philanthropy Australia, who have, along with families—those who suffer with a disability and broader carers organisations—lifted this issue to national prominence.

Let me also commend the shadow minister for disability, Senator Mitch Fifield, who has been so incredibly keen to make sure that this disability insurance scheme is one that we can as Australians all be proud of and who has put front and centre our offer to work with the government to ensure that we deliver an appropriate scheme.

Each step along the way of a National Disability Insurance Scheme has been supported by our side of politics. We supported the Productivity Commission review and we supported the $1 billion that was put into funding in the last budget, but we do note that $1 billion is much less than the amount of money that the Productivity Commission said is required for a fully comprehensive scheme. And let me quote again from the Productivity Commission report:

The Australian Government currently provides funding to the disability sector of around $2.3 billion, while state and territory governments provide funding of around $4.7 billion - a total of over $7 billion.

It goes on to talk about how the funding for this sector is subject to the vagaries of government budget cycles. There is volatility and variability in this funding; resourcing might be good one year but not good in the next year, and in order to deliver a comprehensive scheme an additional $6.5 billion per annum is required. That is $6.5 billion—a very significant amount.

The Productivity Commission recommended that the Commonwealth provide over $3.7 billion in the first instance. We have seen the current government make provision for $1 billion. We agreed with that provision for trials, though we are concerned that there is more money required for this scheme and the government has not provided any detail as to where that money will come from to have a sustainable scheme.

I will come to those question of funding a little bit later in my speech, but let me first say that one of the reasons we need a revamped National Disability Insurance Scheme—why we need to deliver this scheme—is because previously the funding that has been provided has been block funding. It has not been funding that has been provided to individuals to suit those individual's needs. We need to deliver a scheme that offers flexibility and choice for those who have a disability. We need to make sure that it is a system that is not wrapped up in too much red tape. We need to make sure that we empower individuals, their families and their carers to make the best choices about their individual needs. That is why we support this National Disability Insurance Scheme.

We all in this place want a scheme that will be a success, but we have some concerns about the implementation of the scheme and some concerns about the detail that is so lacking in this bill today. It will be in the detail that we will have a fully functioning scheme; detail around the eligibility requirements for people to access the scheme and the assessment tools that will be used to assess against the eligibility criteria. Unfortunately, there is no detail available yet. The bill needs a framework in which to operate and, again unfortunately, there is no detail in this bill. The rules which will demonstrate the operating of a National Disability Insurance Scheme are not part of this bill; again, we are lacking in details.

We only have the broadbrush strokes of an agency and a board—all of these very important things—but, again, we require a lot more detail around the rules of the scheme and how it will function. We are told by the government these rules will come—the detail will come and the eligibility requirements will come—but we say it needs to come very quickly, and we will work with them to do that.

Let's just place on the record that the shadow minister for disabilities, along with the Leader of the Opposition, made a proposal to the government to form a joint parliamentary committee that would be chaired by both sides of this place in order to get these details right. This scheme is going to last beyond the life of this parliament and beyond the life of the next parliament; it needs to be a scheme that all sides of politics can sign up to and can work through any problematic details.

It is concerning that the government has not wanted to put in place this committee and that it seems to want to play politics on this very important issue. It is also concerning that it does not wish to have the state governments—who, critically, also deliver this important care—involved in a joint committee either. Instead, it wants to play politics with them as well. This is not a partisan issue. It should not be made a partisan issue, and again I implore the government to join with us in forming this joint parliamentary committee that will be chaired by both the minister for disabilities and the shadow minister for disabilities, and will include all of the relevant state ministers as well. It is too important for us not to get this detail right.

It is too important to the families in my own electorate of Higgins, who I have sat down with and discussed the importance of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I had the very good fortune to be able to invite the shadow minister for disabilities, Senator Mitch Fifield, to my electorate to sit down with the parents, friends and carers of people with a disability to talk through with them their concerns and the urgency around a fully functioning National Disability Insurance Scheme. I have been told personal stories by parents—ageing parents—who are concerned about the future of their children when they are not around, and who are concerned about who will fight for their children to ensure that they receive the best possible care.

But we want to ensure that, more than simply receiving care, all Australians, no matter what their ability or disability, can engage in our social and economic life. Again, the great value of the National Disability Insurance Scheme will be to ensure that this occurs.

The funding is critical—it is important that we get the funding right. It pains me to say this in this place, but so much of Commonwealth funding has been squandered and wasted by this current government through its own fiscal incompetence. We are in a situation where we are spending more than $7 billion each and every year on the interest bill on the borrowings of the government. Let me remind you again what the Productivity Commission said: to implement a National Disability Insurance Scheme we need an additional $6.5 billion per annum. It is clear that, if this government were not so incompetent with the way it manages our finances, we could have a fully functioning National Disability Insurance Scheme. We on this side understand the need for a strong economy so that we might deliver a strong National Disability Insurance Scheme.

We call on the government to provide additional detail around the rules, the reporting and the requirements regarding quality assurance as quickly as possible. We do not want to see politics played on this important issue. We ask again to be involved in this process through a joint parliamentary committee.

The status quo is not an option. In this place, we have a responsibility to do something about those who suffer from a disability and to right the wrongs of a confused funding scheme that exists already but is not meeting those needs. This is something I will work towards and that the coalition will work towards. Once it is achieved, we will be proud in this place to be able to say we were part of it.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012 because, in the words of Tony Abbott, this is an idea whose time has come. This is a concept and a bill that is supported by both sides of the House. Indeed, I think it is interesting that the list of speakers from this side of the House is greater than the list of speakers from the government side of the House.

My personal commitment comes to the concept of and need for a National Disability Insurance Scheme because of my belief in the philosophy of individualism, which means that every individual matters and is important. That means not just the brightest in the land or ordinary people getting on with their lives; it means people who are disadvantaged and people with disabilities. Within the concept of that philosophy, it means that we all have an obligation to ensure that each individual is able to reach their maximum potential. Of course, each maximum potential will differ with each individual, but our obligation to help our neighbour does not—and the obligation is on each and every one of us to reach out our hand to our neighbour to assist them to reach their potential.

In my electorate and in my experience over my life, I have met many people with a disability whom I would call friends. I have met many parents whose energy and dedication to ensuring that their children will have the best they can has been nothing short of heroic. When one looks at the needs of people with disabilities, they vary so dramatically. People with disability vary from those less disabled to a child who has no ability to ever learn to speak or to show affection in the way that you or I might consider ordinary, or will never learn to feed themselves or be able to be trained in the way we consider to be normal. Yet it is when you see the love that can be generated between the mother and the child, and the father too—although, unfortunately, so often a broken marriage will result and the mother will be bringing up the child—that you see more and more the need for services that will perhaps allow those marriages to survive because the strain is not so great. For so many of the mothers I have seen who remain and have that burden, the support is just so desperately needed.

When I became the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel, I met a quite sensational woman called Margaret Fisk. She in 1993 had gathered together a group of friends in the Defence Force who had families with members with disabilities, or special needs, as they were called. Margaret formed the Defence Special Needs Support Group with the support, as I said, of other families who were meeting similar difficulties that had to be overcome. For instance, if you were posted from one state to another, the assistance that was available to you would differ from state to state. Whereas you might have received reasonable service delivery in one state, when you moved to another you could be right back where you started from.

This terrific group of women and men came to my attention when I first became minister and General Baker was the Chief of the Defence Force.

We saw that there was a great need in the defence family to see that there was a program of support for such families. It was announced just recently that Margaret Fisk has just stepped down as the Coordinator of Defence Families with Special Needs. She has a lovely son Brendan, who 20 years later, since this group was founded, is now a man. In her words, and in her own story, Brendan is just Brendan and we get on with our lives. She pointed out the difficulties that she had with another child who had so often perhaps be left without attention, and then she would have to remember that 'Yes, you also have to look after the child who is without a disability.' There are thousands of people who face that every day.

There is a need for access to services that people can count on and rely upon. I have heard countless stories in this chamber. The member for Mayo was talking about the problems for children who have to get on waiting lists for special wheelchairs. By the time they get the wheelchairs they have grown and the wheelchairs are no longer adequate—all those sorts of things.

There are hearing-impaired children who need a cochlear implant, yet the number of cochlear implants are limited to a set number per year. I dramatically remember going to the Institute for Deaf and Blind Children, with which I have been associated since I was 18 years old, only in the last few years and being invited to sit in on their kindergarten class. Half those children have cochlear implants and the other half were children from ordinary families. You could not tell the difference. The cochlear implant makes that difference. It is because we have early detection. I am very proud to say that when I was minister, I introduced the requirement that every child be tested at birth for hearing deficiency, so that it can be picked up early. The earlier you pick it up the more we can do about it.

As I said, disability varies from person to person so dramatically. There are people who have disabilities who can live fulfilling, active lives. That includes people who might have blindness and people who might have paraplegia who can be in the workforce, but there are others who cannot. There are others who will always be dependent. When we look at the design and the rules and who is eligible for this scheme, it is essential that we allow the definition to cover those children who are born with a disability and of course those who acquire it—which has been central to the focus of this—and point out that people who are born with a major disability and those who acquire it are treated differently, and those people who acquire it through a car accident and can be compensated and those who might just be having recreation in a swimming pool and acquire the same disability are treated differently. It has to encompass the total range of differences of the individuals.

None of this will work without their continuing dedication of people who work in these fields. In my own electorate in the northern beaches we have Special Olympics. It was 21 years old last year. The fantastic dedication of parents who work with children who have mental disabilities allows these children to be able to be called athletes. They participate worldwide in sports. One of the members of Special Olympics went off with another group to Italy. He came back fairly recently and brought his medals to the presentation night for Special Olympics. He had won six gold medals. A prouder young man you could not have met. His parents were equally proud. At that same presentation night, I met six young women all of whom have Down syndrome, and they have become part of a ballet troupe which is comprised of dancers who are dancers in the traditional sense. They perform to the degree of excellence that they can. They have included these young women from the Special Olympics group to be part of their troupe and they will be going to the United States to dance. They are included in this group.

There is KaddyTransport of which I have the honour to be patron, I am honoured to be patron of the Special Olympics as well. Kaddy Transport enables people to have an outing. We run buses, pick people up and take them not just for shopping or doctors' appointments but for entertainment. We have a lunch once a week where they can come together. It is the continued input of people in the community who are reaching a hand out to their neighbour to help that has to be acknowledged and encouraged within this debate as well.

The money is vitally important and there has to be certainty about the rules that are being laid down as part of this bill which we are yet to see. There is one part in here, as the shadow minister for seniors, that disappoints me enormously—that is, once again, we see that dreaded 65 being a cut-off for eligibility for the scheme. National Seniors have made a very strong submission to government, very strong indeed—one which I do hope they will pay heed. I think it is worthwhile listening to some of the National Seniors' members' comments. One of them says, 'I cannot believe this is happening, it is like we are being written off as being of no value whatsoever just because we are 65.' Another says, 'I have been a supporter of the NDIS scheme; however, I find that I have to have this new age issue called over 65.'

'This is particularly difficult issue for people affected by polio during the 1930s and the 1960s', says another. At 65 many people have a good 20-plus years of life left to them and they can be productive and valued members of society and yet there is this age cut-off that has been introduced into this legislation.

People who at age 65 have no age related disability and who then have a traumatic event that gives them a disability are not covered, even though they would be covered if they were 64. And somehow they are then supposed to come under the aged-care system. There is no explanation as to how this will happen. It just is not reasonable.

We have been saying forever that we should not have young people in residential aged-care facilities. I have met young people with grave disabilities who have been in residential aged care because there simply was nowhere else. It is interesting that we do not have an age below which you may not enter an aged-care facility but now we are saying that there is an age cut-off for access to disability services. That does not seem logical, particularly when this government has put the pensionable age up to 67.

The National Seniors Association have said that they would like Australians who are 65 and older with no significant age related condition to be included in the scheme; alternatively, the government should at least start to explain how someone over that age who acquires a severe or profound disability and has no requirements for support for significant age related conditions is going to be covered. Are they simply to be left out in the cold?

This is a bipartisan issue: the care of those who are in our midst, who are part of us. Every person with a disability is part of our national family and we have an obligation to them, just as we have an obligation to the rest of society, to allow them to achieve their potential. I think of my friends who have been born with disabilities that have made speech difficult or movement difficult or every cramp in their body cause them pain; yet these people are able to take a position on a board because, with services, their mental activity is unimpaired. And I have met other people whose mental ability is impaired but who have enormous physical strength and pose other problems. But each one of them is part of us and part of our responsibility.

We on this side of the House support this bill enormously and with passion. I will conclude as I began, with Tony Abbott's words: this is an idea whose time has come and we must see it treated as something that we—as Australians who are members of this parliament, not just members of political parties—are committed to because of the obligation that we have to each other.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Kennedy for allowing me to speak first. Let me state clearly and unequivocally that, in the words of Tony Abbott, the NDIS is an idea whose time has come. All of us in this chamber know that the system of support for Australians with disability is, frankly, broken. The provision of disability services has long been the purview of the states. But unfortunately the states have reduced funding, failed to consult and work together, and failed to deliver a seamless, consistent disability support program.

The concept of a national disability insurance scheme has gained momentum over the last half-decade, due in large part to a grassroots campaign by carers, Australians with disabilities and the various organisations that support them. The idea was largely conceived by John Walsh AM, a partner at PwC, and progressed by Bruce Bonyhady AM, the president of Philanthropy Australia. It was first canvassed at the 2020 Summit in 2008.

It is important to note that in 2009 we the coalition supported the government's referral to the Productivity Commission of an inquiry into this important area. The final report of the Productivity Commission inquiry was subsequently released in August 2011 and received bipartisan support. Its conclusions are wholeheartedly endorsed by this side of the House. It is pleasing to see that agreements have been reached with five jurisdictions to host launch sites, including New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and the ACT. Queensland and Western Australia are not hosting launch sites but have both submitted proposals to the Commonwealth to be part of an NDIS. It is important to note that the Productivity Commission never envisaged every state hosting a launch site and never saw the absence of a launch site as a bar to taking part in a full national rollout. Indeed, Premier Newman has written to the Prime Minister with a proposal to be part of the national rollout, and Premier Barnett has written to the Prime Minister proposing a joint WA-Commonwealth NDIS.

The Labor government have sought to claim this idea as their own. They put it to the Productivity Commission, to their credit. But now is the time for bipartisanship. Again, this is an idea whose time has come. The coalition have enthusiastically supported each milestone on the road towards the NDIS. We supported the initial work by the Productivity Commission. We supported the $1 billion in the last budget. We supported the five launch sites. We supported the agreement between the Commonwealth and New South Wales for a full state-wide rollout after the Hunter launch. And we support this legislation.

We support a person-centred and self-directed funding model. It is aligned with the objectives of empowering the individual, removing government from people's lives and reducing red tape. This truly is a once-in-a-generation reform. It will unfold over several parliaments. It is therefore the property of the parliament, the 150 men and women who represent the country as a whole. This is the property of the Australian people, not of one particular political persuasion. We all know we need a new system of support based on need rather than state based rationing.

The individual needs to be at the centre of this. They need to be in charge. The individual must be able to pick the supports, aids, equipment and service providers of their choice—personal choice, personal empowerment. That links in with personal responsibility, with the people at the centre. I love it. It is classic liberalism, with government out of the way and individual choice front and centre.

I am personally committed to this mostly because the calibre of a nation is reflected by how it treats its marginalised, its elderly, its infirm, its disadvantaged and its veterans, and also because I watched as my Aunty Sue, my mother's sister, battled the system for decades and decades for her two children, my first cousins, Alex and Joel.

These two little children were born profoundly deaf, unable to speak, suffering Down syndrome and suffering a range of other substantial conditions including severe autism. These combined disabilities would take the life of little Alex; through the grace of God, Joel still lives his life as productively as possible, considering the profound and multiple disabilities he suffers. And what about my dear Aunty Sue? She volunteers and works for and with kids with disabilities, and dear old Uncle Reg remains a champion by her side. Some people are true gifts. They epitomise what Jesus meant when he said: 'Whatever you did for the least of my one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' Aunty Sue and Uncle Reg are two of those people.

There are other people in my electorate who are gifts. One is Mike Dwyer and his family, who live in Runaway Bay. They have two daughters, aged 22 and 20, both of whom suffer from Friedreich's ataxia, a neurodegenerative condition that has both girls in wheelchairs. It is a condition for which, currently, there is neither treatment nor cure. The two young ladies are intelligent, they are engaging, they attend university and they have an enormous amount to contribute to society, but they suffer a physical disability—physical only—and they need a reasonably high level of support.

Mike Dwyer is the President of Friedreich's Ataxia Research Association, FARA, which is a not-for-profit organisation whose purpose is to fund research on FA. They have raised $4 million to date—impressive—for research into this condition that affects approximately 300 Australians. Every dollar FARA raise is put to work. Every research project they fund and every trial they sponsor represents progress. Small steps they may be, but progress it is. They are on a mission, with an objective that is realistic and that they believe, and I believe, will be achieved. Like all things, it is a question of time. Progress is made every single day, and researchers' continued commitment is explained by the sentiment: 'We think we can get this one done.' The work they do is important. Mike is quite rightly looking forward to the day when the current disjointed system of rationing is replaced with the full implementation of an NDIS. It will be a new deal for people with disabilities and their carers, and a new deal for his daughters, these two bright, intelligent and engaging young women, enabling them to make their own choices about their own care for their own lives.

The coalition have demonstrated a personal commitment in this space. Tony Abbott has demonstrated a personal commitment in this space. It is a commitment to Australians with disability. He has raised over $540,000, through the 2012 Pollie Pedal charity bike ride, for Carers Australia. Along the 1,000-kilometre route Mr Abbott met with people with disability, with carers, with disability organisations, with mums and dads and with brothers and sisters. He met with everyday Australians who would otherwise never have the opportunity to front up to a senior politician like the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition. He met them in lycra, on his bike, on a journey through small country towns. The next two Pollie Pedals will also be in partnership with, and raise funds for, Carers Australia.

The coalition believe an NDIS can be delivered within the time frame recommended by the Productivity Commission by a prudent government that manages well. Any comments that should be made in this House about an NDIS must be offered constructively and in the spirit of helping to make the NDIS the best that it can possibly be. Let me state categorically that we stand ready to work with the government to see this delivered as soon as possible. This will require a very high level of consultation and attention to detail, not just in the launch sites, but from now to full implementation. The coalition still believe that a joint parliamentary committee, chaired by both sides of politics, to oversee the establishment and implementation of the NDIS is the best way to go. It would lock in all parties and provide a nonpartisan environment where the issues of design and eligibility could be worked through cooperatively. The NDIS is not owned by a party, by a side, by an ideology or by a belief. It is owned by the people of this nation. George Christensen has a motion in the House to establish this committee. I look forward to it receiving widespread support.

The NDIS is not an issue that we will draw swords on. We will draw swords elsewhere. I look across the table at Minister Clare, until recently a senior minister with Defence. He and I would draw swords regularly, although we would decide on the field of battle, like in times of old, to keep our bipartisanship to the fullest extent and only fight the issues that we had decided on, because defence is important. There is something else that is as important as defence in the public life of our nation, and that is the care of those with disability. Just like our strong bipartisanship in defence, just like the strong bipartisanship the minister across the desk and I have had on combat operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere, we offer that same bipartisanship on the NDIS, with the same strength and the same commitment, because we all just want to see it get done.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We join the opposition in, and we are very, very pleased to hear, their positive remarks. We should work together as a team in this place to achieve good outcomes. We thank Minister Clare for adopting the same spirit of bipartisanship on this issue. He is a young minister who we hope will go on to bigger and better things in this place.

We are a very, very rich nation. We will secure, from our gas resources alone, $45,000 million a year, from which the Australian people will receive virtually nothing. I think people like me will have to revise our positions with respect to the minerals resource rent tax, because previous governments have allowed all of the gas industry to be owned by foreigners.

Since there are almost no wages involved in the gas industry, and it would be flat out with $4,000 million a year, what do the Australian people get out of the gas industry? What the Australian people get out of that $45,000 million is virtually nothing, except some dirty aquifers. It seems to me that some $5,000 million or $6,000 million is ready to be picked up from that industry. If we were to introduce ethanol and build a railway line into the Galilee Basin, a canal and an electricity transmission line to get the great mineral resource of the north-west mineral province in Queensland, and if we had the same rules for our prawn farms as Thailand does, there would be figures of $20,000 million and $20,000 million, $10,000 million and $10,000 million, and the tax revenue would be $20,000 million to add to that $5,000 million.

There is a 10 per cent customs duty on everything coming into this country. Surely we should protect jobs in our motor vehicle industry with at least a 10 per cent customs duty. An extra 10 per cent is going to make no difference to a person buying a Volvo. It would bring in $34,000 million a year and help to protect jobs, manufacturing and industries such as the timber industry in my electorate and yours, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams.

Those few simple things would bring in an extra $60,000 million a year. This is not radical. The Americans have already made huge moves towards ethanol. China, India and the United Kingdom all moved down that pathway. Those things would make the cake bigger and bigger. I saw that when I was in government in Queensland. We had a lot of money to spend on community services, such as the benefit for disabled people that we are talking about today. As each day went by, we were making the cake bigger and bigger. But this place does not concentrate on making the cake bigger and bigger. All it talks about is balancing the budget and screwing every government service down through the floor—and that is true of both sides of the House.

I was pleased to hear the previous speaker refer to Christianity. The second sentence outlining the values and principles of my own political party states that we are a Christian nation, and we go on to define 'Christian' as being our responsibility to our fellow man. At the very heart of our cultural inheritance—whether we are atheists or agnostics, whether we want to admit it or not—built into our thinking DNA, is Christianity: we do have a responsibility to our fellow man. We are seeing that manifest today in this much needed and greatly overdue legislation. We pay the government and the opposition great tribute for their bipartisan remarks today.

Everyone will get their turn. I have always been amazed that, through many generations on both sides of my family, we have never had a family member with a disability. Suddenly, one of my grandchildren was born with a very rare disease called Williams syndrome. One says, 'That's terrible.' But, when I see little kids and babies, I always say, 'We should pass a law stopping them from growing up,' because they are so cute and lovable at that age! There are two ways to look at these things. If you have Williams syndrome, you will not grow beyond the age of seven, so my granddaughter will always be a little kid.

I reflect greatly upon my generation, who were told that women should have careers, not children. So, within 10 years, we become a vanishing race. Those women of my vintage are very old and very lonely. Their careers have left a very bitter taste in their mouth. They have no-one to love; they have no-one to love them. Even if you have a child who may be very greatly impaired, at least there is someone to love and someone to love you. I feel very sad and sorry for those people that have not enjoyed that experience.

In my family we are great pet lovers. When the abortion debate was on in Queensland, a leader of the Liberal Party said to me, 'People love their pet dogs, yet they have a different attitude towards a debilitated human being, who is infinitely more lovable.' I thought it was a profound insight by Tony Bourke, pharmacist and later Mayor of Toowoomba.

Family breakdowns often follow the birth of a crippled child. Families that stay together have a very strong relationship, because a terrible stress is placed upon such families. The mother is chained to the child 24 hours a day every day of the year, in many cases forever. The enormous psychological burden, the crushing burden, that occurs can break a human being. If we can provide money for respite care, which I think would be one of the major uses for this money, that will be a huge advantage. Sholto Douglas's wife in Townsville was a great advocate of this, saying to me on many occasions that respite care was desperately needed. 'Chained' is a pejorative word and I do not like using it in this context, but I have to use it for the metaphor I need. The trauma and hardship that is placed on a woman by being chained to a child 24 hours a day every day of the year for the rest of her life can be a very shattering experience. We will be able to overcome that problem with this legislation.

I have a very good friend named Wayne Maitland. The highway into Gordonvale is called Maitland Road, after that old pioneering family. Wayne's brother was head of the CFMEU and is also a very good friend of mine. Wayne lost his leg in a very simple accident. He slipped off a ladder while climbing onto the roof. He did not fall from a very great height. He nearly lost his life but he lost his leg. Wayne has always been a leader of men. He is the unofficial deputy mayor, deputy sheriff, of Gordonvale. They sent up an assessor, who travelled a long way at very great expense, to find out whether Wayne needed a lift. Wayne has got a two-storey house and he has only got one leg—and you have to have an assessor spend a day or two, with huge travel costs, to assess whether he needs a lift!

There are a lot of people making a lot of money out of this gravy train. There are a lot of people thinking Christmas has come, with this money flowing in. If this is not oversighted properly you will find that the actual benefit that flows to the disabled will be very, very small indeed. We have had a doubling of the cost of administration in our old people's homes because of the runaway public liability terror and also the terror of ministers and departmental heads who are protecting their own backsides. So people are not being looked after because people in power want to protect themselves—

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Excessive bureaucracy.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, excessive bureaucracy. I thank my honourable colleague from the great city of Bundaberg. It is because of excessive bureaucracy and the cost of it. I ask, Mr Clare, if you could please take note of this. There will be a huge bureaucratic absorption of that money. The communication breakdown between the government handing out that money and the people who are disabled receiving that money is already in many people's opinions—not just Wayne Maitland's—a huge problem now. They are simply not getting the message through on where that assistance needs to go.

Many people have heard me say many times in this place that the amount of money going into first Australian affairs, Aboriginal affairs, in this country is excessive—and I speak with extreme authority because I was a minister in this area for the best part of a decade, and I did so well that I do not hesitate to say that there are still two books on the reading list at the university which are highly laudatory of the things we did in those years. I took all the credit for it. I do not think there was a single thing I did that I deserve credit for—it was the first Australian people themselves that were involved in every initiative—but I was perspicacious enough to realise that the people I had to listen to were the people with black faces that lived in the community areas and in the towns and cities of Australia. That is all I was interested in listening to. I was not listening to the bureaucrats and the do-gooders and all the people who man these mechanisms that absorb the money. Wilson Tuckey and Ian Causley said in this place again and again that the money should be put in a box with a chain around it and it should be sent to Doomadgee or Yirrkala or wherever. At least that way the people who need that money will get it. Whether they misspend it or not, at least it will be misspent by black people instead of white people in Australia. But the vast bulk of that money goes into white pockets.

I plead with the minister to take into account that this money needs to go to the person who has been born with a disability or has lost a limb through injury in their lifetime. The money should go to them and not be absorbed by the in-between people. A lot of them are well-meaning people, but that is not the way that it ends up. As minister I really came to loathe and detest the do-gooder class, even though there were some very good people amongst them.

Finally, Wayne said the government are listening to the big service providers, where there is huge money involved. They are not listening to the little local groups that are close to the people with disabilities. I asked him to give me examples. He immediately mentioned St John's, who are his contact point, and Blue Care. So we would plead with the government to ensure that, unlike in the field of first Australian affairs, the money actually goes to the people it is supposed to go to and not to do-gooders dreaming up new and ever more sophisticated methods of service delivery. (Time expired)

(Quorum formed)

Debate adjourned.

Leave granted for second reading debate to resume at a later hour this day.