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

I rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012. This bill establishes the framework for the National Disability Insurance Scheme Launch Transition Agency. As the federal member for Hinkler, which has not only one of the highest percentages of senior citizens in this country but also one of the highest concentrations of people with disabilities, above the national average, this bill has vast implications for my electorate.

There is no doubt that there is bipartisan support for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. There is, however, plenty of scope for further amendments given that neither the NDIS's rules nor the operating guidelines has been released. The NDIS, as a person-centred and self-directed funding model, is akin to a voucher. As such, it has philosophically aligned the objectives of empowering the individual, removing government from people's lives and reducing red tape. It would be a tragedy to see the NDIS weighed down with the bureaucracy and paperwork that has hampered aged-care for more than a decade. The coalition envisages the establishment of a joint parliamentary committee to be chaired by both sides of politics to oversee the establishment and implementation of the NDIS. My colleague and the federal member for Dawson, George Christensen, has had a motion in the House for some time to establish this committee. Unfortunately, it has not been brought forward to a vote.

In the lead-up to where we are today, the report of the disability care and support inquiry, released in August 2011, made several key points, including that most families and individuals cannot adequately prepare for the financial impact of a significant disability and that that the current disability support scheme is underfunded, unfair, fragmented and inefficient and gives people with disability little choice and no certainty of access to appropriate support. The inquiry recommended that there be a new national scheme—the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the NDIS—that provides insurance cover for all Australians in the event of significant disability.

The inquiry also found that funding of the scheme should be a core function of government. The commission proposes several options for providing certainty for future funding. Its preferred option is that the Australian government should finance the entire cost of the NDIS by directing payments from consolidated revenue into a national disability insurance premium fund, using an agreed formula entrenched in legislation. However, sadly the funding of the NDIS has become a political football and, in my opinion, that is very disappointing.

Some years ago I was invited by Channel 10 to a day out for disabled kids. I turned up as the dutiful member, but when I got there I was absolutely staggered. I had never seen so many kids in wheelchairs, on crutches, in walking frames, even in little beds that were wheeled along; they were coming for this day out that had been put on by Channel 10. There were literally hundreds—and that was just in my home town of Bundaberg. It left me with a profound sense that a lot of disabled people are never seen. They live in houses and it is just once in a while, at a function like that, when we see the extent of how much disability is around us.

In my electorate of Hinkler, there are many passionate people who advocate for those with disabilities. Perhaps one of the most dedicated is Mary Walsh. As the mother of an intellectually disabled son who passed away six years ago at the age of 40, Mary knows about having to fight for every single service her son received during the course of his life. Mary's son had Williams syndrome, a rare disorder in which premature ageing is a clinical feature, but the system would not recognise it. Though clinically prematurely aged at 35, he would have to live a further 30 years to obtain federal assistance with day-to-day care. Premature ageing is aggravated by the fact that many of our people are now living longer and no provision has been made within the current system to accommodate this.

As an advocate for people with disabilities, Mary wrote a submission to the Productivity Commission and to the Productivity Commission's draft report. It is her firm belief, and one which I support, that the Productivity Commission's recommendations need to be adopted and that the federal government, which is responsible for the implementation of the NDIS, should do so. As Mary put it:

The solution is in the government's hands. It the government's responsibility to remove feelings of desperation, desolation and desertion so that many families and carers who experience this can have a better lifestyle. It is time that the government ends the nightmare process, which so many families endure, processes which result in families having to give up their children because they can no longer care for them—

that really frightens me, that people have to give up their kids because they cannot care for them—

and others who are doomed to endless family struggle for the basics of a reasonable lifestyle.

Another submission of which I took particular note was from the group Every Australian Counts, a group which holds events in my electorate every year and last year held a successful DisabiliTEA, which I attended. In its submission, Every Australian Counts said:

It is hard to believe that in a democratic country as wealthy as Australia that people with a disability and their families are still left to struggle alone every day. Most Australians assume that if people are born with a disability or acquire one later in life, that some system, somewhere, will take care of them.

But we all know it does not happen. As the father of a partially disabled son and the grandfather of a disabled granddaughter, my interest in this is not merely academic. My family and I have lived with these problems with my son, and now I am encountering similar problems with my granddaughter, but in a different field. She suffers from a disease called tuberous sclerosis. I am more lucky than most: while I have never been rich, I have always had reasonable salaries and I have been able to cope with these conditions, get my kids to good doctors and help my granddaughter. My son and my daughter-in-law have been absolutely marvellous with the care of my granddaughter. She has every possible opportunity to overcome her condition, but a lot of people do not.

In Australia disability support is a lottery. People receive different levels of support depending on how, when and where their disability was acquired. People count themselves lucky—note the word 'lucky'—when their disability is the result of a car accident in the right state—note the word 'right'—where they are entitled to support. In the wrong state—note the word 'wrong'—they are entitled to nothing, no matter how much their disability expenses skyrocket. There is no entitlement to support if you acquire your disability at home. There is no private insurance to cover the costs incurred of a baby being born with a severe disability. No matter how severe the level of disability, people with a disability, their families and their carers struggle daily to support and service what are sometimes even basic needs. The current system fails to deliver essential services, leaving exhausted, impoverished families to fill a huge gap, sometimes as long as 50 years.

I know of one family's situation in Western Australia. I will not use their surname, because I do not have their permission. But Samantha is a very focused wife. Samantha has two boys, and one of them, Reuben, nine years of age, has an undiagnosed condition and also suffers from dyspraxia, where he cannot speak. He can hear but not speak. On top of that, as if that were not enough—and that would be a challenge for any family—her husband is a quadriplegic. Just imagine the twin problems of a disabled child and a disabled husband in one family. When Samantha goes out to earn some money—what for?—to put her son through additional speech therapy, she is pulled up by Centrelink because has exceeded the allowable amount of income, which affects her pension. We should be doing these things a lot better. The Samanthas of the world are out there doing a job that governments should be doing. Their husbands and their kids are entitled to a fair go, and I hope this system delivers it.

I also want to make a plea for younger people with disabilities who require institutional care. What we do today is try to get them into hospitals. Sometimes a country hospital will take them; sometimes they end up in a nursing home. I can remember one fellow I used to go to see regularly at Christmas time in a nursing home. I can still see him in his white shorts. He had no movement at all other than having a little scratching device he could scratch his back with. He loved to talk about the races and various things like that, but he had no young people of his own age around him. Part of the package for disabilities should be to get those young people and younger middle-aged people out of nursing homes and into some form of group home. Of course, these would be have to be staggered in the amount of care given, because there are different levels of disability, but they should be a place where people could live out their lives with other younger and middle-aged people with similar worries and cares—somewhere where that would have some form of interaction and lifestyle and not have to endlessly live in a room with older people being their only company. That would be one thing I would recommend to both sides as we start to put flesh on the bones of the NDIS.

I would volunteer my electorate of Hinkler, in particular Bundaberg, because many years ago, in the sixties, we built one of the first Bright Horizon schools for disabled children. We built it over two weekends; it was a remarkable feat. We also have a farm and a packaging works, where Bright Horizon also engage younger people in packaging fruit and vegetables and the like, and growing them; and also making trophies for sporting clubs. Yet a third group work where the council sort the rubbish for environmental purposes. Bundaberg also has a number of these group homes that are aimed essentially at young people with reasonable abilities to get around themselves, not those who are bed-bound. So I think Bundaberg has the foundations of where you could trial some of these models for younger and middle-aged people with disabilities.

I think the current system fails to deliver essential services, leaving exhausted and impoverished families to fill a huge gap, as I said before, for as long as 50 years. It is the great fear of ageing parents that there will be no-one or no system to look after their kids. The NDIS represents a fundamental reform to the way services are funded and delivered. It is a social reform on a scale of Medicare and compulsory superannuation, and we should give it every support and make sure, as I said before, that it works efficiently and does not become a victim to excessive bureaucracy.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to follow the member for Hinkler in this debate, who has taken a keen interest in disability issues for the entire time he has been in the parliament. He has been a champion for local disability groups in his own electorate.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012 is providing the members of this chamber with an opportunity to highlight the plight of many Australians who must live with a disability. However, further to that, this bill is also providing the opportunity to recognise not only the difficulties disabled Australians face every day of their lives but also the huge contributions that many of their family members and carers make to support those in their care.

Almost every family includes someone with a disability, often a lifelong disability. Severe disability can not only destroy the lifestyle of an individual but also impact on the broader family: there are parents unable to achieve their ambitions in life and work and siblings who must go without so the needs of the family member with disabilities can be met. But let us not forget that family members with disabilities—sons, daughters, brothers, sisters—also bring joy to their parents and their family members. Small achievements are celebrated because they are, in reality, great achievements.

Many people overcome disabilities to lead productive lives and make full contributions to their communities. The role of a caring society is to make sure all its citizens are able to achieve to their potential and live satisfying lives. Australia already has a wide range of services for people with disabilities and their families. These services provide a great deal of help and make a real difference for many families. I respect and admire those who provide this care and thank them for all that they do in what is often very challenging work.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme concept is intended to take these services to a new level and to deliver them in a different and more comprehensive way. The coalition wants to ensure that all Australians receive a fair go, and that is what the NDIS aims to achieve. People with disabilities, their families and their carers must be at the centre of the scheme.

The scheme is intended to provide disabled Australians with opportunities that many of us simply take for granted. Currently, the level of support a person with a disability receives is dependent on the state they live in, the type of disability they have and when, where or how it was acquired. Those who are born with a disability or who acquire one when they are older are less likely to be provided with the level of assistance they require. Every member in this chamber knows that the system of support for Australians with a disability is failing many families. We need a national approach in order to support people with disabilities, who have for so long been marginalised.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, just under one in five Australians currently suffers from a disability. That is more than four million of our country men and women. Obviously, those four million cover a multitude of degrees of disability—from mild to severe. Not all of those four million Australians require assistance to manage their health conditions or to cope with everyday activities. It is proposed that the NDIS will provide people with disabilities an opportunity to be in charge of their supports, their needs, their equipment and their service providers. However, the Labor government have failed to outline the eligibility and assessment criteria that will be used to determine who will receive assistance through the NDIS. Over and over, the Labor government show that they are a government of concepts but not delivery.

This bill seems to be part of a desperate attempt by the Prime Minister to create a legacy in the last days of her office. She wants to take credit for the NDIS, even though she will not deliver a single service. The bill does not deliver an NDIS or the money to fund it. The four million Australians that live with a disability deserve results. The issue is not about getting support for the NDIS. In fact, every government and every opposition in every state across Australia support the NDIS, as does the federal coalition. The issue with the NDIS is in the detail. How will it work? Who will it benefit? Where will the money come from? Where will the extra carers come from? How will the NDIS be managed and the quality of services assured? These are the details that the government has so far failed to provide and which should have been a part of any meaningful legislation to actually implement an NDIS—details that are fully costed and fully budgeted; details that comprehensively outline the guarantee that those who so desperately need this scheme will be the ones who benefit from it.

This is called a National Disability Insurance Scheme, but it does nothing to assure those four million disabled Australians that the scheme is more than just a concept. To guarantee that this scheme will work well and is generous will no doubt cost the Australian people a lot of money, and from latest estimates it will be at least $8 billion extra per year. But the Labor government has huge deficits and massive debt. If this is a genuine insurance scheme, as it is called, then, we have to assume that, like other insurance schemes, there will be a premium to be paid. So I ask the government: what is the premium that everyone needs to pay in order to be covered? The Labor government has failed to provide any assurance to disabled Australians that this program has longevity and that the cost of having the scheme, which is paid for by Australian taxpayers, will not spiral out of control.

Currently, the government has committed $1 billion to the NDIS over four years. However, the Productivity Commission figures show that the first pilot phase alone should cost around $3.9 billion over this period. Like all insurance schemes, the more people who make a claim the higher the premiums and the higher the costs. The more generous the scheme the more people will want to be part of it. There is evidence of this kind of a response to disability pensions in Australia and around the world, yet the government provides no explanation about how the gatekeeper will work, who will control access to the scheme to ensure that it benefits those who need it most and how much will be considered to be affordable.

There is already dispute about whether the scheme should be available to people of retirement age. In the past this may not have been an issue, as most people with significant disabilities did not have a great life expectancy. But that is no longer the case as modern medical science enables people to treated for conditions which once would have taken a person's life.

It appears that many Australians who could benefit from the NDIS will not be eligible. People who are aged over 65 years will not be eligible to request support from the NDIS. Just over half—52 per cent—of people aged 60 years and over have a disability. Most of these do not need any assistance to manage health conditions or cope with everyday needs. For those who do, the most commonly reported needs are help with property maintenance, household chores and mobility. By the time Australians get to 90 years and over, 88 per cent will suffer from a disability. The cost of caring for these people is obviously significant.

The NDIS will need to provide arrangements to enable those who have been receiving support, perhaps for the whole of their life, to continue to obtain help once they turn 65. They cannot simply be cast adrift at a time when they will need the help most. Even previously fit people usually need help in their later years, and a care and support system will need to remain in place for these people also.

One of the primary concepts of the NDIS focuses on early intervention in order to mitigate, alleviate or prevent the deterioration of a person's functional capability. If this element of the scheme is successful it could have the potential to reduce the numbers of people who suffer with a disability and, in turn, reduce the cost of caring for elderly Australians. This is just another example of the benefits that the NDIS could have if it is planned and delivered correctly.

But it is not just the people with a disability who will benefit from the NDIS if we get it right. There are over 2.6 million carers who provide assistance to those who need help because of disability or old age every day in Australia. In fact, it was carers who originally came up with the concept of an NDIS about five years ago, and who have continued to lobby for one. No one better understands the need for an NDIS than those who have tirelessly and willingly provided everyday support to someone with a disability. There is no denying that acting as a carer for someone is an incredible act of love, and all Australians must recognise the sacrifices that carers make daily—often with little reward. Disability impacts the whole family, and all too often I hear stories of hardship and struggle when people have to give up careers and paid work in order to care for someone with a disability. The NDIS could provide a huge level of assistance to carers if the details are right.

The coalition has supported, and will continue to support, an NDIS. We supported the Productivity Commission report, the $1 billion in the budget, the five launch sites and the agreement between the Commonwealth and New South Wales for a full state wide rollout after the Hunter launch. Beyond this, we are calling for the government to establish a joint parliamentary committee in order to continue to progress the development of the scheme. We need a national approach which harnesses the resources of the states, private sector providers and the charitable sector. A NDIS will never work unless there is an intergovernmental agreement between all states and territories.

I was recently reminded of the vulnerability of disabled Australians. A young man from my electorate of Wide Bay was, unfortunately, killed in the floods as they swept through the Gympie district last month. This young man was confined to a wheelchair with cerebral palsy. While driving through a flooded creek, waters surrounded his parent's car and washed them down the creek. His parents were able to cling to trees long enough to be rescued. However, the young man was unable to fend for himself. This terrible incident highlights the fact that people with disabilities often need help at the most unexpected times, and also the importance of doing all we can to support our disabled Australians.

I implore the government to get the details right with the NDIS and to support the coalition's call for a bipartisan parliamentary committee to oversight the scheme. It will after all be the task of the incoming coalition government to actually implement the scheme.

The NDIS must represent good and reasonable value for money. It must take into account current support networks, families and carers and it should not include support that is more appropriately funded or provided elsewhere. Full implementation of an NDIS would be nothing short of a 'new deal' for people with disabilities and their carers. The NDIS must be a success, and all members of this chamber have a responsibility to ensure that it succeeds. The NDIS can provide real change and real hope for disabled Australians. That is why it is so vitally important that we get this scheme right.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Health Services and Indigenous Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is self-evident that there is strong support for a new disability scheme in this country. It is probably not as obvious to many observers that we are still a long way away from making it happen, despite the strong support at all levels of government.

I cannot use my time any better today than to tell the stories of Tina, Louisa, Karen and Kimberley, who live in my community, and the struggle they have had up until this time. I do not think I would add much to the debate by talking about the Productivity Commission's findings, except to say that it was a masterly understatement when they said, 'The additional investment of $6.5 billion simply reflects just how bad the current system is'. I would like to emphasise the unexpected nature of a catastrophic event that can lead to lifetime disability. I would like to tell Tina's story and read it into Hansard.

Tina's daughter is Ava and she is just five years old, turning six in May. She is in grade 1 at our local special school. She developed completely normally as an 18-month-old little girl, until suddenly her milestones reversed: her skills started to leave her; she began having seizures; she lost the ability to walk, which she had just learnt six months before; she could no longer swallow and suddenly therefore failed to thrive. She lost all hand function and lost all her speech. She was diagnosed then with Rett syndrome, a completely sporadic X-chromosomal mutation that happens about once in every 10,000 times.

For this family the challenge is simply to keep their daughter walking, eating and still being able to communicate without being able to use her hands. They rely on eye-gaze technique, even though those devices are so expensive and are not covered under the current scheme. They do have some help with the autism package but there is virtually no flexibility within it. The limited physiotherapy has been excluded until recently for little girls with Rett syndrome. The family dreams of a day when they can direct their spending to things for Ava like horse-riding, hydrotherapy, music therapy or even dance for kids with special needs, but up until now that has simply not been possible. And that is because a funding body decides these things—where the money can be spent and how it is used. And at the age of seven it is arbitrarily lost all together. So there is a race in the next 18 months to access as many services as possible to set Ava up as well as they can before she falls into the black hole of having no support at all.

The experience for Tina's family is that, if you are not literally begging and desperate and beyond coping, then you do not get the assistance. It sets up a curious world where families actually have to exaggerate the problems just in the hope of funding, and a situation where families with a disabled member look to each other and wonder whether they are gaming the system or behaving in a way that makes their case more compelling to disability services, and that takes away the sense of consistency and fairness.

A great example was when Tina had her second child and, after eight months of virtually no sleep with the second baby and trying to also look after Ava, she was at the end of her rope and contacted a Commonwealth Respite Carelink centre for some support. They said, 'I am sorry; we can only give you emergency support, and you are not eligible'. She was then told that if they really wanted it they would have to find $500 a week, money that they simply could not budget for. Eventually, in what seemed like a negotiation, they were offered some support, if they would contribute at least $20 a week. Tina said yes, even though they did not have that money. The person who was sent, while well-meaning enough, was so large that she could not get up and down out of the couch; she was not able to help Ava at all; and she would not pick up the crying baby because, she said: 'That's not part of the package. It's not the baby that has the disability.'

It is not the best $20 that this family ever spent. They would love to see a support system that offered more flexibility to allow parents to direct that money where they thought that it could get the most value and support for their individual circumstances. To give an example of how hard it is to find $20 a week, this family faces a bill of $7,500 for a paediatric stroller, $3,000 for a paediatric bath, $4,500 for a special needs bike so there can be some exercise for Ava and, of course, just under $3,000 for a special support chair for feeding and eating, with no help towards those expenses.

We have heard enough in this chamber about the system that we have at the moment. Let us be honest: the political will was not there for decades. It has been a perennial fight between Commonwealth and state governments, and it is these families that we left in the dark and without the assistance they deserve. We know state governments could never handle this on their own, but we chose to leave it like that for a long time. So I speak to the 969 carer payment recipients in my community and the 3,176 individuals who get a carer allowance: our commitment here is that we will not leave you alone and that together we can craft a better system, but there is a long way to go.

That need for flexibility is one that I heard over and over again. Karen Howe, who lives in Cleveland, asked me to read her story into the parliament's Hansard. Her son is eight. His name is Dylan and he has Williams syndrome, a rare genetic disorder that causes global developmental delay. He is non-verbal and completely dependent on his parents to dress him, to toilet him and even to maintain his communication and emotional needs. He suffers from hyperacusis, meaning he cannot even attend large groups like a party or a circus with other kids his own age because he decompensates. His parents have been unable to offer all the services that they know, see and feel would make such a difference. That lack of support means that they cannot have speech therapy or OT and that they have to do that themselves and to rely on a teacher and a teacher's aide, who do not have the training to do that kind of thing. It is virtually impossible, as they see it, for Dylan to be able to maintain his dignity and to fit into society.

These stories exist the nation over, as was emphasised by the previous speaker. But the reality is that even I, having worked in the health system, was never exposed to this. I worked in a clinic with people rolling in and rolling out, and I had to tell every 20th person that their vision could not be saved and there was no treatment for it. That was a half-hour conversation, but I left those people to return home to their own family members, have those quiet conversations at home with those that they loved and lie in bed at night and wonder what their future was. That happened over and over again, but as clinicians we are only touched very peripherally and ephemerally by those experiences. The great benefit of this debate is that I think almost everyone in this chamber now, thanks to the NDIS campaign, has had a real, genuine one-to-one experience, even if it was only for a short period of time with people struggling with these challenges of disability.

What I think has not been mentioned enough in this debate when we look at the large figures is that there are significant economic benefits to instituting a system that is way more responsive and liberates those around a person with disability to participate fully and even allows someone with a milder disability to be part of the real economy. Kimberly Ali is a businesswoman and she lives in my electorate. She and her husband, Marco, have had to give up at least one job to look after their beautiful six-year-old son, who has autism. She has dedicated her time to basically endless trips to therapists and trying to broker a path that is best for her son through a completely fractured system. Her husband has had to let go of full-time staff in order to pay himself enough to cover their son's therapies, which are roughly $200 to $500 a week. Imagine trying to find that kind of money. Marco leaves for work at 6 am and returns at 6 pm six days a week, just trying to keep their small business running. They have obviously had to have conversations about how they can find the extra money that their son needs. In saying that, they describe themselves as the lucky ones. Their son never goes without. They have done everything they can to make sure that he gets a really experienced speech therapist. But it is a sad state of affairs, because they know of kids just like their own whose families simply cannot do it because they cannot find the money.

Evidence shows that ongoing intervention in autism is effective and early intervention is doubly effective. We need to be intervening way before the educational and social deficits compound into people that are way more reliant on social services in the future. Groups like AEIOU will say that intensive intervention with a whole range of kids living with autism increases their odds of making it and getting through mainstream education from 30 per cent likelihood to 80 per cent. It is a fantastic intervention.

It is a credit to the former Prime Minister that he initiated a range of autism packages which, again, were not available until 2008.

Now, I hope I have made the case that, no matter how financially responsible you are, there is no way to prepare for such a catastrophic event. The reality is that in those cases it is almost irrefutable that we need a social system that will compensate. I think it is a smart feature of the design of the proposed system that we divide up catastrophic injuries so that acquired injuries are looked after by the state in an NIIS that will cost around $835 million, with 1,000 new entrants, per year. By 2018, about 30,000 people will be cared for under that state scheme, which will be primarily funded by the insurance premiums that are already being paid. This covers people who suffer a traumatic accident—be it at home or in the workplace or simply in a public place—a motor vehicle accident or the result of some form of criminal action. All of these people should be covered. What side of the street you live on in Tweed Heads should not affect whether you can access the no-fault care and support scheme that exists in New South Wales or, if you happen to be on the other side of the street and you are a Queenslander, no scheme at all. It should not be that, because you live in Western Australia, 85 per cent of care package applications are refused. What an extraordinary number.

Looking at the Shut out report from 2009, we know that people who are disabled are more likely not to complete school and not to be in the workforce. We know that they are more reliant on public housing. They will not have access to decent transport, respite, personal services or emergency care or be given a hand with coordinating the services they need or even access to a guide dog or other therapies.

But one figure that I think we need to remember—one number that one should take home from this long series of valuable and enlightening speeches—is this: in a nation where we take mental health so seriously now at both levels of government, we need to remember that a person living with a disability has up to a 50 per cent chance of also living with depression. That is a far distant number from the six per cent of the rest of us. Furthermore, if you have a disability, you have a 25 to 30 per cent chance of living on or below the poverty line. That is a long way from the 10 per cent odds that the rest of us face.

Structuring a system, of course, is going to have large amounts of money attached to it. I want to give recognition to Queensland. A year ago today Queensland was the lowest investor in disability support services per head of population of all the jurisdictions. On 12 December last year, an important announcement was made by the Treasurer and the Premier, Campbell Newman: Queensland committed to reaching the average spend around the nation. They should be commended for that. This was the largest increase in disability expenditure in Australia's history. They took the existing $979 million a year of special disability support services, plus the $200 million a year for associated services, and promised to boost it to $1.77 billion by 2018. It was a courageous step. It is nearly a 50 per cent increase in real terms. Not only that—often you see the trickery around numbers—but they committed to a 4.5 per cent annual increase, which covers both CPI and the significant population growth that we have in Queensland. So credit goes to Queensland, who have already established the Your Life Your Choice program under the Minister for Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services, for having already begun this process of unfettering service provision and for giving those with disability more choice.

I also want to mention, in conclusion, the story of Louisa. Louisa has a daughter, Gaby, who is 16 years old. I would like people to contemplate the lifetime challenges around disability. They are not always issues with young children we might be seeing at special schools. There is that other significant transition wherein a 16- or 17-year-old leaves those services that are provided through public education and has to fend for themselves as an adult. Gaby has Asperger's disease, ADHD and behavioural issues. This makes her at times aggressive, and there are development delays and learning issues, which makes socialising really, really difficult. Gaby gets three hours of support a fortnight for her disability. In this country, we have nothing like the impressive schools of support that we see in places like North Carolina in the US. There is nothing like that in this country at this stage. Louisa's hope is that a new scheme could start to facilitate schools that provide intensive support for kids like Gaby. Her great fear is that she may not be able to continue caring for her daughter after she has turned 18. Will she be able to live in assisted housing? That is a massive concern for Louisa.

A lot of people blame people like Louisa. They say: 'You could have parented differently. You could have got more help earlier.' That leads, as she describes, to tremendous guilt, and it makes her at times feel both alone and incredibly abandoned.

My message to Kimberly, Louisa, Karen and Tina is: we in this place will do everything that we can to craft a better system. It is a very solemn pledge. It is one that has not yet been made after decades and decades of waiting. We are sorry that it has taken that long to come to this point. Many of us at a personal level in this place came with very different experiences of how the system works, but I am confident to say today that there is a determination, a will and a resolution here to do whatever we can to improve the system and to remove that invisible deprivation—to take away the feeling that you have of being trapped and isolated, to return families out there, wherever we can, to real and genuine economic and social participation, and to welcome you all back to the privileges that this nation offers able-bodied families.

Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In speaking on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012, let me be clear: I support the mothers and fathers of children with a disability. I strongly believe that we should support independent and driven young persons with a disability to achieve all they wish to achieve. I stand with them because I have seen what they have to live through, day in, day out. I have seen what constitutes good practice and bad practice. I am in full support and accord with those who cannot access a system where they get best practice.

But I cannot simply support them and not ask on behalf of the coalition the critical questions of the NDIS. I, and everyone in the coalition, want to see the best possible version of the NDIS. However, the bill at hand and in discussion today will have served only five per cent of the estimated 411,000 people with disabilities after five years.

Is this good enough? The total allocation of moneys for the bill in its current form, as per the parliamentary statements, of $1 billion, represents only 39 per cent of what the Productivity Commission reported as being required. That requirement was to end the treatment of people with a disability as, to quote Minister Shorten, 'being second-class citizens.'

Is it the case then that 61 per cent of people deserve to be treated like second-class citizens? Is that good enough? More questions arise when one asks what are the plans beyond four years? When will the full rollout be achieved? This is typical of Labor policy and financial and economic management, as can be seen by the MRRT and carbon tax debacles. The members opposite cannot even count. Mathematics is not their friend. The coalition and I, on behalf of those impacted by this legislation, are calling on the government to put aside partisan politics and work together for the Australian people. It is not beyond us, as political parties or as a parliament, to demonstrate a bold unity and a brave originality.

To the members opposite, it is time to accept the constructive hand of opposition and put in place a joint parliamentary committee to oversee the establishment and implementation of the NDIS. There are simply too many questions being asked by too many to keep it to the same few of government. It is abundantly clear that people want cooperation, they want consultation and they want the best possible NDIS because they deserve it. People with a disability in this country deserve certainty and dignity. Agreeing to establish a joint standing committee is a dignified action that removes the NDIS from ambit partisan politics. It is not a Labor issue or the Liberal issue, a Labor belief or a Liberal belief, but an Australian belief. To be an Australian is to believe that no matter who you are or where you come from you are entitled to a fair go. Today, I fear the government will not heed the better angels of its nature and will not heed the helping hand of the coalition.

I fear for the funding of disability services. I fear the NDIS will not create a bigger pie but become an exercise in how that pie is cut and, worse, under this Labor government the pie has got smaller. These are the fears of the thousands in my electorate of Tangey impacted by this bill. I want to be able to look the critics of the NDIS in the eye and say that the gross price tag of $14 billion is being optimally allocated and is value for money. I want to be able to tell the apoplectic voters in Applecross that the sort of rorting that happened in New South Wales will not be a problem when we get to the issue of naming approved providers and the implementation of the scheme.

To the members opposite, will you help us do this? Money is important but not most important. There are ways to make money smart and ways to make money dumb. This government possesses a unique ability to make everything dumb. Smart money invested in the NDIS would give a better return and a way from suboptimal allocations, a way from back-ending towards front-loading. Invest more, earlier and at a younger age. This is where close cooperation with the states is vital. State governments know their state better than Canberra. Therefore, trying to paint a picture of non-cooperation between Liberal state governments of WA and Queensland is both wrong and destructive. There are further economic-centric arguments that focus on the implementation of the scheme, such as the case of the treatment plans written by the individuals themselves or their carers. Is it possible that there could be asymmetries of information operating on all sorts of level. For example, is it not necessarily the case that the individuals will use their allocation of funding optimally? Similarly, for the approved providers, does this set up a marketplace for government funded oligopolies in the provision of services? These fundamental questions, which are to be laid out in the legislative instrument, would benefit from scrutiny and oversight of the coalition's proposed joint committee on the NDIS.

Ultimately, all in this place want to see a new day for all peoples with a disability. When nearly one in 50 Australians live with a disability, the time to act is now. It is true that right across our respective electorates we need to get to where we see ability not disability. Every day those living with disabilities are serving and contributing towards the country. If they are willing to answer their country's call, then surely our country can he hear them out. While we in the coalition commend any and all action taken to move forward in the area of disability services, we note the track record of the current Gillard administration—blunder after blunder, blow-out after blow-out. That is why the coalition want to help guarantee, through the establishment of a joint committee, the best possible outcome for the largest number of people. I take heart in noting that the Labor administration, in outlining the operation of the NDIS, have opted for a model long advocated by the coalition. Empowering the individual through individual care plans and funding, a voucher system ensures the most efficient social and economic use of resources. It minimises value destruction and makes for good policy.

As with most Labor plans, however, there are often overlooked areas—sometimes purposely overlooked. And in politics, as in life, no man is an island. For example, those developing a disability after 65 will not be covered, and there are scare stories relating to those with low vision. Certainty is something that these people deserve. Let the broadsword of history fall against those of small-minded vision for those with physical or mental challenges and all those differently abled. No-one in this coalition will speak against the amount of money it will cost, for as Wilde said: 'A cynic is one who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.' Tony Abbott champions people with disability. The Pollie Pedal raised $540,000 in 2012 alone.

The challenge is real. The work must go on. We have to get this right. We have to get it right because, quite frankly, Labor have got so much wrong. They were wrong on the predictions of the revenues to be raised by the MRRT. They were wrong on Green Loans, pinks batts, solar schemes and school halls. They were wrong on the carbon tax. Were they wrong on Rudd?

I wish to thank all those in the disability sector in my electorate of Tangney in Western Australia who met with me, worked with me and inspired me. It must be noted that further expansion of the NDIS will be dependent on the Commonwealth negotiating and concluding further bilateral agreements with each and every jurisdiction. Having the coalition parties inside the tent would indubitably help the cause of getting agreement with the states.

The hyperactive nature of what is proposed in the bill causes me some discomfort. This stems from the one scheme providing advice, assistance and referrals, and also funding for individual treatment plans and block funding. The question is: where does the money come from and at whose expense? We have already seen defence spending cut. Today we are at a defence spend equal, in percentage of GDP terms, to that of 1938. We have seen commitments to reform education though the Gonski review of school funding, yet there is no commitment of funds until 2022; a decade will go by before an extra red cent goes in.

The undisputed big win in the bill is for the cause of personal liberty. No longer will the scarred hand of government bind the choice of a person with disability. Moving to self-directed personal plans of treatment is an immensely positive step. The bill talks about 'becoming a participant' and not just passively 'getting' but actively 'becoming'. In the final analysis, I am critical not because I disagree with NDIS but because I support it. I support the end of discrimination against our fellow Australians. I support knowing the price but also the value. Freedom is the birthright of the weak as it is of the strong. This bill is about hope. I certainly hope it delivers.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012. As we know, the concept of the NDIS was something that came out of the 2020 forum that took place in 2008. It is a concept that acknowledges how different the services and the support for people with disabilities are across this country. There are differences between states and differences based upon the manner in which the disability occurred—through accident or birth. It is clear that there are massive differences across the country. It is also very difficult in certain places to access support.

The NDIS is a scheme designed in a bipartisan manner. In 2010, there was a disability forum within the electorate of Cowan as part of the election campaign. I was there; my opponent at the time was represented by a senator, but I was there. I was very clear about our support for the NDIS because what needs to be done is clear. I find it amazing, though, that this is one of those policy areas in which most in the government have attempted to paint the questions and concerns that we have raised in our desire to make this scheme work and be viable as opposition to it. When I look back through some of the blogs at the things that have been said over time, the government created the false impression—an impression that has hopefully been resolved—for people in this country that the opposition are against the NDIS. Obviously, nothing could be less true than that. When we see the efforts that the opposition leader, Tony Abbott, has made with things like Pollie Pedal, it is very clear that we are completely onside.

I am like many in this place, in that I am fortunate that my two daughters, aged 14 and 10, have developed without any disabilities. They are doing well at school. As with a lot of the issues that people bring to us, I see this with detachment—from a distance, really. What I hear in this place does not affect me. But when people come to your office and describe the lifestyle that a disability within the family brings with it, and the impact of that, you cannot help but be moved. The difficulties of trying to earn a living, trying to exist, trying to take care of other children in the family or adult children impact deeply upon people's lives.

Even though many of us here may not have felt the direct impact that a disability brings, when you hear the stories you know that something needs to be done. Whilst a lot of the disabilities we are aware of are often birth related, we must also remember that a stroke, for example, could completely debilitate someone. Through doorknocking over the last couple of weeks in my electorate of Cowan I have met two people that have had strokes. There are also car accidents and other incidents that could happen. We and our families are all potentially exposed to incurring a disability. The NDIS is something which we must deliver. We must do it because it is something that affects, or could potentially affect, everybody in this country. We all have a reason to back this initiative.

The trouble is that expectations have been built up. People are talking about full delivery of the NDIS. In some of the rhetoric that I have heard, it is delivered already. But the reality is that people in my electorate are not going to be part of this for some years to come. I know that the trials need to take place and that the trial sites have been selected. There is a lot of money required for this. Given the situation in the budget, the coalition are quite concerned about the ability of the government to put the money aside to deliver the NDIS. Having built expectations substantially, having talked about the delivery of the NDIS, ultimately it needs to be paid for. Taxpayers will need to pay for it, or money will need to come out of existing revenue—which, again, is taxpayer funded. Of course there needs to be value for money and it needs to be efficient. In the years since the disability support pension was first created, there has been a massive take-up of that pension. The Hon. Leader of the Nationals made the point very clear in his earlier remarks that, when a system, a process or this sort of support is available, it needs to be clearly defined so as to make sure that the value for money is there and that the people who really need it get it.

As I said, it is going to be very expensive. Given the inability of the government to manage things like the mining tax—the lack of revenue that has come out of their plans for the mining tax, not the lack of expenditure linked to the mining tax—there are challenges that they face and that the next government of Australia will also have to face. The Productivity Commission said that it will cost $3.9 billion a year to run an NDIS, and we expect that it is going to quite a bit more than that. The big challenge is to try and find the money and then to make sure that it is properly spent—that it actually impacts correctly, beneficially, on as many people out there as possible. As we know, there are some 400,000 Australians who have some form of profound disability. It is important that the money is generated and then properly spent.

At the moment there is a lot of need out there. Across this country, there are a lot of people who claim to be victims. There are a lot of people who say that their circumstances are beyond their control. But, if we are talking specifically about the National Disability Insurance Scheme and about the 400,000 people with profound disability, it is they who are exactly, absolutely, the victims of the circumstances that beset them, and these are the people who need to get access to the support that the NDIS will provide.

We all have had people meet us in our offices, in shopping centres and through knocking on front doors who have talked to us about their circumstances. Back in 2011, I met Anne and Mitchell Wood, from the electorate of Cowan, and Anne spoke to me about her son, Mitchell. He has a major intellectual disability and for years he had remained undiagnosed. It is a difficult life for Anne in looking after Mitchell, providing for him and making sure that the day programs, respite and support that she requires to get him through his day—and to have a life herself—are provided. It is very difficult for her. Anne and Mitchell Wood's story is an example of real people out there in the streets of our country who are in need of support. Provided we can find the money and be able to sustain the NDIS as an efficient and effective program for people, then we will proceed with it.

Recently I was at the Gladys Newton School graduation, which is a school for disabled young people within the electorate of Stirling, which is Michael Keenan's electorate. At that graduation ceremony I spoke with a 72-year-old lady called Trish. She told me about her daughter and her disabled granddaughter, Britney, who was one of the graduates that day. This 72-year-old lady told me that she was the second carer for Britney, who is almost my height and is about a foot and a half taller than her grandmother—

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 1.45 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.