Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to be speaking on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Transition Mobility Allowance to the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Bill 2016. Labor acknowledges that the bill seeks to cover an important funding gap for current recipients of the mobility allowance. It is important that those who are currently receiving the mobility allowance are able to continue to receive continuity of support during the rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The mobility allowance is a fortnightly payment of $93.20 paid to people who cannot use public transport without substantial assistance—because of disability, illness or injury—provided that they travel to and from home for paid work, voluntary work, study or training or to look for work.

In the 2013-14 budget the former Labor government agreed that funding for the mobility allowance was to be absorbed into the NDIS, with transport assistance to be provided through the NDIS for participants. This bill will introduce a 2016-17 budget measure to support transition of mobility allowance to National Disability Insurance Scheme participants. From 1 January 2017, changes will apply to the qualification criteria for mobility allowance for new claims and to the period for which mobility allowance is continued when a person ceases to be qualified in certain circumstances.

In addition, mobility allowance will no longer be payable to individuals who transition to the NDIS but subsequently cease to be NDIS participants. These changes will support transition from mobility allowance to the NDIS or other arrangements for continuity of support. Mobility allowance will cease on 1 January 2020, to ensure the NDIS is the main source of support for people with disability who need assistance to enable them to engage in the workplace and other economic activities.

We do need further information on the proposals in this bill, and that is why we have referred the bill to a Senate inquiry. We will reserve our final position in the Senate until completion of that inquiry, but we will not be opposing the bill in the House today. What we do know is that the bill will phase out the mobility allowance completely from 1 July 2020 and, in the meantime, will tighten the eligibility criteria in a number of ways. From 1 January 2017 mobility allowance will be limited to people aged under 65 years of age, and new applicants for the allowance must have a permanent or significant disability to qualify. This measure brings the criteria closer in line with the NDIS disability rules.

The bill requires that the secretary is of the opinion that the recipient's disability is either permanent or likely to last for at least four months in order to be eligible for mobility allowance. This provision appears in place of the existing definition of 'handicapped person' and gives the secretary a similar level of discretion as the CEO of the National Disability Insurance Agency. The grace period that is currently allowed if a recipient stops work or their other qualifying activity, called the continuation period, will be reduced from 12 weeks to four weeks. People who exit their NDIS package of support will no longer be able to reclaim mobility allowance under this legislation.

This bill limits eligibility only to people who are travelling to undertake gainful employment or vocational education. Recipients who wish to undertake voluntary work or a vocational rehabilitation program will no longer be able to access the payment. Current recipients of mobility allowance who are still in receipt of the payment as at 30 June 2020 will continue to receive long-term support.

As I have said, there is a range of legitimate concerns about the bill, particularly around the fact that people with similar transport needs who are not eligible for the NDIS will not be able to access similar support in future and the changes to eligibility in the meantime. Currently, 89 per cent of mobility allowance recipients are also eligible to receive a primary income support payment. Managing the costs of their special transport needs may become more difficult for people in the absence of the allowance, potentially leading to people pulling out of activities that are important for their wellbeing. We do, as I say, have a number of concerns, and we certainly hope that these will be answered through the Senate inquiry process. We will of course continue to do everything we can to ensure that people with disability are protected and receive the support that they need.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme, designed, funded and introduced by Labor, is now improving the lives of thousands of Australians with disability. All Australians deserve peace of mind that, if they or their loved ones acquire a disability, the support that they need will be there. I think we in the parliament are all aware that the NDIS is the biggest social reform since the introduction of Medicare, and thousands and thousands of people with disability in Australia have been campaigning for the National Disability Insurance Scheme for many, many years.

Unfortunately, the rollout of the NDIS, which began in earnest in July this year, has faced and continues to face some significant problems. People with disability should not face any uncertainty about the future of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I think we are all aware that the rollout of the Myplace portal simply has not been good enough. Many disability service providers went unpaid while people with disability and their families have faced and continue to face considerable delays getting their national disability insurance plans finalised and in place. This is because the government's new IT system was not properly tested and all the bugs ironed out before the National Disability Insurance Scheme transition started in earnest on 1 July. It is also the case that, unfortunately, the government did not adequately resource the National Disability Insurance Agency—a situation the government has sought to rectify recently—to make sure that they had enough people to deal with the transition. That is why we are now seeing so many people who are not able to get their plans in place as quickly as they should be.

The government also, very unfortunately—and I say this in the spirit of goodwill—wants to sack the father of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Bruce Bonyhady, from his role as the chair of the board. Bruce had led the board for three years, and his hard work deserves our gratitude and respect. Unfortunately, Minister Porter has made it clear that he wants to replace Bruce Bonyhady and other board members who understand the needs of people with disability with a much more corporate board. Of course, people with disability are very concerned that this will mean greater direction by the minister rather than in the interests of people with disability. We of course will continue to hold this government to account for the rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I see the assistant minister here. If she would like to say that the government is proposing to keep Bruce Bonyhady on as the chair of the board, I am sure the parliament would be very, very pleased to hear it.

I know that at the moment there are a lot of very negative headlines about the rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. But I do want to say that, from the experience that is happening in my electorate, where the NDIS is being rolled out as we speak, we are seeing that it improves the lives of thousands of people. I was at a wonderful place called Kalparrin, in Greensborough in my electorate, last week, opening a wonderful new sensory garden. Kalparrin does a great job delivering early intervention to young children with a disability. I met with many families who, overwhelmingly, have had a positive experience with the NDIS, and their children are now receiving the additional supports that they need.

All of us must work together to make the NDIS a success. There is an enormous amount of goodwill in the community towards the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We all need to harness that goodwill to make sure that we get the NDIS that people with disability need and deserve.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Transition Mobility Allowance to the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Bill 2016. This bill, as the title suggests, transitions the mobility allowance program to the NDIS and amends the Social Security Act 1991 to ensure the program is better targeted to those who require support the most while awaiting transition to the NDIS.

I am pleased to speak to this bill not only as the member for Ryan but also as the Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services. The NDIS is one of Australia's largest social and economic reforms and will support approximately 460,000 Australians aged under 65 who are permanently or significantly disabled and their families and carers. Members of this House well know that the NDIS is all about empowering and supporting the participant, including those with significant disability. This bill supports the approach that the NDIS will be the main program of support for people with a disability who need assistance to enable them to fully engage in the workforce and other economic activities.

People often forget or dismiss the fact that, for many Australians with a disability, it is a significant task to move about the community. The disability criteria applied to the mobility allowance will now be aligned with the NDIS disability criteria. From 1 July 2017, this will mean that new claimants must have a permanent or significant disability which prevents them from using public transport without substantial assistance and must be undertaking paid work or vocational training. There will also be a reduction in the continuation period during which a person can receive mobility allowance while not engaging in an approved activity. The grace period will be reduced from 12 weeks to 4 weeks. Changes to new mobility allowance claims under this bill will also mean that new applicants cannot be over 65 years of age. This is consistent with the NDIS rules.

Another amendment of this bill will see those who abandon their NDIS support package unable to claim mobility allowance. However, the changes will not impact existing mobility allowance customers. It is estimated that around 70 per cent of current mobility allowance recipients, some 42,000, will be eligible to receive an NDIS package of support. The remaining 30 per cent of recipients, 18,000, includes around 4,000 recipients who will be aged 65 years or older and 14,000 recipients aged under 65 years.

I want to be clear: we as a government are working to ensure that people continue to receive the support they need. However, the current mobility allowance scheme is very broad and does not necessarily target those who need support the most. Individuals who will no longer have access to mobility allowance and are ineligible for the NDIS still have a range of other assistance programs to help them. Some of these assistance programs provide services to address mobility issues faced by individuals. Assistance programs available to these individuals include: GST-exempt purchase of cars for work use where the individual has a disability affecting them to the extent they cannot use public transport; the Employment Assistance Fund, providing financial assistance for people with disability or for their workforce modification equipment or services; employment services through jobactive, Disability Employment Services and the Community Development Program, assisting jobseekers, including those with disability, become job ready and find work, including through providing wage subsidies; Disabled Australian Apprentice Wage Support Program, providing wage and mentoring support for the employers hiring apprentices and trainees with disability; and state and territory transport, vehicle modification and parking subsidies.

In the 2016-17 budget, the coalition government provided $46.5 million to ensure that those ineligible for an NDIS package will still be supported by the mobility allowance in the short to medium term. I need not explain the importance that our government places on the success of the NDIS and on recognition of the fact that only the coalition government is able to provide secure and stable finances critical to its longevity. Let me be clear: the NDIS is providing benefits.

On 1 July 2016, the NDIS started its gradual full rollout across Australia. The NDIS is being introduced in stages over three years to ensure it is successful and sustainable. Existing Commonwealth and state-based services and supports will continue until eligible people start to receive supports from the NDIS. People with disability are living more independent lives—engaging with their community, entering the workforce for the first time or returning to work and receiving the services and equipment they need—and the NDIS provides the flexibility to support choice and control.

Take, for example, the case I heard from a young man who had previously required assistance every morning from a carer who came in to get him ready for work and then drove him to work. In the afternoon, the process was repeated again in reverse, where the carer met him at his office, took him home and prepared him for the evening. Because of the NDIS, this young man's plan included what he asked for, which was the modification of a vehicle so he could drive himself to work. Although that was a high up-front cost, what has happened now is that the young man has regained his confidence and his independence. Now, not only does he drive himself to and from work every day, he has decided that he no longer needs daily assistance from a carer. Being independent is taken for granted by many people. It is not until you experience the hardships faced by people with disabilities that you appreciate the small things, like driving yourself unassisted to and from work—and, in capital cities, even experiencing those dreaded traffic jams! Just like the gentleman in the case to which I referred, those seeking to continue to engage in the workforce or other economic activities will be supported through the transition of the mobility allowance program to the NDIS.

I was also pleased to hear a story about Tania, a proud Awabakal woman and an active member of the NDIA Hunter local advisory group, who is passionate about improving the lives of young people residing in aged care. Tania had a stroke at the age of 39 and lived in an aged-care facility for three years, where she was confined to her bed, unable to take part in her community and separated from her husband and her daughter, who is now 16. When Tania became an NDIS participant, she began to reclaim her independence and achieve her goals. First, Tania was provided with an electric wheelchair that gave her back her freedom. She was previously in bed all day every day and could not talk, walk, move or see. Then she was given travel allowance so that she could go home and see her daughter. Until then, she was only able to see her daughter once a week, and it was difficult for her daughter to visit her in the nursing home. Tania is now enjoying the choice and control that the NDIS gives her and is better able to participate in her community.

This government is building a more supportive and sustainable disability services sector, but we have to be realistic. When Labor rushed through the legislation in the last breath of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments, they conveniently failed to adequately identify the funds necessary to float the policy, or to itemise them and put them aside so that they would be secure for the NDIS program. It is all very well to get legislation through the parliament, but if it is not properly funded then it will just be a pipedream. The NDIS is expensive; there is no question about that. The coalition has been working diligently to plug the $6 billion black hole in NDIS funding. This bill is testament to our government's commitment to full implementation of the NDIS and to fully funded implementation of the NDIS. This government is building a more supportive and sustainable disability services sector. I commend this bill to the House.

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak to this bill relating to the mobility allowance paid to people who cannot easily use public transport or need substantial assistance to do so because of disability, illness of injury, provided that they are travelling to or from home for paid work, voluntary work, study or training or to look for work.

Labor acknowledges that this legislation covers an important funding gap for current recipients of the mobility allowance who are ineligible under the NDIS. We are currently considering the legislation and await the completion of today's hearing and the Senate inquiry process.

I first want to explain why access to a mobility allowance is so important for an electorate like mine. Macquarie is 4,300 square kilometres. The area is traversed by long and winding roads along ridges of the Blue Mountains. They go for kilometres, with small roads leading off them into valleys and lovely country lanes, but of course there is very little in the way of public transport. It is hard enough to travel the distances if you are fit and healthy, let alone if you have an injury, an illness or a disability.

If you live on the Blue Mountains rail line you can get up and down the mountain—including to Penrith, where many of our services are based. However, if you live on the Hawkesbury side of my electorate, you could almost fly to Darwin faster than you can get to and from Penrith by public transport. You could definitely fly to New Zealand.

It is an irregular, slow bus ride to Richmond or Windsor station, then a train trip to Blacktown, then another train back to Penrith. To do this with any sort of disability, injury or illness is even more of an arduous task. From Bowen Mountain it might only be 40 minutes by car, but it is nearly three hours by public transport. From St Albans it is more than an hour and a half to Penrith via river ferry, but there is no available public transport route to travel that 85 kilometres. So getting around the electorate is hard work at the best of times, and a car or special vehicle or service is really the only reasonable option, which is why mobility allowances—and community transport, for that matter—are so vital.

I will just take a moment to talk about one amazing organisation that does provide community transport. They are called Great Community Transport. They assist people with disabilities, carers accompanying clients, people receiving cancer treatment and others who are in some way transport disadvantaged, even in the short-term. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the work of Helen Walker OAM, who retired from that organisation after 30 years of service just last Friday.

Helen identified in the early eighties that transport assistance was needed in the Blue Mountains and then she set about fixing the problem. Mountains Community Transport was originally funded through the Home and Community Care program in New South Wales. It began with Helen, a driver, and a shared room with another community service in 1986. The Blue Mountains service amalgamated with the Nepean service in 2004, and they provided assistance for everything from shopping, medical and hospital transport, transport to centre-based meals and social outings—all of this provided by paid and volunteer workers. Now, 30 years on, it has 26 employees, over 100 volunteers, 25 vehicles and two offices. Today the organisation provides transport to more than 3,000 people a year, with a total of 78,000 trips. It was a privilege to be able to thank Helen for her vision and her work on behalf of the community that she has served around such a challenging issue.

So to the bill: the mobility allowance is a fortnightly payment of $93.20. That does not go a long way in an electorate like mine, but it is a help nonetheless. There are currently around 60,000 mobility allowance recipients; however, the NDIS trials have demonstrated that around 30 per cent—that is 18,000 people—of these mobility allowance recipients will likely be ineligible to receive an NDIS package of support. This group includes around 4,000 recipients who would be aged 65 years or older and approximately 14,000 recipients under 65.

In the 2013-14 budget, it was agreed that funding for the mobility allowance was to be rolled into the NDIS, to help fund its implementation, with transport assistance to be provided through the NDIS for participants. This bill will provide $46.5 million in the 2016-17 budget, to ensure that current recipients of the mobility allowance who are not eligible for the NDIS will be supported in the short to medium term.

The legislation covers a really important funding gap for current recipients who are otherwise ineligible under the NDIS. Without this funding they would simply have to stay at home. It is important that current recipients continue to receive this continuity of support during the rollout of the NDIS so that no-one with illness or disability is worse off. It is also important that the disability sector has consistency and stability as the rollout of the NDIS continues.

I would like to take this opportunity to speak a bit more broadly about the NDIS, which is obviously the reason we have this bill before us. It was of course Labor's decision to roll the mobility allowance into the NDIS, just as it was our decision to develop the NDIS—and, I should add, to fully fund it. But, as I said, we do have concerns that some of the changes in this bill go beyond the precise argument of rolling the mobility allowance over.

In Macquarie, while the NDIS is transforming people's lives for the better, it is not there yet for a number of clients and their families. I have recently heard one amazing story from 'SJ', who lives in Blackheath. SJ had an accident and is now wheelchair-bound and in need of care. She has a young son, Hamish, who is also a fantastic support to her. She has found that receiving her plan from the NDIS and working through the process has been an incredibly empowering experience—as it should be. That is exactly how it should be. And SJ is going to be a fantastic example of the very best that NDIS can achieve.

But not everybody in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury has had the same experience. We were part of the early rollout last year, and it has become clear to me that we and this government could be doing a lot more to make it a smoother process. I have estimated that, some weeks, one of my staff is working virtually full-time on NDIS issues, liaising with the NDIA on behalf of constituents who feel like they have been beating their head against a brick wall just trying to get the same level of support—let alone more support—than they previously had. We have mums who are told that their plan for their child has been approved, but they do not know what to do next, and no-one is available to help them work out the next steps.

I am also concerned about the story one mother told me about the lengths that she had to go to in order to secure the same access to respite care that she had previously. She had to declare that she would not be able to care for her daughter at all without a certain level of respite and that she would give up being a carer completely. While we clearly need guidelines, we need to have person-centred carers. They are the way to go. Going through this process—like this mum, who has cared for her daughter for 26 years—feels like an unnecessary humiliation for people who have given so much of their lives to caring. The service providers in my electorate are also frustrated, as the rules keep changing and the advice varies, and having issues resolved is really coming down to the determination and persistence of a few people.

Let me give you a few examples. We know about the NDIS portal. I am told it is still terribly slow and that staff are wasting significant time when processing bookings and invoices. It is really practical stuff that is troubling them. You cannot set access levels for different staff, and messages received go to the entire business and organisation. There is no breakdown of who is charging what and no detail on how much of a budget has been booked. My service providers and consumers experience significant delays in speaking to an operator at the NDIS contact centre. There is no capacity to leave messages and there are long wait times. When they do get through they often find that the NDIA frontline staff, even though they are working to the best of their ability, simply do not have the answers. Feedback differs, depending on the operator; it might be that it is the wrong office, or that they cannot see the same screen as the service provider can. Some of the NDIA staff have clearly not had the training that would really benefit them, and they are not familiar with the request for payment booking process. The most common complaint is that the advice from two different people is contradictory or simply inaccurate.

What we are seeing locally, in some cases, is that, when the first plan is received by somebody, the plan reflects what people are already receiving—or less. We are finding that, in many cases, input is ignored, including specialist reports, documentation relating to the individual and recommendations of key planning people. Plans are also being unilaterally approved by NDIS without discussion. These sorts of things are frustrating to families, who are turning to the service providers. There is also some confusion about what role the service providers can play, so, all in all, for some people it can be a really frustrating process—and it should not be.

What we would really love to see is for the government to put more resources into this. There is no genuine review process in place, which is another issue. If the plan is not right, there is very limited ability to seek review. One family who raised the issue of a reduction in the former mobility allowance to a lower transport funding was actually advised by an NDIA person to trial it for a few months and see how they go. This is not the sort of certainty that families need. They were then further advised that any review would take approximately six weeks. When you are asking people to manage their package and make decisions, they need to know that it is a package that they can live with and that it is going to ensure that the person being cared for is not worse off. We would like to see people better off and better supported.

It is a fact that reviews cannot be done within the last three months of the plan, and that really leaves open the possibility of funds running low or running out if they have been utilised incorrectly or for emergencies. These are some of the really practical issues that we would like to see addressed. I am grateful, though, for people like Andrew Daly from DARE, John Le Breton from Greystanes, the team at EMPOWERability, Kath Harrison from Katoomba Neighbourhood Centre, Belinda Colombrita from Thorndale and Denise Heath from NADO who, in spite of these challenges, come together to work through them. There is so much goodwill and there are so many people doing hours of work to make this whole system work. I think it will be thanks to them that we get through this difficult period.

As I say, we see a lot of goodwill towards the scheme on all sides. But people's patience is running thin, and the minister really must step up. Labor will continue to work to make sure that people with disability are protected and are receiving the support they need. After all, that is what the NDIS is all about. That is what we are here to improve, and we will work in any way we can to see that that happens.

Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on behalf of the Labor opposition to speak to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Transition Mobility Allowance to the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Bill 2016. Can I commend the member for Macquarie for her speech. It showed that the member for Macquarie, who is living in an area which has had this NDIS scheme rolled out, understands the issues intimately. She has put on record some of the very practical issues that need to be dealt with in terms of the NDIS rollout. I commend her for her understanding and knowledge that has just been displayed to this House. The Labor opposition is going to refer this piece of legislation to an inquiry in the other place, and we reserve the right to do so until further information is received. I will undertake to explain why we are taking that position. It is because there is so much uncertainty about this particular aspect of the NDIS scheme. The most prudent thing for us to do would be to recommend that this issue of the transition mobility allowance be explored in an inquiry in the other place. But I am happy to speak today on the proposed social services legislation, as I have said. I note from the outset that we are still evaluating our position on this legislation, which covers a very complex area. We acknowledge that there is a need for the stated aim of the legislation: to deal with the funding gap for current recipients of the mobility allowance who are ineligible for the NDIS. That is very important. There are going to be many, many people with disability who will not be eligible for the NDIS, and we must not forget this very large cohort of people in our discussions about disability and, in particular, about the NDIS.

I think there is the assumption in some quarters—I am not saying in this House, but in some parts of the community—that if you have a disability, then you are going to be automatically eligible for the NDIS. Of course, we know that there are thousands and thousands of people who have significant disability which affects their wellbeing who will not be eligible. It is important that the mobility allowance be in place, particularly for those people who, as I have just outlined, will be ineligible for the scheme. As the shadow minister has said, we look forward to receiving more information on the proposal and we reserve our right to decide it on its merit until our queries are answered through the inquiry process. I think that is a very prudent way to go: it is not saying that Labor will disagree with this piece of legislation; it is saying that there are aspects to the legislation that are unclear, and that it would be irresponsible to take a solid position on the legislation until those queries are cleared up. Having said that, the stated intention of this legislation is to prevent anyone falling through the gaps. I certainly welcome that aim, as does the Labor Party. It is absolutely crucial that we keep in mind that group of people who will not be eligible for the NDIS.

Those who currently receive the mobility allowance must continue to receive support during the rollout of the NDIS. Most importantly, it must be a priority that they not be worse off as a result of the rollout—hence Labor's view that this should be examined by an inquiry. The mobility allowance is available to those with a mobility-limiting condition, depending on whether they meet a number of criteria. It is intended to assist in covering some of the costs associated with limited mobility. There have been some very disappointing media reports about those receiving the NDIS who have had their mobility allowance cut before they have begun to receive NDIS funding—and I am glad to see that the minister has joined us to participate, as he has been today, in this discussion. We are aware of one person, at least, who has had her mobility allowance cut before any determination about her being a recipient of the NDIS funding. I would ask the minister to respond to this particular issue in his response to this debate. The story, Minister, was in The Age in October this year and told the story of Jessica Eshel's sister Antonella who, having been given a sub-par NDIS plan, had her mobility allowance cut, even though she was still waiting to be reassessed. I am not saying that there was any deliberate action by the department in taking away Antonella's mobility allowance before she had received a determination, but it is something that we need to be very clear about, and certainly—I think you would agree, Minister—not an acceptable situation. This left Antonella $90 out of pocket, and made managing her expenses far more difficult. And we do know—and this is something that we must keep in mind in this discussion and in the determination—that the people who we are talking about are not, in the main, people who can afford to forego $90.

As it stands now, the National Disability Insurance Scheme lets Centrelink know that a person is eligible for the NDIS—but that may occur weeks before they actually begin to receive NDIS funding. If passed, the current bill will phase out the allowance entirely from July 2020, and significantly limit its availability from January 2017. That would mean that anyone who exits the NDIS would be unable to re-claim the allowance in the future, leaving them significantly worse off—which is an issue that I think the government needs to address. I would also ask the minister to attend himself to that. It would also mean that from 2020 the situation for 30 per cent of current recipients who are not eligible for the NDIS would be unclear.

Rolling the mobility allowance into the NDIS is not in itself a bad decision. In many ways, it makes sense; helping to make the process simpler for those who need to be assessed by the NDIA, and ensuring that they are not left worse off. I do have questions about the decision to end the allowance entirely, given that there are 14,000 people who will be ineligible for the NDIS but claim the allowance today. I would suggest very strongly to the minister that this needs to be thought through. While this bill gives them some stability in the short term, by continuing to support them, it does not provide them with any clarity over the longer term. I am also concerned that the bill before the House goes much further than the original proposal, by reducing the continuation period from 12 to 4 weeks, and by introducing a cut-off age of 65. At first inspection, this appears somewhat excessive. It is also problematic given that the majority of those that currently claim the allowance are also in receipt of some other government support. There is no doubt these individuals already have a great deal of difficulty managing their budgets. I would be concerned that this legislation may make their lives considerably more difficult.

The NDIS is a proud Labor achievement. It went through with bipartisan support. But rushing such a huge reform could let people fall through the cracks. The NDIS was designed, funded and introduced—to an empty chamber, I would say—by Labor, and I am pleased that it is being delivered on time and within budget. It will change lives, and I know many of the community are eagerly awaiting the rollout in their areas. In the next three years, 430,000 people will enter the NDIS. On this side of the chamber, we acknowledge that this is a monumental task but one that will be worth it.

One of the reasons I am concerned is that this government has a bad track record when it comes to the most disadvantaged members of the community. We have seen it in a few ways: the treatment of people receiving a disability support allowance, for example. We have seen individuals with the most chronic intellectual disabilities threatened with having their support cut if they do not jump through bureaucratic hoops. The age pension has an enormous waiting time, and many age pensioners are forced to wait hours on the phone for routine inquiries. The fact is that the Turnbull government is still stuck in the 'lifters versus leaners' mindset. It is a distressing situation when you see a country that has a social safety net and yet the government is determined to make out that those in receipt of that social safety net are lifters or leaners or crooks trying to defraud the system. This is not the dialogue that should be surrounding those people that are the most disadvantaged within our community. It is cruel and it is heartless.

These issues must be resolved, and I have to say, in relation to cutting further staff at Centrelink, that the pressures and the morale issues at Centrelink are extreme. There was a case of a family being pursued by Centrelink debt collectors over a $230 bill owed by their recently deceased daughter, who had been tragically killed in a car accident. These things should be picked up by a minister's office. The government has displayed a callous lack of empathy, so it is with good reason that we have some concerns. I am concerned about this government's approach to Centrelink clients. We have seen today that derogatory language is so prevalent that an FOI request for instances of language of rorters, double-dippers and fraudsters will require too much time to process. It seems to me that the government has been on a long campaign of talking down those who receive assistance, and I find the language it uses in referring to recipients of disability and age pensions troubling. People do not choose to have serious disabilities, to get older or even to be unemployed. That is why I support a comprehensive welfare safety net and the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

The NDIS will be transformative, as I said, but we need to be very clear and very careful about its implications. There are many other examples of the way in which Centrelink is letting down many people in the community that I do not have time to talk about today, except to say that just last week my office was contacted by a constituent who was scared and worried because the FaHCSIA funding she currently receives to provide support and applied behavioural therapy for her young autistic son was due to be cut a full year before the NDIS was to be rolled out in our area. She was scared because she believed that her son would miss out on vital early intervention. I am still hopeful that this will not be the case. I think her case provides a useful example of the need for government to act with empathy. I am very proud that this place has a bipartisan commitment to the NDIS, but we should remember that part of the process needs to be communicating with those who need it so that they understand what is going to happen to them. People with disabilities and their families have many things to be uncertain about. We must not add to that list by rushing into legislation when the facts are unclear.

Labor will do everything it can to support the NDIS, and that is why we will not rush into decisions without all the necessary information. We will not oppose this bill in this place but, as I said, we reserve the right to make amendments and to finalise our position once we have received advice through the committee process. I draw the attention of the minister to the issues that I have raised throughout my intervention in relation to this piece of legislation, and it is the responsibility of the minister to respond to those particular direct cases that I have raised. As I said, many people will not be eligible for the NDIS, and this piece of legislation is critical to those people. There is, in my view, a bipartisan approach, and that is absolutely appropriate, but I am sure that the government will understand that bipartisanship is not a race to the bottom; bipartisanship is knowing what all the facts are to be able to make informed decisions, which is why Labor is taking the position we are on this piece of legislation.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

During this debate on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Transition Mobility Allowance to the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Bill 2016, I have had a chance to hear a number of the speeches, particularly by my colleagues on this side of the House, and I have to say I am getting increasingly nervous about this government's ability to roll out the NDIS. We are getting ready to hit the go button in Bendigo, and a lot of families are feeling the same.

We, of course, have called for the NDIS rollout to happen sooner in Bendigo. We have a large area of need within the Bendigo electorate, and there was a lot of excitement, when Labor put forward the proposal while last in government, that a number of people with disability would finally get the support and respect that they deserve. However, we have seen again that with this government the devil is always in the detail, and the government is not quite good at implementation. We are hearing more and more stories about how this government is getting the implementation wrong. In particular with this bill, in relation to the mobility allowance, I am one of the many people on this side eager to learn the outcomes of the Senate inquiry.

The Bendigo electorate is like most regional electorates: it is an area that struggles to be serviced by public transport. While Bendigo, a township of 100,000 people, has bus services, the services are not as frequent as people would like and they are not always suitable for people with a disability. Quite often people with a disability come into towns like Maldon and Heathcote for services and to participate in supported employee programs. In these towns, again, the buses are infrequent, despite the investment by the state Labor government in public transport. There simply is not the number of people requiring bus services. Then we have Woodend, Kyneton and Castlemaine, which are towns serviced by a train system. To get to the train system people—in particular people with a disability, who currently use mobility allowance—often require a taxi. In fact, it is quite well known throughout Bendigo that if you want a taxi on Monday between 8.30 and 10.30 you have no chance, because our taxi service works closely with people with a disability, who currently qualify for mobility allowance, to transport them to and from their day services, whether it be their place of education or place of supported employment. The questions that we are asking in the other place go to the heart of what is being proposed: how will this change affect people who are already on very low incomes? How will those people continue to participate in society, work, day programs and education?

Someone with a disability uses a variety of programs. We learnt this acutely when Radius Disability Services entered administration last month, for not every Radius employee's engagement was the same. On Monday and Tuesday they might have been engaged in supported employment, working in one of the many enterprises that Radius had; on Thursday and Friday they might have been involved in their day program; and on the day in between they might have been catching up with family. When Radius went into administration it left over 120 supported employees without a place of employment. It left 100 day clients without a place to go. It required quite complex negotiations with families to find those people, first, alternative employment; and, second, an opportunity to continue in day programs. I want to acknowledge the shadow assistant minister for the work that her office provided. We worked together to try to find a quick response for a number of the families, because it was a very anxious time. I want to acknowledge the families for their patience and for the many supportive phone calls they made not only to our office but to each other in sticking together to see their loved ones through this tough time. I also want to acknowledge the many clients of Radius Disability Services who have shown their loyalty by following the supported employees to the new providers of those enterprises. As one person said to me: 'I can't wait to get my boys back. They're good people.'

This event did send through our community a few shockwaves about the government's ability to roll out the NDIS. An alarming thing that one of the board members said to me was, 'Lisa, I will be frank: under the current proposed model for the NDIS rollout we would have struggled to survive.' It is true that the way in which the NDIS is rolling out is radically changing how we support people with a disability. It will provide participants with choice, and that is a good thing. However, it means our not-for-profit sector, who have relied on block funding for a very long time, have to change their business model. It means that they have to change how they engage with clients. Something Radius said to me was that the pricing point for some NDIS services is too low. They also said they were worried about cherrypicking by some of the big providers.

With regard to the trust people with a disability have in the government's ability to roll out the NDIS, as a previous speaker said, this government already has a terrible reputation when it comes to the disability support pension. Whilst those opposite huff and puff, their reputation is in tatters. That is why people with a disability, who hope the NDIS will deliver the great examples we have heard about, are quite nervous. There are some great NDIS success stories but, as the member for Macquarie highlighted, that is not true of every case. NDIA is struggling to meet the huge demands of participants. I call on the government to listen to the concerns being raised not just by members in this place but by the workforce, families and not-for-profit agencies.

The government has failed to adequately resource the National Disability Insurance Agency, which is why the member for Macquarie described in some detail what her office is going through. The member for Macquarie said that they required one staff member dedicated to the rollout of the NDIS. I take this opportunity to ask the government: can we get an extra allowance? If the member for Macquarie's office—which is in an electorate very similar to my own in terms of participants and challenges—requires one entire electoral officer position to service the complaints around the rollout of the NDIS, because this government has not adequately resourced the NDIA, can we all have an extra EO? In my office we do not have any slack; we work really hard. We have one person dedicated to following up Centrelink issues. We have one person who is dedicated to following up My Aged Care and DSP issues. We simply do not have the extra hours in the day to take on this extra workload. Given the experiences of some in this place of this government's appalling inability to roll out the NDIS and the NDIA, perhaps we all need extra staff to help the government manage this process.

The government has also failed to make sure that the development of the IT system—the myplace portal—is working on time. We have heard people talking about the details involved and the complex problems they have had with the myplace portal. I raise this again because Bendigo is due to receive the rollout. We are listed for rollout in early 2017.

Beyond the questions we are asking about the mobility allowance, people with a disability and their families talk. That is why, in my electorate, there was excitement and jubilation when Labor first introduced the NDIS. We had a full Labor team here and many of the crossbenchers, but absolutely nobody from the Liberal and Nationals side bothered to turn up, which shows their commitment to the NDIS! There was absolute excitement in my electorate. But, as we have seen it rolled out across the country and as people with a disability in their families have talked to one another—as we have heard today—concerns have been raised by people on this side. There is a bit of a clock ticking on it for the government, and they need to fix the concerns being raised.

We talk about this a lot. We constantly need to be looking at complex reform. It is not good enough and it is not acceptable to blame the other guy. You are in government and you are the minister. It is the government of the day that is responsible for this rollout. I call on the government to listen to the concerns that are being raised by families, and I call on the government to listen to the concerns that we have raised about this bill going further than was originally proposed. I know some people who will be affected by this change. It will mean they will go out less and, because they are on a fixed income, they will cease participating in the activities they participate in currently. They are not wealthy people. These are people who will have to rely on volunteers or on family to get from A to B, because this government is reducing their allowance and going further than we ever planned to do. It makes me worry about what comes next.

The government needs to listen to the concerns being raised by families, particularly in relation to the workforce and making sure that we have a quality, trained workforce. I am concerned that this is a growing area when it comes to temporary workers. It is not something the government likes to talk about. We want to make sure that we have a skilled, qualified workforce available to support people with a disability. I am concerned that the not-for-profits are saying that the NDIA's pegging of the price for core-support items at the award wage means that it is hard for them to pay their employees their collective agreement rates. I ask the minister to investigate whether it is true that the NDIA has pegged the unit price for core services at the award. It means that the not-for-profits, who currently have collective agreements with their employees, will slowly go backwards. They will not receive the funding they require to pay wages. When we talk about the award, does it cover penalty rates, or is it just a Monday-to-Friday rate?

There is concern with how this government is rolling out the NDIS. There is concern about the NDIA model and the fact that the government is failing to adequately resource the NDIA. There are concerns and problems with the IT system. I call on the government to take all of these concerns seriously, to act and to invest the extra funding now to ensure that some of the most vulnerable in our community are not disadvantaged. This bill has the potential to affect a lot of people in regional areas—areas where we do not have good public transport systems. I call on the government to listen to the concerns being raised in the Senate inquiry and to respond. Do not let this bill go further than it was intended to and harm those who are already disadvantaged, particularly those in regional areas.

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In summation of the second reading debate for the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Transition Mobility Allowance to the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Bill 2016 I thank members opposite and note a few technical matters about the bill before I address some of the issues that were raised.

The bill introduces the 2016-17 budget measure: the transition mobility allowance program into the National Disability Insurance Scheme—the NDIS. The NDIS is, of course, the new way of providing individualised support for eligible people with a significant functional impairment and a permanent disability. The NDIS will provide about 460,000 Australians under the age 65 who have a disability with the reasonable and necessary support they need to live fruitful and successful lives.

The mobility allowance is one of 17 Commonwealth programs transitioning into the NDIS as part of its rollout across Australia, which commenced on 1 July 2016. The mobility allowance is being transitioned into the NDIS to ensure that the NDIS is the main program of support for people with a disability who need assistance to enable them to fully engage in the workforce and other economic activities.

The challenge to eligibility and the ongoing entitlement rules are designed to support the transition of mobility-allowance funding to the NDIS as eligible recipients move from the payment to the NDIS. For those recipients who are ineligible for the NDIS, other arrangements will be put in place to support them. I will turn, in a moment, to that current group of mobility allowance recipients who are ineligible for the NDIS.

In the 2016-17 budget—the most recent budget—the government provided $46½ million to ensure that recipients are not left without a means of support in the short term. Those are the recipients of mobility allowance who may not roll into the NDIS. Over the long term, the government is considering how these recipients can best be supported to maintain their workforce participation. The changes in this bill will ensure that the mobility allowance payment is better targeted to those who need it most while they wait to be transitioned to the NDIS.

The changes are consistent with changes made to other Commonwealth programs where funding is transitioning to the NDIS. The government is, of course, fully committed to the full implementation of the NDIS and to ensuring that those Australians who need support to engage in work and training receive the necessary assistance. Of course this bill is another step by this government towards that outcome.

I might make some brief comment with respect to matters raised by members opposite. On a number of occasions a number of the members opposite used the term that 'the bill goes further than the original proposal'. Where they use that phrase I infer they are talking about the original proposal which was the 2013-14 Labor budget proposal to, in effect, roll the funding for the mobility allowance in its entirety into the NDIS as it rolled out. Of course, in 2013-14 the budget years that were being considered were 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. Here were are on 30 June 2016 with the full rollout of the NDIS underway—and well underway, I might add—and this issue arises. During the trials we got a firmer estimate on the number of people who were in receipt of mobility allowance and who would be unlikely to roll into the NDIS, but the fact that people who were in receipt of mobility allowance would not all roll into the NDIS was always known. It was clearly known in 2013-14, and yet in 2013-14, when the budget decision was made to roll the entirety of the mobility allowance into the NDIS starting on 30 June 2016, what was the funding that was allocated in any of those years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 to, in effect, mitigate the roll-in of the mobility allowance for those recipients who could be reasonably estimated would not transition into the NDIS? The answer to that question is zero. Not a single cent was provisioned in those four out years of the budget to look after those people who would not under any reasonable estimate transition into the NDIS.

To sit and listen to members opposite talk about how this bill goes further than the original proposal is, of course, trivially true and profoundly false. It does go further than the original proposal in that we have actually budgeted for the people that you knew would exist in 2013-14 who do not transition into the NDIS but nevertheless will lose a mobility allowance. The budgeted amount in this bill, which was set out in the 2016-17 budget, is $46½ million. So, in absolutely typical Labor fashion, the game plan is to have the idea in embryo, roll the money in, leave it underfunded, know that there is a cohort that you have to address but do not address the funding of that cohort in your own budgets and leave it to future governments to address that funding—which we have done with this $46½ million.

In commending the bill to the House I would simply say that it is a difficult thing to listen to members opposite talking about this bill—

Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where are you getting the money from?

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It comes out of the budget—this bill going further than the original proposal. Forty-six and a half million dollars is budgeted for a group that you knew would exist and budgeted zero for and yet come in here and claim compassion for, compassion that was never backed up by an actual decision in the budget—an actual decision that this government, by the way, has made. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.