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

Today I am speaking on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Savings Funds Special Account Bill. This bill proposes a new savings fund sitting within the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and I emphasise that this new account that is being debated in this bill will sit within consolidated revenue. The government claims that this new special account is needed to help the Commonwealth meet its funding obligations for the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

I must say I am a little surprised that the government has brought this bill on for debate today, given the disastrous week it has had by linking cuts to social security to the future of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Even this morning, we see a report from Michelle Grattan that the Prime Minister's Office warned the Treasurer and the Minister for Social Services against the timing of making the outrageous link between the cuts in the omnibus bill and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. So there is already all this finger-pointing going on within the government about who is to blame for the reprehensible decision to link the omnibus bill and all the cuts to some of the most disadvantaged people in Australia to the future of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. In addition to the most reprehensible nature of that announcement, of course what this all demonstrates is the government's complete and utter incompetence.

The one thing this week did confirm is that this new savings fund is just a transparent attempt to pretend, yet again by this government, that the National Disability Insurance Scheme is not fully funded. It is clear that the government has not created this special account for the purpose of good policy. No, they have created this account for political purposes. The Turnbull government wants to use the NDIS as a bargaining chip in its negotiations with the Senate crossbench to pass unfair cuts through the parliament. How did that go?

We saw all of this on display this week in a press conference with the Treasurer and the Minister for Social Services. We saw the government emphasise the importance of giving big business a $50 billion handout. Then the Treasurer and the Minister for Social Services revealed their shameful plan. What they want to do is link the $5.6 billion in cuts to some of the most vulnerable Australians to the future funding of the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

This $5.6 billion of cuts include $2.7 billion in cuts to family tax benefits—money straight out of the pockets of some of the poorest families in Australia—and $1 billion of cuts to the energy supplement. That means cuts to pensioners, people with disability, carers and Newstart recipients. There are cuts to 70,000 new mothers and cuts to young people, including making young people wait five weeks to get access to Newstart, telling them that they will have absolutely nothing to live on for five weeks. The Turnbull government has decided to hold the National Disability Insurance Scheme hostage to its unfair cuts to family tax benefits, paid parental leave, the energy supplement and cuts to young people. That is what this government is doing. Linking the future of the National Disability Insurance Scheme to a range of 2014 and 2015 budget cuts is just an appalling political trick by this government—nothing but an attempt to try to blackmail the Senate crossbench into accepting harsh cuts including from the 2014 budget.

I want to say to this Prime Minister and to everybody opposite: this government has no right to pit one group of vulnerable Australians against another. As Laura Tingle, writing in The Australian Financial Review, said, 'The government's latest attempt to pass their savings playing off poor people against disabled people is just appalling,' and it is just appalling. The respected five-time Paralympian, Kurt Fearnley, said yesterday of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, 'I wish the Government would fight for it with as much vigour as fighting for its $50 billion business tax cut'. He went on to say that the government's attacks on the National Disability Insurance Scheme were 'just wrong'.

Labor will oppose this bill today. But we do more than that. Today, we call on the Turnbull government to take these unfair cuts to families, pensioners and young people out of the parliament and out of the budget for good. We also call on this government to stop playing politics with the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Be proud of it. Do not talk it down. Do not put fear into the hearts of people with disability. This legislation and the fund that it seeks to announce are a sham. The National Disability Insurance Scheme will be funded from consolidated revenue and the government knows that. The Minister for Social Services and the Treasurer have even said so. This legislation even makes that plain.

The Turnbull government repeatedly fabricates the story that Labor did not fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and now they are wasting the parliament's time by establishing an account with no other purpose than to try to support this untruth. They are seeking to present a false choice between cutting payments like the disability support pension and properly funding the NDIS. It is a false choice. The former government's 2013 budget set out a 10-year funding plan for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. This included but was not limited to an increase in the Medicare levy. A number of other budget measures were proposed and legislated, and these funds currently sit in consolidated revenue. Together, these measures provided sufficient funding for the National Disability Insurance Scheme well past the transition to the full scheme. The figures underpinning these budget measures were, of course, developed by the Treasury, led at that time by Martin Parkinson, now the secretary of the Prime Minister's department, and yet the Turnbull government continues to say that the scheme is underfunded. This is nothing more than a sham.

You do not have to go any further than the Treasurer himself. As The Australian newspaper reported last year, far from using its proposed National Disability Insurance Scheme savings fund for the NDIS, the Treasurer said that it could use the funds to spend money on anything it wants. It says, 'Scott Morrison told The Australian that the fund'—that is, the fund we are debating today—'while quarantined could be used by any future government for any of its spending whims.' That is what the Treasurer said. So what is this all about? Why are we debating this bill today? We have already seen the government use this special account as an excuse to play politics and engage in a disgraceful game of political brinkmanship.

In the last 48 hours, this government has tried to link the delivery of the NDIS to their attack on families, pensioners, people with disability, carers and Newstart recipients. Now it is crystal clear that the Turnbull government is using this fund as a smokescreen for their 2014 budget cuts. Both the Treasurer and the Social Services Minister have now confirmed that this fund will be financed through cuts to payments for the most vulnerable Australians. What the Treasurer and the Minister for Social Services are saying is that this government wants to abolish the energy supplement for those on Newstart, the disability support pension and the age pension. They want to cut paid parental leave. They want to force young people into poverty with a five-week wait for Newstart and cut family payments to 1½ million Australians, many of whom, of course, live in Liberal and Nationals Party electorates. So is the government seriously saying that, if these unfair cuts are not passed through the Senate, the NDIS will not go ahead? Is that what those opposite are saying? This week the government has shown its true colours.

What we cannot allow is for the government to use the NDIS as an excuse for more cuts to social security payments. That is not in the spirit of the NDIS and not in the spirit of the bipartisan and consultative approach committed to by both parties for the NDIS. The NDIS continues its full rollout across the country. It is a completely contradictory idea that we would use its implementation as a means to cut other sources of support for people with disability, but that is exactly what people opposite are trying to do.

My good friend the member for Bruce helped shine a light on a terrible story of young man with a severe and permanent disability. Andrew Johnson has profound autism, bipolar disorder, attention deficit disorder and epilepsy, cannot talk and needs a stomach tube to help him eat. Yet Andrew's mother has been asked by Centrelink to prove Andrew's eligibility for the disability support pension, despite his being eligible for support for many years. Andrew is one of the thousands of disability support pensioners that the government is trying to make subject to medical reviews to test their eligibility for the DSP. However, someone like Andrew, who has no capacity to work and was granted the DSP on manifest grounds, was supposed to be exempt from these DSP reviews. The government must explain what it is doing to ensure that people like Andrew are not harassed by Centrelink about their eligibility for the DSP again. This is just one example—I must say a very moving one.

Last year's budget papers make clear that the government wants to review the eligibility of 90,000 people who are currently on the disability support pension. The government expects that it will cut a number of people off the DSP through these reviews and then put whatever money it gets from this process into this National Disability Insurance Scheme savings fund. The government is doing the most horrible thing, robbing one group of people with disability to pay another group, robbing Peter to pay Paul, when it comes to the National Disability Insurance Scheme and this bill.

On top of this we see the appalling treatment of people with disability over the summer months by the government's Centrelink robo-debt debacle, a complete mess that has seen many vulnerable people with disability incorrectly issued with debt recovery notices. One example highlighted in The Guardian was of 21-year-old Jack Rogerson, who learned he had a $3,000 debt with Centrelink through a private debt collector. Jack is autistic. He was confused and unsure of how to explain himself. Fortunately for Jack, his mother, Nicole, intervened. Nicole is the head of Autism Awareness Australia, and she said, 'This hard line of the government is just heartless to the core.' Labor continues to be deeply worried by stories like this, and I again call on the government to suspend the Centrelink robo-debt program until the problems are fixed.

Since the NDIS's inception, I am pleased to say it has had bipartisan support across the parliament. I see the assistant minister at the table, and she has been a great advocate. This has been an important feature of the scheme's success. So why are the Liberals holding the NDIS hostage to harsh cuts to vulnerable Australians? Why, I say to the assistant minister, are you trying to rob Peter to pay Paul? Because this government has never given up on the 2014 budget cuts. It has never given up on the whole idea that there are lifters and leaners in this society. It has never given up on the idea of depriving young jobseekers of access to Newstart for five weeks. It seems to think that children growing up in very low-income families who receive family tax benefits do not deserve support, because fundamentally, it seems from the legislation that is before us, the Liberals think that Australians that need support from our social security system are somehow less worthy. So they thought: 'Let's use the NDIS as a way of forcing these unfair cuts through the parliament. Let's try to blackmail the Senate crossbench. Let's threaten the future of the National Disability Insurance Scheme by linking it to the fate of a series of unfair cuts.' That is what they thought, but of course it has backfired dramatically.

In Australia we do not set up a special fund to allocate for schools, hospitals or our Defence Force. Peter Martin in The Sydney Morning Herald was right this week when he said, 'There are no locked boxes.' That is not how governing works. Governments fund their priorities through the Commonwealth budget. So why should the funding of disability services be treated any differently? That is the question that this government has been unable to answer. Departmental officials confirmed that consolidated revenue is used to fund government priorities, which is hardly surprising.

What we also heard at the Senate hearing last October was a chorus of objections from stakeholders in the disability and community advocacy area who are very cynical and confused about the seeming lack of purpose in this bill, and I would like to quote some their observations. Peter Davidson from the Australian Council of Social Service stated:

… it is not obvious why this new fund is needed. Its purpose, apart from the generic one of funding the NDIS, is not clear, and we do not believe it should be supported in its present form.

The Young People in Nursing Homes National Alliance said:

… the alliance does not support the savings fund as constructed in the bill … the notion of a funding shortfall, portrayed in the bill and the minister's speech is, actually, concerning and perplexing.

Stephanie Gotlib from Children and Young People with Disability Australia said:

It is believed that the creation of this special account … places essential disability services and support as non-core business of the Australian government, with their full funding being dependent on other budget-saving measures identified by the government of the day.

Queensland Advocacy Incorporated, in their submission, crystallised this issue by saying:

This is a political strategy that will be at the expense of the most vulnerable Australians.

That really is what it is all about.

This is a government that is neither consulting with the disability sector nor providing stability during a time of change and transition for people with disability. These organisations truly understand the difficulties people with disability face, and the financial pressures that they are under. They also understand the NDIS and the purpose it serves. Their testimony speaks volumes about the actions and motivations of this government. The community can see through the petty politics that lie at the heart of this proposal.

It is time for the government to come clean with the Australian people and acknowledge that the NDIS is fully funded. Yes, it is true that Labor created a special account, the DisabilityCare Australia Fund, in 2013. But, unlike the government's special account, this was an investment account, credited with funding from the Medicare levy increase and used to assist the Commonwealth and the states in meeting their funding agreements under the NDIS. The increase to the Medicare levy was one of numerous funding arrangements and savings that the then Labor government introduced in order to pay for the NDIS over a 10-year period. I have to say I was very pleased at the time that we had bipartisan support. Everyone in the parliament voted for the NDIS, voted for the increase in the Medicare levy and, except for on one occasion, voted for all of these savings measures. So the then opposition, the Liberals, actually voted for these savings that of course went into consolidated revenue. They believed it was adequately funded then; why not now?

This government has signed agreements with the states and territories for the full rollout of the NDIS, and I do congratulate the government for securing these agreements. In the documentation that the Prime Minister has signed, it sets out how much the Commonwealth and the states and territories will contribute to the cost of the full rollout of the NDIS. Of course the money for this is in the federal budget. Don't tell me or anyone on this side of the parliament—or, I would hope, even on the other side—that the Prime Minister signs agreements to spend billions of dollars that he does not have or that he has not accounted for. Such an idea is just not believable.

Minister Porter needs to understand that people with disability actually need a minister who is committed to delivering the NDIS, not one who is asleep at the wheel, creating redundant, politically motivated accounts.

This legislation does not make the NDIS more secure. It does not give it certainty. What happens to the NDIS if these cruel cuts contained in the omnibus bill before the parliament do not pass either the House or the Senate? Is the funding of the NDIS not guaranteed? This is a false choice as well as a terribly cynical one.

This is a government with a very clear agenda to take money from the pockets of vulnerable Australians, and clearly they are prepared to use people with disability as blackmail to see these cuts passed. People with disability, and their families, deserve better. They need a government that puts them first and honours the spirit in which the NDIS was created: to create a fairer society where people with disability are valued participants, able to make their own choices about their care and future.

Let's be clear. The NDIS is fully funded. Labor secured that funding over 10 years. This last week has proved that this legislation, more than anything, is a political stunt from a government with no agenda other than a political one.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme is already transforming the lives of thousands of Australians right across the country. People's lives are being dramatically improved. Yes, there are problems—problems with the IT system, inadequate resourcing of the National Disability Insurance Scheme by the agency and so on. Today is not the day to go through the problems. Of course we are all aware of them, and we will continue to hold the government to account to make sure that we all get it right. But what we all want to do, I think, is make sure that people with disability get the best possible NDIS, the kind of NDIS that people with disability deserve. Accordingly, Labor moves the following amendment:

That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"the House declines to give the bill a second reading because:

(1) the National Disability Insurance Scheme was fully funded when Labor left office;

(2) this bill is nothing more than an attempt by the Government to use the National Disability Insurance Scheme to justify further cruel cuts to the most vulnerable in our community; and

(3) this Bill has unnecessarily caused significant concern in the disability community and threatened community confidence in the future of the National Disability Insurance Scheme—a scheme that Labor created and which will help hundreds of thousands of people with a disability when fully rolled out."

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Jagajaga has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

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 National Disability Insurance Scheme Savings Fund Special Account Bill. It is understandable if people listening in perhaps thought that this was about the omnibus bill from listening to the words of the previous speaker, the member for Jagajaga. However, this bill establishes the NDIS Savings Fund special account, which will help the government meet our financial obligations in relation to the NDIS and secure the funding future for NDIS.

I need not explain the importance that this government places on the success of the NDIS. However, unlike those opposite, we recognise the criticality of making sure the scheme is appropriately funded. Let me make it very, very clear: the Prime Minister and the coalition government are completely committed to the full funding of the NDIS. This bill is testament to the government's commitment to establishing a sound basis for the fully funded scheme. Indeed, the Australian government is committed to ensuring the success of the NDIS. People with a permanent significant disability, their carers, their families and thousands of disability service providers and their staff are dependent on a properly funded scheme.

As I have said before, the NDIS is a life changer for those eligible for the scheme. It will support a better life for around 460,000 Australians under the age of 65 with a permanent and significant disability through individualised and tailored packages of support of their choice. Since my appointment as the Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services, I have met with more than 300 disability sector stakeholders all around Australia. Through these meetings I hear firsthand the opportunities and challenges facing people with a disability. As I move around Australia, speaking with stakeholder groups, I am regularly asked, 'What funding arrangements are in place for the NDIS and will those arrangements be good enough to support eligible people with disability?' More importantly, 'Is the NDIS sustainable, particularly as demands on the scheme increase?'

By 2019-20 the Commonwealth, state and territory governments will be jointly spending around $21.4 billion, with the Commonwealth contributing just over half of this amount. In 2019-20, when the NDIS reaches full scheme, funding from the federal government will come from three main sources: existing programs, the DisabilityCare Australia Fund and the repayment of Commonwealth funding to the states and territories for their existing specialist disability services. This totals around $7 billion.

Unfortunately, Labor failed to specifically set aside adequate funding, and any savings they said they were going use to support the NDIS went into consolidated revenue. Labor's actions have left us with a $4.1 billion funding gap each year. This will rise in future years. Once again, we see typically fiscally irresponsible Labor. That is why the passage of this bill is so important. It will help us identify savings and set those savings aside for the NDIS. The coalition is a responsible government. We are not want to fund this gap by increasing taxes. We do not want to fund this gap by borrowing more money. We do not want to fund this gap by charging a levy. Instead, we want to systematically and transparently identify savings and underspends to plug this gap and guarantee the future of the NDIS. I would also like to note that in November last year, the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee acknowledged the importance of this bill and subsequently recommended its passage. The passage of this bill will give me the ability to confidently respond to stakeholders and say 'Yes, the NDIS is sustainable, and yes, the NDIS is adequately funded.'

I appreciate the opportunity to meet many people with disability and their service providers, and to hear the stories they have to tell. I continue to be impressed when I hear stories about how the NDIS is making a real difference to people's lives. For example, I heard from a young man with a disability who had previously required assistance every morning to get ready for work, and then required someone to drive him to work. Later in the day, he needed the same support in reverse to get home. For this young man, the NDIS meant that he was able to have his car modified so that he could drive himself. Now, with increased confidence, he no longer wants assistance every morning and every afternoon. Not only does he drive himself to work but he now has freedom on the weekends to drive wherever he likes. This new-found freedom empowered him even further, to the point where he no longer needs any assistance. Mr Deputy Speaker, leading an independent life 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.

The return on a properly funded NDIS is invaluable, but that does not mean we do not need to take steps to ensure there are enough funds available to support it. It is true that the NDIS is having an impact on service providers. In some cases, it means a change to their business model. To me, this is a chance for innovation and a chance to do things better. I saw an example of this in Western Sydney, where a group of service providers banded together to establish a consortium, Disability MacArthur. They have thought outside the box and identified a more efficient and cost effective structure by cooperating together. They provide a range of services, all from the one location, sharing back-of-house overheads and expenses. Disability MacArthur has created a sort of menu of day plans and activities that NDIS participants can choose from according to their individual preferences. They can even include the transport to and from the activity. Not only is this an efficient way of maximizing the skills and qualifications of the staff but it also provides flexibility in balancing participants' needs and cost effectiveness of services. This is just one example of the innovation we are seeing across the sector.

Another important point to mention is the jobs that the NDIS is creating. We estimate that the NDIS will create more than 180,000 new jobs across Australia. More jobs means a better economy. But for this to happen, the NDIS must be properly funded.

Labor failed to properly fund the scheme when they had the opportunity. If they are serious about supporting the NDIS, they will support this bill now. Naturally, the growth of the NDIS and the growth of demands on its resources over time will be the greatest challenge to the scheme. As an advocate for this sector it concerns me that those opposite are unable to grasp even the most basic of economic principles: when the money runs out you cannot just keep spending.

The savings fund is a fiscally responsible, forward-thinking strategy. However, this is not a revolutionary concept. The Howard government established the Future Fund with the initial objective of financing the superannuation obligations of Commonwealth public servants. The NDIS must provide a level of certainty to maintain public confidence in the capacity of the scheme to fulfil the requirements of those who are reliant on it. This government would be abandoning our duty if we failed to secure the possible sources of revenue for the scheme. The coalition acknowledges the significant financial commitment required for the scheme to reach its maximum potential, and we are taking necessary steps to achieve this.

I have mentioned it before and I will mention it again: I am appalled at the economic havoc that drives the opposition—a drive to make a political point regardless of the facts—demonstrated by their failure to properly fund the NDIS when they left office in 2013. They produced a lovely, glossy 2013-14 budget document and they identified savings. Unfortunately, those savings were not specified. And, indeed, at the Senate estimates that year, when Treasury was asked whether these measures could be listed in detail, Treasury's response was no. So even Treasury could not identify where Labor had created these savings, and as I would suggest probably another one out of thin air—their magic pudding approach to economics. In fact, if you look back through their budget you will notice that supposedly they funded the NDIS from their surplus of $1.5 billion. Great, except that in the year they identified a $1.5 billion profit, or surplus, they actually delivered a deficit of $18.8 billion—another Swanny special.

The bottom line is they did not provide for NDIS into the future. This is the problem we have now. This government is serious about funding for NDIS, for securing the future and once again we see Shorten using the scare tactics on the most vulnerable people in the community. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and the coalition government are committed to funding the full scheme.

Like my responsible colleagues, I am delighted to support this bill. By establishing a stable financial platform for the NDIS, we are demonstrating commitment to a scheme that is one of the most important social reforms seen for many years. I am particularly pleased that the fund will draw from underspends from the NDIS and other portfolio savings. As I demonstrated before with that young man with a car that was changed so that he could drive it, whilst that was an up-front expense, it has now over the longer term meant a lower cost to NDIS.

Over the next 10 years the NDIS Savings Fund Special Account will be able to receive credits, which will be available to fund the continuing operations of the NDIS. These savings accounts provide a secure mechanism to isolate and preserve these funds so they can be specifically directed to the NDIS. This means that money designated originally to be spent on this sector will remain within it.

I look forward to the successful passage of this bill and encourage those opposite to make the responsible choice to support it and to show their commitment to the full funding of NDIS. I commend this bill to the House.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

After listening to that, I have to say, if the member's speech were filed in a bookshop, I think it would be in the science fiction/fantasy section—but nevertheless. I want to refer briefly, before commencing my substantive remarks, to the comments of the member for Jagajaga, who spoke before. She recounted the case of constituents of mine: Mrs Johnson's sons, who were being reviewed. I note to the House and draw the House's attention to the fact that I wrote to the Minister for Human Services on 7 October regarding this tragic case and systemic issues arising. I received an acknowledgement on 20 October from the department saying a response would come. I wrote a letter to the minister on 20 January asking if he proposed to respond to the letter. In desperation, after listening to his kind offer in question time last week to raise constituent matters with him, there are now some questions on the notice paper today asking if he proposes to respond and, if not, could he resign and give someone else a go, thank you.

The NDIS is one of the most significant social policy reforms of recent times. It is a remarkable initiative introduced and fully funded by Labor. It joins the list of social policy reforms that will stand the test of the ages. Indeed, it was first proposed through a major inquiry by the Whitlam government. But, unfortunately, as history records, that government was felled before reforms like an NDIS could be fully delivered through legislation. The Hawke and Keating governments instituted Medicare, which those opposite have done their best and continue to do their best to smash. And I note that a Fraser government refused to back an NDIS or Medicare.

This bill purports to allow the Commonwealth to meet its funding obligations in relation to the NDIS. Given Labor had that sewn up three years ago, the very purpose of this bill is redundant and it is a political stunt. It is one more pointless pieces of legislation by a government intent on incremental cuts to social security measures that hit the most vulnerable. If only they would put a fraction of this effort into budget repair that was fair. But, no, sadly, it is no surprise that the Senate inquiry by the government dominated Community Affairs Legislation Committee recommended that this bill be passed despite the number of submissions calling every aspect of this bill into question. It built on ominous signs, under this government, of the first stages of the rollout: mounting government stuff ups, the failure to resource the rollout, stuffing the IT rollout, failing to reach agreement with the states on time—although they do seem to have eventually got there—and the outrageous report in the ACT of secret caps on government services.

To summarise our concerns with the bill, the first one is the Liberal lie that we left government with the NDIS unfunded. The basis of the bill is deceptively simple. It seeks to establish a special account, and what can be credited to it to fund the operation of the NDIS, but it is a flawed starting point. In 2013 to 2014 Labor set out the funding arrangements for the first 10 years of operation—well past full implementation. There were various reforms—and those opposite actually voted for most of them—to the private health insurance rebate; to retirement incomes; an increase in the Medicare levy, which all Australians pay; and a number of other long-term savings measures, most of which were supported by those opposite. They have been clearly outlined and there is no shortfall. Consolidated revenue is used to fund the NDIS in accordance with expenditure priorities.

Clearly what is lacking is not the funding that was provided at the time but this government's commitment to the NDIS as a national priority. Listening to the previous speaker, the member for Ryan, I heard much talk of the economy. It is a separate debate to try and explain to those opposite that fiscal management of the budget is actually a separate thing from management of the economy, but that difference is lost on the small-minded bean counters that seemed to populate the ranks opposite. History shows they cannot manage the economy, much as they spend their time focusing solely on the budget. Really, the government's complete mismanagement of the budget is a separate issue and a debate for another day. It is true that the budget situation has deteriorated under this government, with outrageous spending commitments that they did not offset and did not fund. If only they had had the same fiscal discipline as the previous Labor government and the member for Lilley when he was Treasurer, we would not be in this situation.

Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—

You can have a look at it!

Ms Ryan interjecting—

That is true; exactly. Let the Hansard not record laughter. The Productivity Commission, in its inquiry report Disability care and support, at page 85, recommended:

… year to year through the NDIS should be viewed as a core funding responsibility of government and met from claims on general government revenue …

That is from the Productivity Commission. In its submission to the inquiry by the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee into this bill, Children and Young People with Disability Australia said, 'This,'—that is, this piece of legislation—'puts funding for the NDIS in a precarious position.'

There are two funds for the same purpose, because this bill would muddy rather than clarify funding arrangements for the operation of the NDIS. The Disability Care Australia Fund established by Labor is credited with funding from the 0.5 per cent increase in the Medicare levy. So we will have two accounts for the same purpose, if this bill passes—to what end? It is worth noting that the NDIS special account will sit within the Consolidated Revenue Fund, according to the explanatory memoranda, so it is even more pointless.

In its submission to the Senate inquiry, Children and Young People with Disability Australia said:

… it is critical to recognise the Scheme as a core area of government spending.

…   …   …

The need for a 'special account' in addition to the DisabilityCare Australia Fund to hold funds for the NDIS is therefore unclear.

Those on this side of the chamber know that the real reason for this legislation is as a further excuse to dismantle the Australian social safety net and to pick on the vulnerable, and to try and park those savings there. It is really no different from the pea-and-thimble trick that is the childcare reforms they introduced recently. It is an excuse to prosecute the 2014 budget which was roundly rejected by the Australian people. It is no surprise—

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the back door.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right—through the back door. It is no surprise that the savings measures proposed thus far for possible credit to the special account include $1.5 billion of cuts to welfare recipients. This includes $62 million the government believes that it will get from the conduct of up to 90,000 eligibility reviews of disability support pension recipients as well as 30,000 medical reviews—something that I have raised once or twice before and that we will keep on about.

The 2016-17 budget papers note:

These measures demonstrate the Government’s ongoing commitment to ensure that those who need assistance receive that assistance, with savings from increased integrity contributing to the sustainability of important welfare programmes such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme …

It sounds very reassuring, except that these measures relate to people with Down syndrome, the severely intellectually disabled, those with paraplegia and those with multiple diagnoses so impaired by their disability that it was accepted decades ago by the very agencies now conducting the reviews under government duress that they would never work again. This is an extraordinary and avoidable burden on the carers forced to adhere to ridiculous demands for specialists reports, IQ tests and documentation spanning diagnoses that will never change. I wonder whether that $62 million of supposed savings actually takes into account the cost to the budget in Medicare of running around and collecting multiple specialists reports—I would almost bet that they do not, but that is another matter which we are pursuing—or the cost of the staff required to implement this flawed policy. Really, you have to wonder what those opposite actually hope to achieve by linking the conduct of eligibility reviews for the most severely disabled in our society with their capacity to access the NDIS. If the government is serious about reducing welfare fraud it needs to take a much more sophisticated approach to undertaking these reviews and to the selection of targets for budget savings.

We have all been talking about and will continue to highlight the matters of the robo-debt scandal. These kinds of measures demonstrate not only the government's commitment to disabled Australians—or lack thereof—but its commitment to the wholesale pillaging of their critical income support. I will quote from another submission to the Senate inquiry, that from Disabled People's Organisations Australia:

Creating trade-offs between income support and disability support is counter-productive, short-sighted and does not promote the human rights objectives of the NDIS. It is unconscionable to shift people on low incomes, including people with disability, further into poverty in order to create savings for the NDIS.

That is what this government is doing.

I will turn to the issues of ministerial responsibility and the governance arrangements. One of the few things that this three- to four-page bill actually does is hand responsibility for determining what is credited to the account to the Minister for Social Services. The explanatory memorandum mentions that the minister:

will be solely responsible for the day-to-day policy and management of the special account—

and that credits might come from various areas, such as:

or—

This is badly conceived. Young People in Nursing Homes National Alliance said in its submission to the Senate inquiry:

The fact that the Bill enables the Minister alone to decide ‘deposits’ to the fund; and the PM and Cabinet to make discretionary payments to the fund, make this a poorly designed long term funding mechanism for the scheme.

A related problem … is that it casts the NDIS as a program of the Minster rather than a truly independent scheme … This is one of the key reasons the Productivity Commission recommended an insurance model that would be free of the budget related political tussles that plagued the old disability system:

…   …   …

… the NDIS needs a funding formula that is transparent, predictable, viable and sufficient.

In the Productivity Commission's wide-ranging inquiry into disability care and support, it was noted:

… the Insurance Council of Australia … identified four significant sources of managerial risk for a scheme — ignorance, self-interest, ideology and political interference.

Every single reason comes to pass with this construct and with the passage of this legislation. It is sadly prescient. Yet here is the government, so early into the implementation of the NDIS, proposing to build these very risks directly into the NDIA's external rules, the legislation and the governance model that frame the scheme's operation. This is exactly what the Productivity Commission and those inquiries which informed the scheme said they had to avoid.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member for Bruce will be given an opportunity at that time.