Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I just wanted, at the start of the committee stage, to acknowledge some people. In my second reading speech I acknowledged those beyond the parliament and the government who had been instrumental in bringing the legislation to this point, but I did want to thank Senator McLucas and her office for the courtesies extended to my office and to me during this process. I also wanted to thank Senator Macklin's office and acknowledge the work of Senator Moore, as the chair of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, in stewarding the inquiry into the NDIS legislation. I think Senator Moore really ranks with Senator Payne when it comes to the discipline she imposes upon committees that she has chaired. I would also like to thank Senator Siewert, as deputy chair, for her contribution there. It is also important to acknowledge the committee secretariat of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Dr Ian Holland, and his staff, who worked extremely hard in a very compressed time frame.

I also thank the 1,597 people and organisations who made submissions to that inquiry. We will, in the course of this morning, see some of the fruits of the work of that committee come to bear as some of the recommendations that were made by the committee are taken up. I should also acknowledge officers of FaHCSIA, for their very hard work in bringing the legislation to this place, and Mr David Bowen.

I also want to express my pleasure that the notice of motion that was circulated last night in relation to the proposal to guillotine debate on the NDIS legislation looks as though it will not come to pass. I in no way reflect on Senator McLucas in relation to that motion because I know these things are determined by others in this place with chamber responsibilities. I am sure Senator McLucas was instrumental in seeing that motion not come to pass by her internal advocacy in the government because I know she, of all people, would not want there to be any curtailing of debate on this legislation.

I want to move to what will probably be the least significant issue raised in this committee stage, so let me get it out of the way first—that is, the issue of the proposed name change for the NDIS. Minister Macklin, in a press release on 18 March—two days ago; I am losing track of time—headed 'Extra funding for playgroups to give kids a better start', announced on the second page in paragraph 14 a name change. This is not where I naturally would look for an announcement about a change of name for the NDIS, nevertheless, it was there. In the release it said:

Ms Macklin said the Government was taking a big step this week toward peace of mind for people with disability, their families and carers with the passage of the NDIS Bill through Parliament.

In another step that this care and support is about to become real for Australians with disability and their families, we now have a name for the National Disability Insurance Scheme—

I thought we had one, but anyway it goes on—

‘DisabilityCare Australia’.

The release continues:

The name has been chosen based on consultations with people with disability, their families and carers, peak organisations and the general public.

DisabilityCare Australia reflects the principles of the NDIS—that all Australians with significant or profound disability receive the care and support they need, regardless of how they acquired that disability.

I was a little surprised that the proposed name change was buried—that is the only way to put it—at the bottom of a press release in relation to funding for playgroups.

There was some reaction from stakeholders in relation to the proposed name change, and I will just go through a few of those. Lesley Hall, who is well known to all of us presently in the chamber, the chief executive of the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations said:

It does not represent what the scheme is about …

The scheme is not just about caring, it's about supporting people to have to get on and do what they want in life.

She continued to say:

She said the word "care" had implied the scheme was linked to welfare and paternalism.

David Heckendorf, who has cerebral palsy, said:

Oh, come on guys! Really? Disability Care? Why not go all the way and call it Crip Care? …

It is not about caring. It is about empowering or enabling, equipping, etc. Can't we be a little more imaginative?

And Jackie Softly said:

I hate the name. But I worry more that the name reflects the way the powers that be see it. Now that is very scary …

Kelly Vincent, the Dignity for Disability member of parliament in the South Australian Legislative Council, who Senator Ruston made reference to before, said in response to the proposed name change:

We aren't a scheme for sick people needing care—we're people with disabilities that need to be supported, assisted and enabled …

We don't need the NDIS name change to further perpetuate patronising attitudes.

I was surprised about the manner of the announcement of the name change, and it would seem from that selection of quotes that there is some concern in the sector among some people with disability that the name might not be an accurate reflection of the nature of the scheme.

My questions to the parliamentary secretary are these. Can she supply some additional background as to the process that was gone through in relation to seeking to rebrand the NDIS and whether DisabilityCare Australia is the settled name for the NDIS? Is it intended to be a trading name that will replace National Disability Insurance Scheme? Will the National Disability Insurance Scheme Launch Transition Agency be renamed to the DisabilityCare Australia Launch Transition Agency? I am interested in the process that led to the new name. I am also interested in the manner of its announcement and what the intention of the government is as to how exactly it will be used.