Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Hansard source

I present the first report of the 47th Parliament of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme on general issues concerning the NDIS, and I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

What has always been a consistent theme of the NDIS committee is that it has generally tried to work in a very bipartisan way and come together in consensus over how issues need to be dealt with. That's because most of us appreciate—and most of us in this place and in the other place understand—that the NDIS is a scheme for the most vulnerable in our community. It's for Australians who will need support over their lifetime because they have permanent and lifelong disabilities. I must say that, while most of the committee's recommendations have been supported, there does seem to be an unwillingness by the majority of the committee—which is not opposition, Greens or crossbench run—to not acknowledge any shortfalls and to not outline in any way, shape or form concerns around the transparency, longevity and sustainability of the scheme and how it is going to best serve those Australians and their families who will require it into the future.

It is also important to note that this inquiry had a look back over the 10 years that this committee has been in place and the recommendations that this committee has made over the last 10 years, in terms of what has adopted and what has been ignored. I think Senator Steele-John would share with me the sentiment that there are so many recommendations that have been made time and time and time again, yet the NDIA in many, many instances—if not the minister themselves—have failed to take action on these. Many of these suggestions are actually not that earth-shattering. We're not talking about fundamental shifts in the NDIS. We're talking about things like working with participants to access a draft copy of their plan so that they can then make sure that what they actually need is in it and that the disabilities that they have are appropriately recognised. It would ensure that, if there are things in there that they are not going to use, those can come out. That might blow people's minds. There's a thing on my son's plan that I'm not going to use. There's a substantial amount of money over three years that is not going to get used. I don't need it. But, if I had seen a draft plan beforehand, I would have said to them: 'Take that part out. I don't need it. I'm not going to use it.'

This is a recommendation that has been made time and time and time again, yet it still seems impossible for the agency to comprehend that this is something participants are asking for and their families are asking for. This is even something that providers would be keen to see because it means that everyone has surety as they go forward over their NDIS scheme. But unfortunately, since we've seen this government come in, I have to say that I just don't get the sense that Minister Shorten is interested in it. I don't get the sense that his heart is in this. I sense that he is not really that keen. He missed out on being Prime Minister. This is the runner-up role. He's Minister Shorten, not Prime Minister Shorten. He didn't get the big prize. He ended up with the NDIS, and I feel like he is consistently expressing his disappointment in himself that he didn't quite get the gig he was actually going for.

The way Minister Shorten has changed his narrative almost seems bitter, in terms of comparing how he used to talk about the NDIS when he was in opposition with how he talks now when he is the minister responsible for it. He used to talk all the time about any discussion that the coalition in government tried to have with him about ensuring that the scheme was sustainable and targeted to the people who required it, about the scheme not being misconstrued or misused and about state governments not stepping up where they should. He accused the coalition of 'pearl-clutching kabuki theatre'—fortunately, my pearls are being restrung at the moment, so I can't give you a demonstration of that—claiming that the NDIS was tracking just as predicted. We knew when we were in government that it was not the case and that it was growing exponentially faster than anyone expected, so we wanted to have conversations. We wanted to talk both as an NDIS committee and from the government's perspective—when it was a coalition government—to ensure that we could shore up the scheme and make sure it was sustainable. But ever since this government came in there has been a complete change of tune from Minister Shorten, who is now saying that he's going to cap the growth of the scheme, but he won't tell us how he is planning to do that. This is causing extraordinary angst, and this is coupled by NDIS Monday every time we come in, because those opposite refuse to provide the documents around the financial sustainability mechanism.

While I am very proud to be part of this committee, to present the reports, and to acknowledge the importance of including people with a disability in the planning for their lives, ensuring that choice and control remains at the very heart of the NDIS, we need to be able to see how this financial sustainability model is going to work. But we know those opposite have very little interest in transparency. They will not be open and honest with the Australian people. This is causing unnecessary angst, and the work of our committee will continue as we seek answers to ensure that those people and their families who rely on the NDIS continue to be supported.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.