Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to take note yet again—I think this is probably about the 10th time that we have risen to take note of the government's abject failure in providing any transparency to this place on something as important as the NDIS funding. On the fig leaf of reason for the IPP is that it will prejudice relationships with states and territories—well, der! Of course it will, because the minister just mentioned it. The states and territories have even said that what you're putting forward in this legislation does not reflect the agreement that you had with the states and territories last year, so it will only prejudice state and territory relations because of your own incompetence and lack of transparency. So here we go again with another demonstration of the abject failure and incompetency of this government to manage not just this scheme but every single aspect of government that you have turned your hand to so far.

This motion was agreed to in September last year, and I commend Senator Steele-John for this motion. It may surprise some in the gallery and elsewhere to know that this is one of the things that we do agree on very on much—the government's handling of and lack of transparency on this matter. The only thing I don't agree with Senator Steele-John on is the need for nuclear submarines, but, apart from that, we're on a unity ticket in relation to what he said.

Tonight Labor is facing its biggest test in relation to the NDIS. For two years they've conducted a review that wasn't necessary, because the problems and solutions were already very clear. They've just shown that they do not have the ability to do it.

The minister was just talking about 'getting the NDIS back on track'—a catchy name for the legislation! This is one of the worst of pieces of draft legislation I think I have ever seen. It was very clear that, of the package of recommendations in the report that they commissioned—which took two years and included some 26 recommendations and 139 subrecommendations—this deals with just four, in part. So we're not even getting the comprehensive actions that their own report requires. They're putting all of the hard decisions out until past the next election. You could actually call this saving-Bill-Shorten legislation.

Of course, we will work with the government in good faith on this, and we will certainly be talking to our friends the Greens in relation to this. I'm not the shadow minister, but I'm sure we will be.

Let's have a look at this legislation. In fact, first, let's have a look at their lack of transparency. As minister, I introduced a monthly report. The first thing they did was get rid of the monthly report. They now refuse, even at estimates, to answer additional estimates questions in relation to additional estimate variations. They did that at the last estimates.