Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024. We are two years into this lamentable government, and we finally have this bill in front of the Senate today. It's an issue that the now minister flagged as a priority when he was shadow minister, and, as with so much that this government has failed to do, we have seen nothing but hand-wringing from the government on the NDIS for the past two years. But it's good that, at the end of the long and winding road, we can be here to talk about this bill.

In essence, we've got a very peculiar situation here with this entire bill. Let's be frank: with the rhetoric from this government over the past two years, we know that the NDIS has changed lives for the better, with more than 660,000 Australians and their families in some way, shape or form relying on what the scheme is doing. The coalition is very proud of our extremely strong record in supporting the NDIS, essentially taking it from fewer than 50,000 participants to more than half a million in our time in government. We did the real hard work of taking what we inherited in its infancy, with many flaws, and turning it into a viable scheme for more than half a million Australians. We remain committed to fully funding the scheme to ensure that this demand driven scheme was able to grow where it grew.

We inherited a scheme that was underinvested in by the Labor Party. It was a scheme that was established in the chaos of the Rudd-Gillard government. In that time, however, the coalition did often make the point—and have made the point to this day—that the scheme has to be sustainable and that the scheme's very future for people with disabilities and their families will rely on the scheme remaining sustainable. We spoke about that in government, and we were absolutely criticised by the then opposition for talking about sustainability. In opposition, the now minister stood in the way, day after day, of coalition attempts to put the scheme on a sustainable footing. The now minister accused us in the coalition of 'pearl-clutching kabuki theatre', claiming the NDIS was tracking just as predicted and that the coalition was hyping fictional cost blowouts. While he was shadow minister, he also said, 'You can't move around the corridors of parliament in Canberra without tripping over a coalition minister whispering, "The scheme is unsustainable." I'm here to tell you today that that's a lie.' That's another quote from the minister.

The minister spent his time in opposition blocking every single attempt of the former coalition government to do some of the work that is now contained in this bill. He went to the election and said: 'None of that's necessary. The scheme is on track. It's tracking as predicted. There are no cost blowouts and there are no sustainability issues. It's just those terrible Liberals talking about it.' Then, the minute he got elected, the message changed overnight. All of a sudden, this scheme, that was tracking just as predicted, according to this minister, was on an unsustainable footing and needed to be reined in. Now we find ourselves here today.

Further, in the lead-up to the election, the minister tried to argue that the former coalition government made cuts to the NDIS. We know that you can't trust Labor when they talk about cuts, even though the coalition rescued the scheme by investing, at that time, $157.8 billion to support more than 500,000 Australians with a disability. So that's the great hypocrisy of it all.

I think every advocate and person in the disability sector knows that what shadow minister Shorten said before the election was entirely the opposite of what Minister Shorten has said since he's been in government. And now we find this bill—the culmination of his arguments that the scheme is not on a sustainable footing. You'd think in two years a minister who felt as though the scheme wasn't on a sustainable footing, that the scheme needed to be reined in and costs reduced, as he's argued consistently. Since the election, the minister has been very consistent. He's had one thing to say about the NDIS, which is that it has to be reined in: spending's got to be reduced, and ultimately the only way to make it sustainable is to reduce the number of people who get access to the scheme and reduce the amount that people on the scheme are entitled to. He has been very consistent about that. But when you're the minister you actually have to do things. You actually have to make changes. You just can't diagnose problems forever. He has failed to make the transition from opposition to government, where, once you get into government, your job is to not just diagnose problems but actually fix them.

The minister talks a lot about abuse of the scheme. Well, abuse of the NDIS has got worse on his watch. Abuse by people with the ill intention of defrauding the scheme has gone into overdrive since this minister has been in the big chair. It's not something he spoke that much about before the election but it's gone into overdrive. We've learned through a number of Administrative Appeals Tribunal cases what some claimants have been arguing for under this minister's framework. There are people who go to the AAT and claim that, under the NDIS, taxpayers should fund some of the following: swimming pools, sex workers and round-the-world trips. And it's all getting worse on this government's watch.

In fact, through Senate estimates and a number of different forums, we've asked the minister to rule out the use of prostitutes under the NDIS. Taxpayers unequivocally support the NDIS and are willing to support the tens of billions of dollars—$40 billion—that it costs to run the NDIS, provided that the money is used wisely.

We now see a scheme that's out of control. We've seen wait times double since this government came to power. The scheme and the agency is being run into the ground by this government, and they've been there for only two years. Boy, what could we have done in the past two years? It has taken them two years to get this bill before the Senate today, and may I say that there is a long way for this bill to go—because the litany of concerns with this bill are very long. In some respects it looks like a rushed bill, but how on earth could a bill be rushed when you've had two years to do something? This was supposed to be a high priority of this government. We're two years in.

he Senate today and may I say that there is a long for this bill to go, because the litany of concerns with this bill are very long. In some respects it looks like a rushed bill. How on earth could have Bilby rushed when you've had two years to do something? This was supposed to be a high priority of this government. We're two years in.

Here are some concerns raised by stakeholders—not all of them, because that would take up all day. But it's not clear from the bill what a participant can do if they don't agree with an outcome of a needs assessment. This particular stakeholder said: 'The NDIA decisions are notorious for being inconsistent and variable. There doesn't appear to be an avenue for review.' The second concern raised by stakeholders is: 'The new definition says the NDIS will only fund eight categories of supports. These are based on selected elements out of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. However, by leaving out other elements of that convention, the bill excludes some supports from NDIS funding. For example, the convention recognises the right to live where a person chooses and with who they choose, as well as rights to work in employment. However, this bill does not appear to include support that would specifically facilitate participants' economic participation.'

The review recommendations contained a range of numerous contentions. The drafting of the bill lacked opportunities for consultation. A stakeholder said, 'Our position and that of those we represent is that, without examination and scrutiny of the full and complete proposed changes to the bill, it would deliver a result in the future that looks akin to Frankenstein's monster.' Participants, their families and providers would be scrabbling for fair and equitable access to the scheme and supports they need. Another stakeholder said: 'What is and is not an NDIS support must not be so strict as to not allow a participant to explain why it's reasonable and necessary for a request for support to be funded.' The APTOS will be incorporated as an interim measure to determine what is and is not an NDIS support, yet it has been widely recognised that APTOS has failed. There are also no provisions about providers of last resort.

Just to stay on the point of the stakeholders being upset with regard to the lack of transparency and co-design and the approach to the development of this bill, remember that the Prime Minister came to office saying: 'We are going to be an open, transparent and accountable government. We are going to let the light shine in.' There has been a worrying trend with this government—and it seems almost uniform—in its consultations of the use of non-disclosure agreements. If they're genuinely consulting with the sector, but the sector can only find out or be consulted on the basis that it agrees—presumably by fear of prosecution by the government not to tell anybody about it—how on earth will that be genuine consultation? NDAs—that is, non-disclosure agreements—have not been a feature of genuine consultation with the federal government, but they're an Albanese government feature. It will be written that NDAs became a feature of government consultation under a Labor government, and that is not genuine co-design. They can call it co-design, but, if they're hand-picking and selecting who they supposedly consult with and those people are unable to share information with counterparts, peers or even their own members if they're a representative organisation, that's not co-design and that's not consultation. That is a very worrying feature of this government. Let's be frank: you only get people to sign NDAs when you are trying to hide something. NDAs are not there if you're proud of the product that you are consulting on. NDAs are there if you're concerned or if you want to hide something from the Australia public.

We've now had the minister concede that he was wrong before the election. Before the election, when he said that the NDIS was tracking just as predicted and that the coalition was hyping fictional cost blowouts, either he was genuinely ignorant of the truth, which is possible, or he deliberately deceived the entire disability sector, community and NDIS participants when he made those statements, knowing they were incorrect. In the end, that is up to Australians to judge.

This coalition opposition is not going to use the more than 600,000 Australians with a disability and their families as some kind of political football or some kind of opportunity to embarrass the government. They are Australians who deserve honesty. They are Australians who are realistic and understand the strengths and weaknesses of the scheme. They are the best people to turn to when you need answers as to what to do next, which is why it is so disappointing that the minister has ignored these people, that he has not consulted with them and that he has not engaged with them. It's as if this government and the minister have gone into the bunker and decided: 'We're going to reverse our position from before the election. We're going to do the opposite of what we said before the election. So let's put the flak jackets on, get into the bunker and just do this—not consult intelligently, fairly, openly and transparently with the people who these changes will most significantly impact.' Having done so, there is now huge anxiety across the community, and I think that's a fundamental error that this minister has made. The suspicion and concern now felt by many participants and their families are a direct response not just to the mixed messages from saying one thing before an election and another thing afterward but also to the thought processes of the minister and the government. Of course, an example of this that's raised commonly is children with ASD or developmental delay. We know that, since the state governments have vacated the field, parents of those children have nowhere to go but the NDIS, yet the uncertainty and lack of supports after this bill are causing huge levels of anxiety.

That said, the coalition will support sensible measures in this bill—measures that the coalition actually sought to implement but that Labor actively campaigned against. At the appropriate stage, the coalition will move amendments that will improve the scheme, preserve the scheme's integrity and ensure the sustainability of the scheme to allow it to continue, improving the lives of some of the most vulnerable in our community.

However, insufficient time has been provided for proper consultation on the bill with the sector and the community, who have expressed widespread misgivings about the current legislation. The opportunity for thorough consultation is important in bringing the NDIS back onto a sustainable footing in a manner that does not disadvantage or negatively impact on participants most in need, and it is concerning that the Community Affairs Legislation Committee was not given the opportunity. So, as I finish up, I move the second reading amendment circulated in my name:

At the end of the motion, add "and the bill be referred to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for further inquiry and report by 5 August 2024".

(Time expired)