Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to begin by acknowledging my colleague Senator Steele-John and the fact that he has been in this chamber all day today and, possibly, may be all day tomorrow and the day after. I would like to specifically acknowledge his wisdom in all matters of life, I think perhaps way beyond his age, but also his lived experience in the debate here tonight and, since he has been in the Senate, the fact that he has tirelessly fought as a disability advocate in the Australian parliament for so many people. I would say it's millions of people around this nation.

I had a couple of other personal reflections when I was thinking about this debate on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024. I remembered the words of the previous Clerk of the Senate, Dr Rosemary Laing. She was talking once about the committee system. I think this was going back to around 2014 or 2015. She was talking about the Senate committee system being so overloaded with work and the fact that we had inquiry after inquiry—references inquiries, mostly—and the Senate was having to bring in extra staff to cope with the workload. I remember her lamenting—she said this to me privately, but I'm sure she won't mind me saying this in the Senate—that perhaps the days of the great reform work that the Senate committees had done were over at that time because we were under so much pressure to do all these inquiries. She specifically talked about the work that was done through the Senate committee system to develop the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the years of hard work that had gone into that from senators across all political parties and what a great reform that was. I do believe that there have been many other reforms since then, but I want to acknowledge how important this is. We need to think about the importance of this reform and the legacy of the government at the time, the Labor government, who are in power now. We were talking tonight about the sustainability of the system, which is just a code for budget cuts for such a critical reform. What a shame that is for the legacy of this reform.

Senator Steele-John and many of my colleagues have made very strong contributions today about why this bill shouldn't be supported. It's a big deal. It will make huge changes to the scheme that will result in significant harm to people who rely on the NDIS. It's been in inquiry for three months and there were three hearings held and over 200 submissions made to this parliament. And there has been significant community backlash to the bill, with organisations and disabled people and their families sharing the harm it will do to them.

I also remember, as a new senator in 2012, going to a half-day forum on the NDIS out at Devonport. It was for decision-makers, and it was really to help us understand what was coming down the line with this significant reform. I remember sitting in this building in Devonport thinking, 'Wow, this is big and it's complicated and it's critically important.' Of course, like a lot of reforms, it hasn't been perfect. I know Senator Steele-John, as the Greens spokesperson, has talked about concerns around the NDIS over the years and has actually delivered significant improvements because of his work.

But the government in this case has not made a good enough effort to engage with these criticisms. It has instead undertaken a bad-faith campaign to undermine the scheme by talking about fraud and noncompliance. I want to go a little bit more into that. For those who weren't aware, it has been mentioned in here today that Mr Shorten in the other place has spent $600,000 on a speechwriter for himself as the NDIS minister. But the government commissioned RedBridge for $400,000 to pull together some focus groups and look at messaging and how to spin this or sell significant cuts to such a critical reform in this nation. The RedBridge work provided the government with the messaging they needed in order to reach a level of community acceptance that would allow this bill not to be questioned. They said:

… when we presented rorts, fraud, and unreasonable pricing as posing an existential threat to the NDIS, we were able to create an environment in which respondents were amenable to reforms designed to counter these things.

Informed by the RedBridge messaging work, the government has been talking about fraud, dodgy service providers and participants spending money on things like holidays and alcohol to distract the public from this terrible bill. Despite these claims of fraud being made by the NDIA, they were not able to provide any proof when questioned by my excellent colleague recently during Senate estimates.

Let's go back to the budget cuts because that's what we're dealing with here tonight. We're dealing with a government that needs to find money. Of course that's a reasonable operating constraint for any government at any time. But when you're spending half a trillion dollars on nuclear submarines that are arguably not needed—in fact, they are certainly not needed, in my opinion and the opinion of my party. That's half a trillion dollars, and here we are, trying to take $14 billion out of one of the most critical reforms this country has seen in generations. The budget included a cut of $14.4 billion from the NDIS, and that will be achieved by this legislation tonight. When Senator Steele-John talked about this when it was announced in the budget, he said:

In a cost-of-living crisis, the Labor government is choosing to remove $14.4 billion in funding from the NDIS that will lead to disabled people not getting the support they need when they need it.

This government has chosen to abandon disabled people. It has abandoned NDIS workers, and it is passing the buck to the millions of Australians who undertake informal carer roles.

The ALP have decided that it's more important to fund billions in handouts to weapons manufacturers than it is to support our community and the many disabled people that rely on the NDIS to live happy and healthy lives. Every single one of us should have that right. It's clear there is not an essential service that Labor won't cut to fund nuclear submarines and fossil fuel handouts—which, by the way, amount to roughly $46 billion—to companies that pay very little tax or no tax at all, who are polluting our planet, slowly cooking the oceans and so on. This government has betrayed the disability community and it should be ashamed of itself.

Let's talk a little bit about the process around this bill. Or, to be more specific, let's talk about the bad government process. This is a bill that has been created behind closed doors. It was rushed through the parliament to save money in a budget that could have been saved in other places. Disability organisations were required to sign non-disclosure agreements in order to be consulted on the bill. The government spent, as I mentioned before, $600,000 on a speechwriter. I think, Senator Steele-John, your contribution would be worth significantly more than that. There's a life after parliament writing speeches!

On the substance of the bill, this bill sets up the framework for pushing people off the NDIS into supports that the government reckons will be provided by states and territories. Well—reality check—there is no possible way that the states and territories can provide those supports in time in a way that is nationally consistent and that will guarantee no disabled person becomes worse off under Labor's NDIS plan. Removing people from the scheme to services that don't yet exist is outrageously poor planning with obviously harmful consequences. This bill will make it easier to prevent people from accessing the NDIS and it will make it easier for bureaucrats to remove people from the scheme.

The bill is set to prescribe specifics of what you can and what you can't get from the NDIS. This is a blatant attempt to control the choices that participants make. Choice and control is one of the central pillars of the NDIS, and removing it in this way makes it clear that the government prioritises its bottom line over the wellbeing of the disability community in this country. The bill will see a restriction of supports available through the scheme. It will limit our ability to have NDIS plans that are based on our individual needs, and it will replace 'reasonable and necessary' with a new single definition of NDIS supports. This new NDIS support list will only provide funding for supports that meet a new narrow definition, defined by politicians holding the NDIS purse strings.

This bill will also allow bureaucrats to demand that NDIS participants undergo mandatory psychiatric or physical examinations within 90 days in order to make a decision about whether their scheme access should be revoked. This will traumatise or retraumatise many participants and could result in getting unfairly kicked off the scheme. How is someone supposed to get an appointment with a psychiatrist to undergo an assessment within 90 days when waitlists are over a year? As we heard from Senator O'Sullivan, it's two years in some cases in Western Australia.

There are so many methods and processes mentioned in this bill that haven't been defined, including the method for turning an assessment of support needs into a budget. These vague references to methods that calculate budgets are a recipe for robodebt 2, and the Greens will not allow it. This bill will enable the minister to make significant changes to the scheme in the future without community consultation. So much for 'nothing about us without us'! There's room for talking about the need to restrict ministerial powers. Imagine if a minister could snap their fingers and remove a lifesaving service from your life?

As I mentioned earlier, and many other people have mentioned in this chamber tonight, there are significant community concerns about this bill. This bill should not pass the Senate; it should be sent back to inquiry to give the community more time to make their concerns known and to enable further parliamentary scrutiny. Disabled people, those that love them, and anyone who cares about the integrity of government social services should make their feelings known about this harmful bill.