Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Hansard source

Perhaps I can start at the beginning. At the beginning of your contribution, Senator Pocock, you indicated that there were criticisms of the operation of the scheme that were pretty unhelpful in the way they make our participants in the scheme and their families feel. I agree with you and I think the government agrees with you. It is not only for the proper public policy reasons that the reforms are being undertaken but also in order to establish public confidence in the long-term operation of the scheme.

The bill is in many respects enabling of reform rather than finally determining reform, and setting out a process to undertake reform rather than determining the kinds of questions that have been put thus far in the debate. It is designed to require the NDIA to provide participants with a clear status of the basis upon which they enter the scheme by meeting the disability requirements, the early intervention requirements or both. This bill will do some of that work. It will create a new reasonable and necessary budget framework for the preparation of NDIS participants' plans. It will set out the needs assessment process and it will set out the method for calculating the total amount of the participant's flexible funding, with funding for stated supports for new framework plans to be specified in legislative instruments and in NDIS rules. Much of this work must be undertaken by the co-design process, the consultative process that the government has set out. Earlier today I was taken to some of these issues.

Of course, the term 'co-design' has a meaning for people who deliver services from government. In the bureaucracy here in Canberra, people understand what 'co-design' means. Organisations who interact with government and represent people understand what it means. I'm not sure that it has an ordinary meaning for ordinary people in the street, who might not understand what that is designed to do. The minister has arranged for the department website to set out how co-design is supposed to operate from the department's perspective.

In relation to the list that you just took me to, that list has been developed with the states over the last month. It primarily reflects the current guidelines, with some practical changes, and government will continue to accept feedback on the lists over time. Just for clarity, the two-week process is in relation to the current draft. It is anticipated that there will continue to be—I hesitate to use this language—an iterative process of going backwards and forwards on the list. I think there is some discussion about elements of the list—of course in the debate in committee—but, in terms of the process that the department and the agency undertake, it is anticipated that that will continue for some time.