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

The process, the framework, will be determined in collaboration with the disability community—that is, stakeholders, participants themselves, their representative organisations—and, when that process is determined, the ordinary budget questions will be engaged with and dealt with. That's a normal process. It is a normal process, after the legislation was deferred—I think because of a political calculation of the coalition—that amendments will be introduced over the course of the debate. That is what is happening here. Amendments are being introduced over the course of the debate. It is a normal thing to occur for legislative debate to be scheduled in a way that the government determines so that we efficiently get to all of the legislative priorities of the government over the course of the week and the fortnight. There is nothing extraordinary about that, and the hyperbole that's been engaged in, particularly by those opposite, on these issues does not reflect very well on their commitment to policymaking and reform in this area.

There are two types of assessments: functional capacity assessments and needs assessments. The processes for both need to be worked through through co-design to determine cost and workforce, and Senator Steele-John has taken me to both of those issues over the course of the day—that is, the consequences of workforce have to be worked through in that co-design process. The shape of that framework will determine the cost, and the government will need to make an assessment of how cost is dealt with at the conclusion of that process, not at the beginning of that process. That is a normal discipline.

It is expected that the needs assessment process will be paid for by government. What's not yet determined is how these assessments will be conducted. They could be done externally or they could be done by the NDIA workforce. There is some history to these propositions. The functional capacity assessment needs to be determined. It's currently paid for by participants. The review recommended that the government pays for that. The government needs to consider, like a responsible government would, setting up a scheme that is sustainable for the future and what workforce is required to best support participants. Once the legislation has passed, we will coordinate a co-design process with the disability community to finalise those questions. Once that is concluded, then there will be, in the normal way, the kinds of budget processes that are engaged to resolve payment and workforce questions. Any other suggestion is mischievous and misrepresentation.