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

There's a series of propositions in there; I'll just say to Senator Steele-John that there's a binary proposition here. The first proposition is a predetermined outcome in terms of the needs assessment framework. If there were a predetermined outcome, one might expect that there would be a decision of government in relation to budget. The second proposition is a process—in this case a co-design process, The government has opted, out of those two ways of dealing with this, to go with the co-design process—to design this with an open approach with the disability community and with experts that will go to the process, to the workforce and to the way that individuals and their families and carers interact with specialists and all the people who are engaged in the needs assessment framework. One of the questions that will, of course, be engaged in that will be the scope of that activity and what that means in terms of cost. If you open up the process to the community in the way that this bill enables, it is entirely proper for government to engage with that co-design process about those issues and engage the normal budget processes in the way that I've suggested or outlined on behalf of the government.

There are, as you've indicated, Senator Steele-John, a set of propositions that will be worked through, and some of them are very difficult—about the rights of individuals and how the process interacts with their sense of wellbeing; how it's done efficiently; and how it's done, as the review suggests, to provide a pathway for individuals that's well understood. I think the expression is 'a clear pathway'. All of those issues are engaged, and I think you quite properly apprehend that there are some difficult issues in there. But the truth is that they have to be resolved together—the process issues, the workforce issues and what I call the scope issues. How all those things interact, and the cost issues, will be dealt with over the course of what I think I indicated to you was likely to be a 12- to 18-month process. When that needs assessment framework comes back, it will come back in the format of a disallowable instrument. There will be absolute clarity for the people and organisations that have participated in the co-design process, for the public and, indeed, for the parliament about how that process will work.

The truth is that government matters. Who has decision-making capacity on some of these budget questions matters. I reckon Australians would have regard to the history here in relation to the slash and burn operation over there, what they have said about government spending even over the course of today and the kind of decisions that would be likely to emerge from government in relation to these issues.

It is not possible to have it both ways. The co-design process comes with a requirement for decisions to be made by government in conjunction with the community, and that will lead to a budget decision about how costs are allocated in the normal way. All I can say in relation to that, firstly, is that the review had a set of recommendations about that. As I said earlier, it is expected that needs assessments will be paid for by government. What is not yet determined is how these assessments will be conducted. That is why I have said consistently that a decision will need to be made in the budget context about payment. That is a normal and sensible way for these processes to be determined. The alternative would be for the needs assessment framework to come here without the co-design process in a predetermined way and be served up to the disability community and this parliament as a fait accompli, and this government will not do that. That's why this legislation is framed very much in a way where its role, particularly in terms of this issue, is to enable reform. I think you said 'enabling', Senator Steele-John. That is the approach that much of the bill delivers. It enables a process of reform. It is urgent that we get on with it.

Some of the answers will only be discovered in that co-design process. It is not fair, and it is misleading, to suggest that the government should have answers to all of these propositions absent that collaborative process that the bill outlines. That would be a contradiction in terms. You can't have co-design with absolute certainty about the outcome. The principles and the rationale for the act are set out there. The government will be accountable on these questions in the normal way. We will engage in the normal budget processes once these questions have been determined.

There will be amendments circulated and proposed by the government. There are a series of amendments circulated and proposed by the opposition. Debate will be scheduled over the course of this week, and next week if necessary, to facilitate the passage of this bill and the Senate's consideration of it. There is nothing unusual about that. There is nothing unusual about an amendment process. This is going to be continuous reform in this area. This package of legislation is part of a reform process that enables further legislative reform. Our task here is far from done, and this is the first legislative step in that work.