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

I might respond to that series of propositions. I note the minister's defence of her own period as a minister, and I'd just say that there are issues of public policy importance to the current cohort of participants in the scheme—around 660,000, I think we've said—and future participants in this scheme. I know that the former minister feels unfairly characterised, but this is not an opportunity to make the dealing with this legislation about herself or her own sense of grievance about the way that she was criticised. That is not an appropriate response.

I undertook to come back to the Senate about the relationship between the provisions of the bill, the changes to the act and the NDIS review terms. I intend to do that now and then come to Senator Reynolds's question in relation to the government's strategy to moderate the growth of the scheme.

First—if I can take them thematically—in relation to access settings, what the act does is expand the rule-making powers relating to early intervention to create a new pathway and, secondly, introduce a process to consider continued scheme access for people accessing the NDIS through the early intervention pathway. Those are set out in amendments to sections 19 to 28. They engage recommendation or reference 3.7 of the review, which says:

The National Disability Insurance Agency should reform … the pathway to provide supports to individuals where there is good evidence the intervention is safe, cost effective and significantly improves outcomes—

and recommendation 3.9—

The Australian Government should update and clarify legislation to support a more effective approach to determining access—

and recommendation 6.2, which says:

The National Disability Insurance Agency should reform the pathway for all children under the age of 9 to enter the NDIS under early intervention requirements—

and 7.2—

The National Disability Insurance Agency should establish an early intervention pathway for the majority of new participants with psychosocial disability under section 25 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013.

That's firstly in relation to access settings.

In relation to the second theme, if I can describe it that way, funding settings for reasonable and necessary supports, there are new rule-making powers for assessment tools—functional capacity assessments and needs assessments—which we've spent some time on over the course of today. They are in relation to sections 32L and 32K, and they relate to the NDIS review recommendations 3.1:

The National Disability Insurance Agency should introduce a more consistent and robust approach to determining eligibility for access to the NDIS based on transparent methods for assessing functional capacity—

and 3.4—

The National Disability Insurance Agency should introduce new needs assessment processes to more consistently determine the level of need for each participant and set budgets on this basis.

The third thematic area is funding settings for reasonable and necessary supports. The bill provides for new provisions, creating the concept of a flexible budget other than certain stated supports; new rule-making powers to state supports and plans; new rule-making powers to specify when and why supports can be stated in plans; new rule-making powers to specify things that the flexible budget can and cannot be spent on; new rule-making powers to determine the process and cohorts for transition to the new budget-setting framework; new rule-making powers to prescribe timeframes for decisions in new framework plans—and plans will roll over if not reassessed or varied before the end date; the inclusion of matters to which the CEO must have regard in a new framework plan and, in approving a plan management type, whether the participant has previously overspent their funds; transition parameters for participants to move from an old framework plan to a new framework plan, to be set out in a legislative instrument, not rules, with a five-year timeframe which can be extended by instrument if required; clarification that NDIS amounts cannot be spent on supports that the rules prescribe as supports that will not be funded by the NDIS.

Those relate to sections 32(b) to 32(l), and they engage the NDIS review recommendation 3.3, that the National Disability Insurance Agency should change the basis for setting a budget to a whole-of-person level rather than for individual support items; 3.4, that the National Disability Insurance Agency should introduce new needs assessment processes to more consistently determine the level of need for each participant and set budgets on this basis; 3.5, that the National Disability Insurance Agency should allow greater flexibility in how participants can spend their budget with minimal exceptions; 3.6, that the National Disability Insurance Agency should adopt a trust based approach to oversight of how participants spend their budget, with a focus on providing guidance and support; recommendation 5.4, that the Department of Social Services, the new National Disability Supports Quality and Safeguards Commission and the National Disability Insurance Agency should ensure decision supporters have access to information, training and resources to assist them in providing best practice support for decision-making; and 6.4, that the National Disability Insurance Agency should change the basis for setting a budget to a whole-of-person level and introduce a new needs assessment process to more consistently determine the level of need for each child and set budgets on this basis.

The fourth thematic area in terms of quality and safeguards: the bill enables delegation of the commissioner's compliance and enforcement powers to specified non-SES provisions and positions, and expands the categories of person to whom a banning order may be made to include persons that are not related to the provision of supports, such as consultants, enablers and auditors. Those changes are contained in schedule 2 of the bill. They engage, as I alluded to earlier, recommendation 17.6 of the review panel that says that the new National Disability Supports Quality and Safeguards Commission should be resourced to strengthen compliance activities and communications to respond to emerging and longstanding quality and safeguards issues and market developments and innovation.

The final area in fraud and compliance includes a prohibition on approved quality auditors employing or engaging a person who is subject to a banning order made by the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. That too is contained in schedule 2 and that also engages the NDIS review recommendation 17.6. As I indicated, the new National Disability Supports Quality and Safeguards Commission should be resourced to strengthen compliance activities and communications to respond to emerging and longstanding quality and safeguards issues and market developments and innovation.

Finally, Senator Reynolds's question—where she wants, for political purposes, to frighten people by characterising the government's approach to budgeting and further moderation of the growth of the scheme as 'cuts'—is not an honest portrayal of the government's objectives. Senator Reynolds knows that. There is a growth target. The scheme will continue to grow in terms of its cost and in terms of its size. Everybody in this place knows that that's the case.