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

Thank you, Senator Hanson, for that question. I understand the argument made in relation to means testing. I understand how that proposition would attract support in some quarters. I would say the government's view in relation to the NDIS and universality of the scheme is fundamental, and I want to explain why we take that approach. It's the same approach the government takes and previous governments have taken in relation to, as you say, Medicare and the provision of health services or in relation to education services. We don't means test a whole range of services that the government offers.

It is true that access to some benefits and payments is means tested, because there's a relationship between the payment and the objective of the payment, which is about supporting a particular level of income. There's a policy basis for means testing in relation to the age pension and a range of other benefits or payments that the government makes under the social security system.

The principle of universality for the provision of these services is founded in two things. One is efficiency. It is more efficient if we don't add another layer of compliance and do an assessment of individuals' incomes, which would be hard to do in relation to children, wouldn't it? I think, if we think about it for a second, we know it would be hard to do in relation to children. It would be hard to do in relation to adolescents as they are growing. That would itself contain some unfairness, both unfairness at the time of the assessment and unfairness as people become less eligible for access to services. I'll just ask you to consider children and adolescents in that context.

The second basket of arguments goes to community support. The Australian community, in many respects, supports the Medicare system because all of us have an equal stake in that system. Whether you are on the age pension, a middle-income worker, a mining worker or a labour hire worker, whether you are very well to do or not, each of us has an interest in the system, supports the system and demands a level of quality in the system. That consensus and support across the community is undermined if we disengage from those universality principles. If we means tested access to the scheme, in the government's view—I appreciate it's not your view—that would undermine support for the scheme.

We are determined to embark upon a process of reform that embeds the scheme for the long term for Australia. That means that people across the political spectrum, across the income divide, in regional Australia and in the cities, no matter what their circumstances, will know that the scheme is fair dinkum and that it provides the kinds of services that you would expect and I would expect. And I don't think there's too much difference between what you would expect and what I would expect in terms of the kinds of services and support that the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the agency should provide to individuals.

In terms of access for people who are over the age of 67, the aged-care system is designed for that purpose. That is why there is not an overlapping set of rights and benefits and entitlements that Australians have here. Sixty-seven is the appropriate age for the aged-care system to jump in to provide those services.

Of course, universality itself doesn't mean that there aren't inequities still in the system. It's a universal system for every Australian, every disabled Australian, for their carers and for their families and for their communities. It is, as you say, for regional Australians where some of these services aren't as readily available. If you're living in a small country town or on a property—or in some of our suburbs—those services aren't as readily available, so there are always going to be inequities in the way that Australians access the scheme. And one of the purposes of the reform process that the government is undertaking is to attend, in a structural and process and rules sense in terms of the scope of the scheme, to those inequities as far as it possibly can; to build fair processes that are fair dinkum for Australians to access the scheme; and to make sure there's public confidence in the sustainability of the scheme not just over the course of the coming years but over the course of the coming generations.

Progress reported.