Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I was sworn in to this chamber on 13 June 2023. If you're asking, 'Why is she telling us this?' it's because I've been here only 10 weeks longer than Senator Steele-John has been seeking this information, which is of significant concern in my view. This government kept talking about accountability and transparency, as all the other speakers have noted, before they came into office. Why is that important? Why are we all talking about it? It's because this is the basis on which they went to the Australian people and said: 'Pick us. Pick us because we're going to do government differently. Pick us because we're going to be accountable. Pick us because we're going to be transparent. Pick us because we are going to do things the way you want us to do them.' That hasn't happened.

It's very sad in particular that not only has it not happened in other elements of government but it most particularly hasn't happened in the NDIS space, where, as Senator Steele-John noted, co-design, consultation and return to dignity are so critical. The amount of emails and phone calls that my office has received in relation to concerns about the lack of transparency and the lack of consultation in relation to the NDIS and legislative changes is really, really troubling.

One of the things that I'll talk about is in relation to that vulnerability and why this matters. Think about personal care. It's probably something we don't want to think about on a day-to-day basis—in terms of how someone on the scheme navigates that. If you need assistance going to the bathroom or showering, you want to make sure that the person that is helping you go to the bathroom and helping you shower is someone you trust and someone that you are okay with touching your body. If a provider sends you somebody that you don't like or you are not comfortable with, why on earth should we expect you to be okay with that person not just being in your home but actually helping you shower or go to the bathroom? I think it is totally unreasonable to expect somebody to be okay with that. We need to think about why we are not being louder about this. Why aren't we pointing to this more often and going, 'This is totally and completely unacceptable'?

The other thing that worries me about this is: who are the providers that are usually trusted in terms of providing in-home care and having long-term relationships? They're usually localised providers who are in the community and have known the participant for a really long time. They are usually smaller providers—small businesses. They're not large providers that have a large churn of individuals coming through them, for a variety of different reasons. This has a further unintended consequence of taking away the community based localised care, driving people back to larger institutions and impacting small and family businesses. What is concerning me here is that we're focused on elements that actually don't deliver best outcomes. If you're not delivering the best possible outcomes, it goes without saying that a system is not efficient. If it is not efficient, it's going to cost us more. What will happen? There will be a churn. You'll have somebody come out. A service won't be provided. Someone will have to come out again to provide the service, and we'll have a repetition.

These are the things that we need to think about and understand why there is concern in the sector. But, I think most importantly, we need to understand why the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and this government have refused for almost a year—for almost as long as I have been in this place—to provide the information that Senator Steele-John has requested. My OPD has only been in place for a little over a month, but I hope that it doesn't take a year to get the information that I have requested as well.