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

I don't think that'll help you. That is the impact of your scare campaign. When you make the claim, less than honestly, that there are going to be cuts of $60 billion, that claim makes ordinary people in the street think that there is an amount that is allocated to the NDIS and that $60 billion will come out of it. Well, that is utterly disingenuous—utterly.

What the government is saying here, and what has been worked through with the states and territories in the National Cabinet process, is that over time—and I think we would all agree—the growth in this scheme, in order to make it sustainable, must be managed. If we are to provide this incredible service for families, for our kids and our grandkids, for future generations of Australians, the scheme must be made to work.

There is not an inherent clash between fairness and equity and operational efficiency and meeting a target of moderated growth. Eight per cent growth is a higher level of growth than could be attached to almost any other scheme that the government operates. It is a moderation in growth. The numbers, every year that the Commonwealth spends on the NDIS and the NDIA, will continue to increase. Under this government, they will continue to increase. Year on year, the amount will increase. The objective of the government is that the amount that it increases by is around eight per cent. That is well and truly above any other index. The approach that you have taken to this reform in particular lacks moral seriousness.

There is not, in any piece of policymaking, the relationship that you say is there. The only things that can make a difference in terms of the amount that the Commonwealth expends on the NDIS, you say, can be reducing the number of participants or reducing the amount that each participant is expending on their plan. Making sure that the participants in the scheme are consistent with the original intent of the scheme and the stated purpose of the legislation here is a completely appropriate public policy objective.

Making sure that every service that is provided by the scheme is consistent with the proper purpose and with the needs assessment process that is designed to simultaneously make sure not only that the services provided are on the list but also that they are founded in either sections 24 or 25 and that they are granted to a participant on the basis of a holistic assessment of the whole person. These approaches are not narrow and are not about cuts. They are about ensuring the scheme is sustainable for future generations of services.

Identifying where fraud might be undertaken, where there might be duplication or where there might be inefficiency, and making sure that people are provided with good-quality services, all go towards a better outcome for participants and a more sustainable scheme. Of course, the government, in the normal budget processes, is supported by all of the kinds of actuarial or other data that you might refer to in the normal way that it is provided to government, consistent with the budget processes.