Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) Share this | Hansard source

I will hand over after this. I'm trying to understand the big selling point behind foundational supports—why they need to be implemented by bringing the states back to the table and making sure not only that there is community health, with OTs, speechies and psychs available for families who don't need ongoing and lifelong support to access but also that the departments of education will provide those supports to children who need a little bit of structure and scaffolding around them in the classroom situation. Maybe I've just completely missed the point, but my understanding was that a lot of these kids that are going to access some of this stuff won't actually be NDIS participants. They're not going to need an NDIS plan because they're accessing foundational supports. That's what I'm trying to understand.

We've got 11 per cent of five- to seven-year-olds currently with an NDIS plan. A big chunk of them should be accessing what would be these new foundational supports, not having an NDIS plan. Just take that 11 per cent cohort of five- to seven-year-old boys. Let's be generous and say six per cent of the 11 per cent shouldn't be on the NDIS. Who are that six per cent? What are we looking at to move them off? There will be families at home listening to this thinking: 'My son doesn't have autism level 3. My son doesn't have an intellectual disability. My son doesn't have cerebral palsy. My son doesn't have Down syndrome. But he's got a sensory processing disorder and oppositional defiant disorder. Does this mean he will no longer have an NDIS plan and will be shifted over the foundational supports?'

I think it is time for some clarity with the Australian public, particularly the parents of children on this scheme. Who are these kids that are going to move to foundational supports and who will no longer have an NDIS plan so that it is a scheme for those it was intended for? I appreciate the minister referring to 24 and 25 as access criteria, but the reality is that they've been blown out. They're not being adhered to. I am not coming here negative about it. There are too many people. These people should be coming off it. It is too lax with regard to the people gaining accessibility, but I think we need to be honest with the Australian people, with the community and particularly the parents of kids currently with an NDIS plan: What are the conditions? What sort of things are going to be put into place—maybe define 24 and 25 a little bit more clearly—for the kids that will no longer have an NDIS plan? Obviously, under what you're proposing—if the states come to the table and fairyland ensues—they will be well supported still in foundational supports, but I think we need to get some clarity on that. We should not have—at any stage in the future once this, or any other reform, is rolled out—11 per cent of five- to seven-year-olds considered to have a permanent and lifelong disability and on the NDIS.