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

Senator Hughes, I'll endeavour to work through those questions, and I'll address that last issue last because I want to make sure that the view I'm offering is correct. I'm grateful for your outline in relation to questions around sex and your, I think, absolutely correct assertion about people being sexual beings and having a requirement for intimacy. The scheme and the government—and, indeed, all of us—should have proper regard for the dignity of the whole person in relation to those questions. I do think it's been unfortunate, to say the least, that the debate has focused on these questions in what I regard as a prurient and undignified way. Maybe the less said about that the better, but it certainly hasn't assisted a proper public debate about what is at stake here, what it is that the government is trying to achieve and the representations made to the government by the disability community and by experts.

There is an amendment on sheet 2650 that is supported by the government and it does say that you may not have an NDIS support for a participant or prospective participant that includes the provision of sexual services. It is quite narrow in its construction. It does not include, for example, provision of therapy or counselling or other kinds of assistance that a participant or a potential participant could have in their plan now, or as a result of the needs assessment tool, properly found in the sections that we have traversed over the course of the last few days of committee discussion in relation to these questions. I should say that is a good thing. We should offend that principle, I think, and I hope that we do.

I will come back to the final question in a moment. I just want to use this moment while I am on my feet to indicate that amendment SK120 relating to the governance of the scheme has been circulated. It goes to the fact that the NDIS is a joint scheme between the Commonwealth and states. Given, as you say, we are approaching the guillotine on this, I wanted to set that out as efficiently as I could. We also recognise that the critical need to get the scheme back on track is all about making sure that it continues to provide the services which it was established for by a Labor government.

The bill includes a range of reforms that go to improving the experience of participants and to making sure that planning and budget-setting arrangements for participants contribute to this. In the course of this, the government put a proposition to the states and to the parliament that created the ability for the Commonwealth to make legislative instruments for select elements of the bill. These instruments cover things like what the NDIS should pay for, how new needs assessments will work, and how people will be moved to new budget arrangements over time. This is because these are administrative and operational elements that will need to be updated regularly as the reforms progress. States and territories expressed concerns with this approach.

It has always been the approach of the ministry and the government that we will work with the states, but the government has listened carefully to the concerns raised by the Council for the Australian Federation about the use of legislative instruments. The minister has been working very hard with the states behind the scenes to land an acceptable way forward for both the Commonwealth the states.

The amendment sheet that has been circulated signifies agreement with states and territories to significantly improve processes for NDIS rule-making. Statements have also been made outside of here today in relation to that. This agreement with the states and territories is to ensure that they continue to play their critical governance role while also ensuring that decisions can be made in a timely and effective manner.

There are a number of aspects to this agreement. First, most legislative instruments in the bill will be made into category A NDIS rules. Second, there will be a new clearer process for seeking agreement to category A rules, with specific guidance around the kinds of objections that states and territories may raise to the rules. Instead of the current 90-day timeframe for states and territories to provide agreement, each jurisdiction will have 14 days to disagree to the rules. This disagreement must be based on the objects and principles of the act. If agreement cannot be reached with all states and territories, a new dispute resolution process will allow for referral to the Prime Minister and direct engagement with first ministers. If unanimous agreement can still not be reached, only majority agreement is required before the rules can be made.

Third, there is a truncated process for agreeing to certain amendments to the rules setting out the needs assessment and budget tools. If the amendments will have no substantial policy or financial implications for the NDIS, agreement from states and territories is not necessary. They will still have the ability to object if they consider that the amendments will have substantial policy or financial obligations. Finally, revisions for consequential amendments have been made to sheets PA112 and SK118 to facilitate these amendments. This has necessitated revised sheets being circulated, and I understand that that has occurred.

Much has been said in this place about the views of the states and territories. This agreed approach to this amendment, and the agreement that that amendment secures, demonstrate the support of the states for this bill and will usher in a new era of collaboration between the Commonwealth and the states and territories on NDIS and disability reforms. That is a good thing for the future operation of the scheme and should give participants, future participants and their families more confidence about the future direction and sustainability of this vital service and reform.

In relation to the last matter you raised with me, Senator Hughes, about carers, the minister has already directed the NDIA to ensure that participants that have significant risk, as was the case for the participant that you referred to, are agency managed and not self-managing. This is based upon an assessment of the risk of the individual circumstances, and no doubt there will continue to be engagement and consultation on those questions over the coming months.