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

Just while the team's grabbing me some material on that—I do think, yes, we're in a situation now where there are three-quarters of an hour or so of discussion. It has been a lengthy discussion, but I do accept that there are many issues about the legislation that the disability community, and others in the community, want to traverse. There has been, the government would say, an exhaustive consultation process in the community. But these are complex issues, Senator Hughes, and some of these questions can be answered in the context of the bill. Much rests, of course, upon not just the co-design issues in terms of the needs assessment framework but also the way that the department and the agency implement the new scheme. Much of it rests, as we go on, upon an ongoing reform journey in this area.

I did want to take a moment just to reflect on some of the conduct of this discussion. I think somebody said earlier that words, in this context, do matter in terms of the way that we engage in this discussion. My role here is to answer questions that senators put to me, to represent the government in this legislation. I have been at pains to consider the impacts the discussion has, not just in here but on families and households around the country. I have pushed back consistently and constantly—perhaps the cause of some frustration—when I have seen claims made that create the impression that the government is motivated by bad motives here. It is not, though, immune from criticism; it shouldn't be.

There should be a robust exchange in here, a complex exchange, around the bill because, as I say, the bill itself creates a framework and much of it is an enabling framework. There is a lot of work to do, and the Senate will play a role in this as well—in the implementation of the bill and the reforms that are developed over time. It is not immune from criticism, though. It is, from time to time, a highly charged debate and it should be, because some of the issues that sit underneath this piece of legislation and the National Disability Insurance Scheme are utterly vital not only for, today, 600,000 Australians, their families and their communities who participate in the scheme, for people who are applicants for the scheme now and for their families, but also for future generations.

Vital issues are engaged. The government is motivated here by wanting to improve the scheme and improve the services that are offered under the scheme. We do say that that is consistent with establishing efficiencies and eliminating duplication in the scheme. These are contested issues, and they should be. We are motivated by protecting the scheme for future generations by putting the scheme on a sustainable footing and moderating the growth of the scheme. That is a good motivation, but these are contested issues, and they should be. It is, indeed, at the outset, a Labor scheme, but it has to be protected and sustainable for the generations ahead, when other governments in future generations—of course, I hope, many, many years away—will have to pick up and administer the scheme as well.

But I am conscious that words do matter, and we ought to consider the implication of what we say in here on households around the country. I do say, while words matter, not just in here, it is clear that, when I sought to characterise Senator Steele-John's contribution, the words that I used wounded. That is for sure. I'm a plain-speaking kind of character and it gets under people's skin from time to time. I appreciate that, but it is never the intention. It should never be the intention of anybody in this place for their words to wound in a way that unnecessarily creates offence or distress. I apologise for that, Senator Steele-John. I don't resile from my effort to counter what I think are claims that are made that are not correct, but, of course, all of us should be open to criticism, including me. Having said that, I am hoping that my colleagues here have given me an actual answer to Senator Hughes's question. I did want to make those remarks.

The act doesn't currently have a legislated claims and payments framework, which means it is unclear how people, including participants and providers, now make claims for NDIS amounts, and how and when the agency must pay the relevant amounts. The amendments insert new provisions into the act to establish a legislative claims and payment framework. The new provisions will provide a more streamlined process for participants and providers, with specific legislative requirements that will determine when a claim will or will not be paid.

The agency processes approximately 400,000 claims every day. Many of these claims do not contain sufficient information to identify whether the claim is appropriate to be paid under the scheme. This causes delays. It is part of the normal business of claims being made but it does cause delays and additional burdens on participants in responding to requests for information. This measure will enable the CEO of the agency to adhere to obligations under the PGPA Act, including by enabling claims to be processed quickly, while balancing fraud and data quality risks. The amendments also impose a timeframe of two years in which claims must be made, which aligns broadly with Medicare's approach on these questions.

The new section 45A outlines the mechanical requirements for a claim, including who can make a claim according to the funds management type of a participant's NDIS plan. For self-managed plans, it's a participant or their nominee. For plan-managed plans, a registered plan management provided or agency-managed plans, it's the registered provider who delivered the supports. It also outlines what information is required to support a claim and in what form it is to be provided. Information requirements for claiming are already available on the NDIS website. However, examples include invoices evidencing the supports delivered and receipts evidencing the supports received in the support of either a claim via the participant or provider portal or app or a participant or their nominee using the offline My Plan purchase form.

I've already dealt with the timeframe. There will be a 12-month grace period following commencement of the bill during which no time limit on claims will apply as a transition measure. That allows participants and providers a period of 12 months to gather necessary information and submit any outstanding claims for supports obtained or provided more than two years in the past. In addition, section 25C of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 makes it clear that substantial compliance with the form prescribed by an act is sufficient. So there's a substance issue in terms of complying with the forms. The government says that it is reasonable to require that minimum amount of information in forms that are submitted to the agency. Of course, the forms themselves will be developed over time during the codesign process that we've outlined more broadly, and that 12-month period should be amply sufficient to achieve those outcomes.