Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I, too, rise to speak on the Greens' motion, in continued support of what I think history will record is the greatest financial fraud on Australian taxpayers in our nation's history. It's the cruellest financial fraud on Australians.

The lack of transparency, which other senators have again reminded those in this place and all Australians of, is shocking. Not only has the minister, for over 12 months, come in here and flouted the direction of the Senate to provide that information; but we had the farce at the last Senate estimates, the budget estimates, where we got this letter from the NDIA. It said that the NDIA had all the data that we want, but because it was going to be put in two different documents—the first quarterly report and the AFSR, the annual financial sustainability report, which are two of the most critical documents for transparency for this place on that $11 billion per quarter scheme—they said, 'The agency will therefore not be able to answer questions regarding these documents at its appearance.'

We'd made it very clear that we didn't want to talk about the documents, even though they were late. We wanted to talk about the data that sits behind them. But, of course, yet again, those opposite hid. I went of the Clerk for advice, and this is what the Clerk said: 'Officers do not have an independent discretion to withhold this information, and this requirement is not overridden by the existence of a statutory obligation to provide the information to another entity.' So that was very clear, and all in this place know that to be. But they still did not provide that information, and now those opposite and the NDIA are ducking and weaving and trying to do everything they can to not have a spillover so that those in this place can get transparency on the numbers that sit behind them.

Of course, the first quarterly report was published after estimates. It is very clear why they waited until after estimates to publish this quarterly report: it gives lie to everything those opposite have been saying about this scheme. Bill Shorten's been out there in the media saying, 'This scheme is now being moderated.' But, despite all the cuts that they are initiating to participants' plans—remember Minister Shorten promised, 'I won't cut a single plan; there will be no cuts under the government that I'm a minister in.' That was so not true.

These are the numbers. Total payments have continued to increase due to both drivers of cost: participant numbers and the higher average annual cost per participant. In the last quarter alone, total expenses were $11.5 billion. No wonder they tried to hide that at estimates and hide the data that sits behind that. As I've said, they're now ducking and weaving about having any transparency so that we can unpack the numbers. Annualised, on the first quarter alone, that will mean the scheme will increase from about $42 billion last year to between $45 billion and $46 billion. With all of the blunt cuts that are now being enforced on scheme members, it is a complete disgrace.

Let's have a look at how those two drivers of cost have been increasing. Planned inflation continues to rise with an annualised level now of 12.8 per cent. So much for those opposite and the budget; it was budgeted for 8.5 per cent. In quarter 1 alone, there were over 50,000 requests for participant plan reviews; there are now 4,000 a week.

How did those opposite cook the books? They made it seem, when the legislation went through, that they were fixing the budget. Well, they were not. What did they do? They held over tens of thousands of applications to get into the scheme, and they made sure people waited months and months to get their payments once they were accepted into the scheme. We're now seeing that flow through in the first quarter. Worse than that, when people applied for plan increases because of inflation, they sat on them—over 50,000 of them. That number has now gone up to 61,767. Now, because they need the money, they are not just waiting for people to ask for plan reassessments but also initiating tens of thousands of these.

Question agreed to.