Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research (Senator Evans) to questions without notice asked by Senators Payne and Fifield today relating to the 2012-13 Budget.

It is genuinely with a heavy heart that I rise to take note of the answers given by Senator Evans. I think colleagues in the chamber will know that I have, as far as possible, in the disabilities portfolio, sought to bring a non-partisan approach, for the simple reason that people with disabilities are not interested in petty point-scoring; they just want the system fixed.

The Productivity Commission did some very good work in analysing what would be required to meet the unmet needs for Australians with disability, and the concept of the National Disability Insurance Scheme is what they came forth with. It is something that has been embraced by all political parties in this place. The Prime Minister has, over not just recent weeks but many months—indeed, particularly during the leadership ructions on the other side—spoken a great deal about the importance of and need for a National Disability Insurance Scheme. Those who listened the Prime Minister's words could have been forgiven for taking the impression that the Prime Minister had in fact fully committed to a national disability insurance scheme. In this portfolio I have endeavoured to give the government the benefit of the doubt.

The reason for my question to Senator Evans was to inquire as to why the timetable announced by the government, and the funding profile announced by the government in the budget, differed from that of the Productivity Commission. I thought that was a reasonable question to ask. I did not see it as a partisan question or a political one. It is a question that is being asked in the sector and in the community, and there was no answer forthcoming.

A few weeks ago the Leader of the Opposition and I held a joint press conference where we said that we expected there to be money in the budget for a national disability insurance scheme and, if there was, we would support it. We went further, though, and said that a national disability insurance scheme should be above partisan politics. The Leader of the Opposition and I proposed a mechanism to ensure that a national disability insurance scheme was beyond politics. Senator Evans made reference to our only policy being a committee. He was misrepresenting our commitment. We have proposed a bipartisan committee of the parliament to be co-chaired by the disabilities frontbenchers of both the government and the opposition. That committee would have the purpose of oversighting the implementation of a national disability insurance scheme, for the reason that, when you look at the Productivity Commission's time frame, the implementation of an NDIS will span many parliaments and several elections and, no doubt, maybe a change of government or two. We thought it important to propose a mechanism that could ensure that all parties were locked in to supporting the delivery of an NDIS and, more than that, that there was a forum where questions about the implementation of an NDIS could be posed in a way that they would not be seen to be partisan or political and where legitimate questions that parliamentarians should ask could be asked in a forum where they would be seen for what they were: questions designed to help improve the implementation of an NDIS.

It is a matter of great regret that the Prime Minister has not accepted the offer of a joint parliamentary committee. It is an idea that has been very well received in the sector and that many families who have someone with a disability and many organisations that provide support in the disability sector would like to see. It is a matter of great regret that the government has not taken up the proposal of a non-partisan parliamentary committee to oversight the implementation and delivery of an NDIS.

I regret that Minister Evans did not provide an answer as to the government's thinking about the implementation and rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. But we will continue to ask those questions, not in a spirit of partisanship, but because these are legitimate questions that people in the sector want asked and are entitled to have answers to.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the answer of Senator Evans in response to questions from Senator Fifield. I guess that when this week started I was, as one can well imagine, interested to know whether the Liberal team in the Senate would be focusing on the budget, on the Speaker of the House of Representatives or perhaps focusing on the member for Dobell. Yes, there were plenty of political challenges for us to contemplate. But I have not been disappointed, because the Liberal Party have come into this place utterly focused on their mission, which was to have a fight amongst themselves over who could be the Opposition Whip. Once again the Liberal Party have completely missed the debates and opportunities of the week and have remained completely tied up in their own irrelevant and infantile fighting.

What we once referred to as 'Minchin's militia' appear to have now become 'Mitch's militia'.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Firstly, can you address remarks concerning Senator Fifield by using his name. Senator Fifield, I was going to ask Senator Feeney to come back to the matter before the chamber, but, as you are standing, do you have an additional point of order?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was going to raise relevance on a point of order.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the taking note debate, Mitch. Have a seat and argue it.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Traditionally there has been latitude given in taking note debates, but Senator Feeney is not straying even remotely close to discussing the government's position on an NDIS or on housing and homelessness. I ask you to draw him back to the answers Senator Evans provided.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, a habit is occurring on the opposition benches where every time a senator in the course of a debate might be critical of the opposition they jump up and take a point on relevance. It is taking sookiness to a new level. They like to dish it out but they cannot take it.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Feeney, you were given a bit of latitude to stray into the debate. You did not go anywhere near the matter and I remind the chamber that the question was very specific. Sometimes the questions are wide ranging; taking note of answers of all ministers on the day. Senator Fifield rose 'To take note of the answers given by Senator Evans to the question he asked'. We can have some latitude, Senator Feeney, but not that much latitude—and Senator Payne.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will bring myself to the question before us: the Liberal Party's commitment to the NDIS. It was only a very short time ago that the shadow Treasurer, the thinking man's Clive Palmer, was giving a speech in London. To impress his Conservative friends, safely, so he believed, beyond the realm of political scrutiny, he gave a hairy-chested speech about ending the culture of entitlement. To be fair to Senator Fifield, he has not come into this place talking about ending the culture of entitlement. He has instead come here and talked about setting up a committee. His are the tactics of delay and dissimulation. At least he has not had the viciousness of Hockey.

This boils down to the fact the Labor Party and the Labor government have managed a budget that has not only come back into surplus but, amongst its many reforms and achievements, has delivered action on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. This of course is a mighty achievement. It is a mighty achievement and it is understood to be such by all of those in the sector. Of course, confronted with this mighty achievement, the opposition have constructed not a response but a fig leaf, a stratagem—and their stratagem is to have a committee, chairs, co-chairs and presidents and vice-presidents and convenors and co-convenors, and this grand group, spanning Mitch's timeline of hundreds of years—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have Senator Fifield's 100-year plan for action on disability insurance, spanning many parliaments and many changes of government, covering the years and the aeons. His is a program which leaves Fabian gradualism looking like a revolutionary movement. No doubt the Liberal Party has sent Senator Fifield into this place to defend his fig leaf, because in the Liberal Party's ERC there are challenges which are beyond human imagination. They have not only to meet the very real contest of a Labor budget in surplus but also they are increasingly under pressure to explain how their $70 billion black hole might be brought under some kind of rein. When they contemplate the challenge of their $70 billion black hole, I can just imagine the sympathy Senator Fifield will receive from his colleagues when he suggests that the coalition needs to match the Labor government's action through the National Disability Insurance Scheme. My heart goes out to him—his task is nigh on impossible. Not only is their ERC populated by economically illiterate members of this place and elsewhere; there is poor old Senator Sinodinos trying to bring order to this madness, and Senator Fifield himself must now front up to the parliament with his own inspirational multiparty committee and generational change over the span of centuries.

This government is very proud of the fact that it has come up with a plan that is real, a plan that is embraced by the sector and a plan that means real reform—and it is a plan that is funded. It is a plan that does not involve a committee; it involves changing people's lives. It is not a plan that involves bipartisan co-convenors; it is a plan that actually means people have real transformation in their challenges, their carers, their lives—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll be circulating your speech, don't worry about that—

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for COAG) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you talking to us about bipartisan co-convenors?

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I am being assailed here. You have to rescue me from these slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. I will struggle on as best I can. The simple fact of the matter is that the Liberal Party has come to this debate, to this policy contest— (Time expired)

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for COAG) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on the motion that the Senate take note of answers given to questions asked today by Senator Fifield and me. I am not quite sure where Planet Feeney is located, but it does not surprise me at all that Senator Feeney is unable to understand bipartisan co-convenors—after all, that would not quite work with the Victorian factional system of the ALP.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How is yours going?

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for COAG) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mine is actually doing quite well, thanks. Minister Evans made the observation in his response to my question that everyone assumes that if there is not a new measure in a budget you are doing something wrong. I want to correct that misapprehension by Senator Evans. It is not just the budget that has persuaded us that this government is doing something wrong. Try for example, as I said in my question, the fact that 2011 was the second straight year in which dwelling commencements fell in this country in four consecutive quarters. Even those opposite should be able to work out that that means eight consecutive quarters. We have a housing shortage currently at approximately 186,800, but that is set to go beyond 300,000 by 2014, and a government that apparently thinks the best way to deal with housing affordability is to rely on the Reserve Bank. So it is unsurprising that it is not just the budget that persuades us that there is something wrong but, more importantly, the government's approach on all of these issues.

This budget has done nothing to boost housing supply or housing affordability; it has done nothing to further reduce the risk or incidence of homelessness. You only have to read the minister's press release from budget night to persuade yourself of that. We have building activity down, we have rents that are rising faster than inflation and we have from this government no vision for the housing sector. If you throw into that mix the carbon tax, which is going to increase the cost of building an average home by at least $5,200 even after compensation, according to the Housing Industry Association's figures, it is no wonder that we and the sector and most of the participants in the sector are seriously concerned about the approach that this government is taking.

I will leave housing there for the moment because I do want to make some reference to the answer from the minister on the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the performance by Senator Feeney on that issue. This is one of the few policy proposals put forward by a pretty desperate government that has had bipartisan support, and I congratulate my colleague Senator Fifield for the work that he has done across the sector, across Australia, to engage with stakeholders and to work constructively on this issue and have some capacity to understand how important it is. Clearly, from the paltry offering of Senator Feeney, they over there do not understand this issue. Senator Feeney's dismissal of the idea that the matter is important enough for this parliament to have a jointly overseeing parliamentary committee, his wave of the hand and his suggestion that this was somehow a fanciful idea, is indicative of his contempt for the issue we have been discussing this afternoon following Minister Evans's answer on the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

It is what the government promised but has not delivered that should embarrass this government. I am not sure that I can understand the logic of them saying they have delivered 25 per cent of what the Productivity Commission recommended and brought it forward a year, so somehow that means they have done a good thing. The Productivity Commission's report on the National Disability Insurance Scheme was one of the most thorough and comprehensive approaches to this particularly important issue for Australians that could possibly have been taken. The government, by showing contempt for that report and that initiative, is selling itself and Australia's people with disabilities short. They have let down Australians with a disability, they have let down their families and they have let down their carers.

This will not address anywhere near the number of people the Productivity Commission proposed it should, which was 400,000 Australians. The government's announced scheme will only extend to 20,000 Australians. One hopes that there will be an explanation from the government—an adequate explanation as opposed to the inadequate one we were offered this afternoon—as to why they have taken this approach. We hope that they will do the sector the courtesy it deserves by offering that explanation not just to the parliament but to them. Based on the budget figures, as Senator Fifield said, there is no way that full implementation of the scheme by 2018 will happen. (Time expired)

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am a little disappointed but I am not surprised. Normally Senator Payne makes a reasonable contribution to this chamber, but to come in here and try to lecture this government about homelessness and housing and the cost of living is a bit rich. We cannot let those opposite get away with that without mentioning that they had 12 years in government and did nothing.

Homelessness was put on the agenda by the Labor government. If you are really concerned about the cost of living and the cost of housing, why did you, only this morning, vote against a measure which was going to support families in educating their kids? By voting against the schoolkids bonus not only yesterday in that other place but here in this chamber today, you again demonstrated your inconsistency and your lack of appreciation of how difficult it is for families out there to educate their kids and of how well received this bonus is going to be in the community. It is becoming part of everyday debate in this place—those from the other side coming in to lecture us about what we have not done. But they fail to acknowledge that for 12 years they were in government.

They lecture us about the disability sector. But throughout all the time I spent on the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, throughout all the committee inquiries we had while those on the other side were in government—inquiries in which they participated—they were not prepared to make the tough decisions. We have made those decisions. We have embarked on a scheme which is going to address the needs of those in our community who have disabilities and the needs of their families. But we are not even sure, when push comes to shove, that Joe Hockey and those opposite are actually going to support this scheme.

We have already, in this budget, allocated $1 billion over the next four years to introduce this scheme. We are not going to rush in without consulting—we are going to make sure that the reform is going to address the areas of critical need. People with disabilities, their carers and their families have waited a long time, but at least we have taken the action. We have actually put it in our budget.

In talking about the budget, it is interesting to note the misinformation about what is or is not in the budget which is constantly circulated. I will just touch on one example because I think it is important to correct the record. Yesterday, the media were running with a story put out by those on the opposite side that we had failed to allocate money in the budget for the Freight Equalisation Scheme—totally untrue.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What has the Freight Equalisation Scheme got to do with the answers Senator Evans gave on the Disability Insurance Scheme and housing?

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is important because we are talking about the budget, Senator Fifield. The budget is not just about the NDIS and it is not just about housing. It is interesting because you do not want to mention the credit that has been given to the budget from organisations like the Tasma­nian Farmers and Graziers Association. Their chief executive, Jan Davis, said:

Additional funds for biosecurity and natural resource management activities were particularly welcome.

I know the Deputy President, coming from Tasmania, would appreciate that we do not always get the support of the TFGA. But, once again, that is not something that has been mentioned in this debate about the budget.

Another thing that Senator Parry, who now resides in Launceston, will appreciate is the money which has been allocated from this budget to the Launceston City Council to develop their strategy in all-encompassing transport and infrastructure planning for the future—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Polley, I will draw your attention to the question before the chamber at the moment.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think, Mr Deputy President, that when we are talking about the budget, there are a broad range of related issues—and, from listening to other contributions this afternoon, I think I am being consistent with other speakers in traversing some of those issues.

But I am very happy to get back to the NDIS because it is, after all, something which is close to my heart, as it is for many in the Tasmanian community. As I said earlier, it is essential that we get the scheme right for people with disabilities, their families and their carers. The full scheme should be rolled out based on a properly tested design. The lessons we learn as we deliver this first stage will inform our conversations with the states and territories on the national rollout of a national disability insurance scheme.

We are actually putting the money in. We are proud, as a Labor government, that we have actioned this very crucial and important piece of reform. I am hoping that those opposite will stop playing politics with this, get behind the scheme and support it. (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Never has Senator Polley uttered a truer word than when she said that the Gillard government has put homelessness on the agenda. You can be assured that this budget, which taxes and taxes Australians and which sends Australian jobs overseas, means that people with mortgages will have their mortgages foreclosed upon—creating homelessness. Homelessness is something the Labor Party knows about because they create it. When this budget sends Australian jobs overseas, closes down coalmines, closes down the jobs of many Australians—and even the government in its shonky budget is forecasting an increase in unemployment—you can be assured that Australians will get to know about homelessness.

I now only have 55 seconds to speak in this debate. It is typical of the Labor Party—everything is guillotined. We had the fiasco this morning of the parliament spending hundreds of millions of dollars after only a couple of hours debate and no real consultation whatsoever. On this important subject of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, we are left with only a couple of minutes of debate because the Labor Party has again curtailed and guillotined proper debate in this chamber. All I can say on the matter of the insurance scheme is: if only the Labor Party would learn from Senator Fifield about how to introduce a scheme, rather than continuing with its program of lies, deceit and spin. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.