Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak about the NDIS in Western Australia. The Greens are deeply concerned that the agreement signed between the WA and the federal governments on the NDIS, as it will operate in Western Australia, was rushed through. It was rushed through by the Barnett government on the day they went into caretaker mode. People with disability, their families and carers were not adequately consulted and many people in Western Australia are deeply concerned about the agreement that was signed on the day that the WA government went into caretaker mode. The former WA government politicised the future of the NDIS in WA when they made the announcement on that day.

People with disability have been calling for months for a resolution to the issues around the future of the NDIS in WA. But, now, they are apparently stuck with the situation where people with disability in WA may be worse off and that the state may end up paying more as a result of this rushed agreement. The WA government's justification for their approach was based on a flawed report released during the election campaign. Just after the release of the report, fortunately, it was Senate estimates and the department was scathing in its analysis of the report. Even the Minister for Social Services, Minister Porter, felt compelled to distance himself from it.

It is vital that people with disability living in WA are guaranteed that they will not be worse off than other Australians. Bruce Bonyhady, often referred to as the father of the NDIS, has described the WA NDIS as a deeply flawed agreement that will impose unnecessary financial costs on all Western Australians. This so-called WA NDIS is not the NDIS; firstly, because the 'N' in NDIS stands for national, and for WA this is not national. The NDIS is supposed to be equitable for all Australians and portable across the country. A separate bureaucracy in WA run by WA is a waste of vital funds that could be spent on delivering services to people with disability—and it may not deliver equity.

This intergovernmental agreement was made without consulting people with disability, their families and carers. Given that the NDIS was designed to provide self-determination, choice and control to people with disability, this decision directly contradicts a key principle of the NDIS. It does not bode well for the future of the WA NDIS.

It is very concerning that the WA NDIS is supposedly based on 39,097 Western Australians being eligible. The most reliable estimate—I understand from the actuary report—is that there may be as many as 50,000 WA people eligible. Compounding this uncertainty will be the significant delay in bringing Western Australians into the scheme. All eligible participants across Australia will have joined the NDIS by mid-2019. Over 12,000 people in WA will still be waiting to join the scheme then, not to mention the additional 11,000 people who have potentially not been counted.

This deal commits the WA government to administration costs which are being met by the Commonwealth in all other jurisdictions. This unnecessary and unfair cost on all Western Australians will rise to $140 million per annum. In addition, WA has agreed to pay at least 75 per cent of any cost overruns, while the risk is capped at 25 per cent for all other jurisdictions. If we have more than what is budgeted for, it will mean that WA will bear a large cost.

We are deeply concerned about the future of the WA NDIS. We think it is an urgent priority that the new McGowan government seek to review this deal. We understand that, while they have signed the agreement, it is not binding. In other words, the new government gets an opportunity to redraw this so it is more equitable and to consult Western Australians with disabilities, their families and their carers. Let us develop one that truly delivers for people in Western Australia so that we have a truly national NDIS and people in Western Australia are potentially not left worse off. I urge the McGowan government to review this flawed agreement.