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

The opposition has moved a motion in the Senate because apparently they weren't happy with two of the answers to questions on notice that they received. The hypocrisy of this particular proposition is extraordinary.

The first question was a question that Senator Hume asked about comments attributed to the finance minister in the Canberra Times in relation to what was called a productivity efficiency component. Those comments are completely consistent with a responsible government cleaning up $1 trillion worth of debt left by a decade of Liberal neglect and dysfunction. In answer, the minister quite rightly said:

In relation to the sustainability of the Budget, the Albanese Labor Government inherited a Budget disaster from the previous Liberal government, featuring a trillion dollars in Liberal Party debt, growing inflation, a cost of living crisis and an ugly mess of waste, rackets and rorts that defined the legacy of the wasted decade under the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison Government, a situation with which Senator Hume will be intimately familiar as the Senator was a senior member of the previous Liberal government and a Minister in an economic portfolio.

In addition to that, there is a question here from Senator Paterson that is the subject of this motion. It is about, of all things, the lobbyist register. I remind the Senate—and Senator Farrell says here correctly—that the lobbyist register is a creation of this government. The last time there was a lobbyist register in place, it was a creation of the Rudd and Gillard governments. It was abolished by the previous government. The lobbyist register before that was abolished by the Howard government. These guys have no shame when it comes to the activities of lobbyists and the proper regulation of lobbying here. It's an extraordinary proposition to ask the Senate to get stuck into the government about lobbyist registries and lobbyist regulation that you have abolished every time you've gone anywhere near the government benches.

Why is that? As Senator Farrell's pointed out in his answer—I understand that Senator Paterson, Senator Birmingham and others over there don't like the answer—every time you've got near the government benches you've dispensed with lobbying regulation. And why? Because regulation and clean government are anathema to these characters over there. You only have to look, as Senator Farrell pointed out, at the activities of the member for Fadden. But Senator Farrell could have gone further. If Senator Scarr doesn't like it, he could reflect on the activities of the current member for Hume over the course of the previous government. When he had a problem on his property, a bit of native grass that he wanted to get rid of, what did he do? He walked the little red carpet up to the minister's office and pleaded his case after he'd got the Roundup out and knocked over the native grass to make an enormous personal profit for his company. Remember Jam Land? We all remember it.

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ayres, I have Senator Scarr on his feet.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, personal imputations, reflections—it's hard to even pick. There are so many—a cascade of personal reflections and imputations. The senator should withdraw.

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ayres?

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

I withdraw, and I point out that there is a yawning gulf between what that side says about governance and what they did in government, and all of them—

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ayres, I have Senator Steele-John on a point of order.

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are 21 seconds remaining. My point is on relevance. The senator is not being relevant to the question before the chamber. If he could talk about the NDIS, that would be appreciated.

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Steele-John, I understand there's no requirement for the minister to be relevant on this particular matter.

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

What I'm pointing out is that there is such a giant gap between what these characters say about parliamentary accountability and governance and what they do. It's not just about the sad, sorry sight of the flyblown member for Fadden withdrawing after all of the controversy but also about current members of the opposition frontbench and their conduct in office.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

I really do feel a little sorry for Senator Ayres this morning. He clearly drew the short straw within the government frontbench. In Senator Farrell's absence, Senator Ayres was the one who had to front up and defend the indefensible. Senator Ayres was the one who had to turn up and provide the humiliating response to this Senate, defending the types of responses that should never be given in relation to questions on notice that have been taken.

There's a time and a place for us to engage in political sledging and in comparisons of track records of your government versus our government and the types of things that do frame part of the political debate in the conduct of our national politics. But that time and place is not in written answers to serious Senate questions on notice. Across the chamber, that time and place is in the ABC studios, in the Sky News studios or on the airwaves of radio and television stations. That time and place is sometimes here when we are debating live the contest of ideas and the battle, indeed, of track records. But it's not when a senator has asked a serious question and is seeking serious information about serious topics.

This debate has come on because we believe as the coalition and the opposition in this place that it is a question of respect versus contempt—respect for the Senate and parliamentary institutions versus contempt for the Senate and parliamentary institutions. Mr Shorten and, through agreeing to table Mr Shorten's response, Senator Farrell and the government as a whole have shown contempt for the Senate and its institutions rather than respect for them.

Senator Ayres talked about a yawning gulf as part of his rhetoric. Let's consider the yawning gulf in the government's rhetoric and in what this Labor Party promised to be in government. The Prime Minister, even as recently as April of this year, said:

… I'm focused on … running a good Government. A Government that's run by adults. A Government that has good processes in place. A Government that has ministers that are undertaking their tasks and are working hard.

There's nothing mature, nothing adult like, about Mr Shorten's response to a question asked by Senator Hume in relation to comments about efficiency dividends and how they apply, particularly in relation to the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

I cannot imagine a single Australian who cares about either good budget management or good budget processes or a single Australian who cares about the operation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme thinking that Mr Shorten's response, which constitutes an entire paragraph of diatribe against the former Liberal government and has no mention at all in his response of the NDIS or of disability policy, is anything that goes remotely close to answering the question. If he tried to give this response in the House of Representatives, even the Labor Speaker would call it out of order, even the Labor Speaker would sit him down. Yet he dares to try to give this response in writing in the Senate. It is contemptuous. It is a case of this government speaking with one mind, saying they'll be adults, saying they're going to undertake their tasks properly, saying that ministers will be held to account, but in reality they're not. They've said this again and again. Senator Gallagher assured this Senate:

… that we are an orderly, adult, responsible government. We take matters of integrity and honesty very seriously.

Well, if you take matters of integrity and honesty very seriously, why, again, when Senator Paterson asked a very straightforward question about lobbyists that Mr Shorten may have met with, would Mr Shorten provide an answer that goes nowhere close to actually addressing the question?

This is a message to the government. Lift your standards. Show respect to this institution and to this chamber when it comes to responding to these questions.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to say to everyone listening to these proceedings—we've got people in the public gallery, and it's great to see people in the public gallery again—that this is one of the worst things I've seen in my time in the Senate since I started, on 1 July 2019. What's happening here, to explain to everyone, is that some courteous relevant questions were put to the government in relation to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, referring to an article which appeared in a newspaper and asking some legitimate questions—for example, with respect to the application of a so-called efficiency dividend to the NDIS et cetera. Courteous questions were put, but the response, on notice, in writing, was a diatribe of discourtesy and sneering contempt. It was absolutely disgraceful.

Every senator who is not sitting on the government benches should be absolutely outraged by this. The Australian people should be outraged by this. Senator Ayres is coming back into the chamber. He did his best to defend the indefensible. I don't think he picked the short straw; I think he rushed forward and grabbed it with both hands. I have heard Senator Ayres in the past talk about others in this chamber, sneer at others in this chamber, saying they're engaging in Trotskyite university pranks. That is exactly what this was, Senator Ayres—sneering diatribe in response to courteous questions, relevant questions, asked about the NDIS. It was sneering, contemptuous and discourteous. It is absolutely unbelievable. I was actually shocked when I saw the answer to the question on notice—sneering, discourteous, contemptuous. It was beneath the contempt of this Senate, surely. Every single senator in this place has the right to put questions on notice. I expect, and I'm sure my colleagues here expect, that those questions will be put in a courteous manner, they'll be relevant and they'll be objective. When they do that, there is a reciprocal obligation on those sitting on the government benches to respond in a courteous fashion to those questions—because we're not just sitting here as individuals; we're sitting here as representatives of the people who elected us. That in itself is the position each and every senator holds. I may disagree with senators in terms of their political ideologies or their views on different policies, but I will always defend the right of every single senator in this place—and I don't care from which party—to put forward their views, their arguments and their perspective without being responded to with sneering, contemptuous discourtesy. And that's what we've seen from the government regarding questions on notice. I can understand that in the heat of the battle people may say things. They may step over the mark. I've done it myself. I plead guilty, your honour.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you haven't.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I try to be a better person every day, Senator McGrath—I really do. But on occasions you do step over the mark, and then you withdraw to provide comity in the chamber. You do the right thing. But to respond to serious questions in relation to the NDIS with such discourtesy and such sneering contempt is just outrageous. I say to the leadership of the government opposite: it's profoundly disappointing. I think there is cause for deep, deep reflection because, if this happens again and we hear the same tone—the sneering, contemptuous discourtesy—with respect to legitimate questions which are being put forward in a courteous fashion, we will call it out every day of the week and shine a bright light on it. It's absolutely unacceptable. It's unacceptable to this chamber, and it should be unacceptable to every senator sitting in this chamber.

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The parliamentary scrutiny of the NDIS provided by the Senate is vital. Asking questions in this place of the government in relation to how they run the NDIS is so important because disabled people do not trust the major parties not to stab them in the back as the Liberal Party did over the decade that they were in power. As the NDIS was rolled out, they systematically and continually excluded disabled people from critical decision-making and attempted, again and again, to cut our plans and supports to make it harder for us to get on the scheme, and as a result so many people went for so long, and still go, without the support that they need. Quite frankly, it was hoped among the disability community that, having wrenched the Liberal Party out by the neck and, God willing, condemned them to the dustbin of history, that period of time in our lives, when we woke up week after week, month after month to headlines about the government of the day making changes to the NDIS in such a way that impacted our lives without consulting disabled people, was over.

Indeed, before the election the Labor Party made the promise that they would make no change to the NDIS without consultation and co-design, yet in the budget they broke that promise. A week before the budget, the Prime Minister led every mainland Premier—all of whom are Labor—and the Tasmanian Liberal Premier out into the public to announce a cap on the NDIS. And that cap was followed through with in the budget delivered by this government. The impact of that cap, or that cut, is that $74 billion—colleagues, $74 billion—will be removed from the NDIS funding pot over this decade. That $74 billion is being reported today—and I believe that this is accurate—as the single largest so-called saving in the budget. This is at a time when this government has committed to $368 billion—

more than $368 billion, I'm reminded by Senator Shoebridge now—nearly upwards of half a trillion dollars—on the AUKUS nuclear submarine project. This is at a time when they are continuing to commit in their budget to $54 billion in stage 3 tax cuts over the decade. These are tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit wealthy men—wealthy white men, I should make the bloody point.

In that budget, the single biggest 'saving' they could find was not scrapping the stage 3 tax cuts. It was not opposing the AUKUS proposal. It was cutting the NDIS. And, just in case disabled people hadn't got the message, just in case we hadn't really understood where the priorities of this government were, they really drove it home by failing to commit a single dollar to the implementation of the recommendations that will come from the historic royal commission into disability abuse, which will be handed down in December. This means that when those recommendations are handed down disabled people will have to continue to wait until the next budget cycle, when—I assume—some form of funding for the recommendations will be provided.

In case that wasn't enough, they also failed to listen to the disability community and raise the rate of the disability support pension across the board, which we have been pleading with the government to do, for so long, because of the expense of being disabled in Australia. Disabled people in this community will not cop this cut. We will not be gaslit by any government or any minister that tries to tell us that a so-called target isn't a cut, particularly not by a mob that, when they were in opposition, made much hay out of the exact same language from the Abbott government in relation to health and education.

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

I echo and support the comments of my colleague Senator Steele-John—not all of them—but I too say: shame on you, Labor. Hypocrisy, your name is Bill Shorten. If only his hypocrisy and his lies—I use that word very carefully. I'll withdraw that. His statements do not reflect the reality. Let me go through some of the reasons why. Before the election, as Senator Steele-John has so passionately and eloquently highlighted, Bill Shorten—

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order. Senator Reynolds, use the member's correct title.

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

Minister Shorten, who was then shadow minister for the NDIS, spent months, if not years, saying that there was no problem with the NDIS. He denied us any bipartisanship to implement significant and sensible changes to the scheme. I note that the Leader of the Opposition has offered that bipartisanship, which has not yet been taken up.

The contempt which Minister Shorten has now for transparency is breathtaking in its hypocrisy. Before the election he was talking about transparency. I agreed with him, so I introduced a monthly NDIS statistics summary in July 2021, to provide great transparency to everybody, not only participants and their families but also members in this place, families and anybody else interested in the NDIS. We produced monthly reports to show what the changes and trends were year-on-year.

Guess what? What was one of the first things Minister Shorten did this year? He removed the monthly reports. No more transparency for everybody who is interested in, engaged with and relies on the NDIS. Even worse, on the website it says that they've stopped providing the monthly reports; they're now putting out quarterly reports. They've gone from monthly to quarterly reports, but guess what? There hasn't been a quarterly report published this year, and the last one was actually in December 2022. So since February this year there has not been any transparency. I think it is no coincidence that the NDIA keeps refusing to appear and is finding every reason under the sun for why it won't appear before the JCPAA to talk about its financial reports. I don't think that is a coincidence. So much for this great man who believes in transparency!

The questions on notice that are the subject of this motion today are not the only ones. I have pages and pages of questions that he has simply refused to answer. When he does, the responses are contemptuous of this parliament and this place. For example, there are still many unanswered questions from March not only for Services Australia, which he is also responsible for, but also for the NDIA. When the minister came in, he launched an 18-month review—which has pretty much put the whole scheme on hold, including a lot of the reforms that we implemented—with almost no transparency. When we ask questions about that in this place, he does not answer. Not only did the minister pause the entire scheme for 18 months, even after 30 reviews of the scheme; he doesn't answer questions. While he put the whole scheme on pause for 18 months, he did actually carry out quite a very long night, or month, of the long knives.

I asked questions in relation to the resignations of the chair, Denis Napthine, and the CEO, Martin Hoffman. These were very important questions in terms of how their resignations came to be and whether the minister had actually suggested to them that they might like to resign. The minister still has not responded to those questions. In fact, one of the responses I got in relation to that was quite gobsmacking in its contempt of this place. I asked a question on the time line, and I got a response that said absolutely nothing. I followed up with questions in March. We still do not have answers. This is such a critically important scheme, the third-largest expenditure of our national budget, and he refuses to answer any questions. Shame on him. (Time expired)

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Asking questions and getting good answers to them is incredibly important for the workings of this Senate and the workings of the parliament. It is incredibly important for transparency. It is incredibly important so that the Australian public can have some understanding of the rationale behind decisions that are being made.

This week is budget week. The budget is all about choices. The budget is all about making one decision rather than another decision. Actually having some transparency so that you can work out why these decisions have been made is critical to see whether these are good decisions for the country, or to see, indeed, whether they are decisions that have been made after lobbying by various vested interests. That's why it's important to be asking questions and to be getting good answers to questions. It is very legitimate for the Senate to be taking this time, to be focused on this, to be applying pressure and to be telling this government that it is critical that, when questions are asked, transparent answers are given with the detail that's required.

It's important when you see decisions to rip $74 billion out of the NDIS made in this budget. It is outrageous that it is the community of disabled people here in Australia who are being asked to take the fall. They are the ones that are having to suffer because of the decisions being made in this budget. If there was some good rationale—if you could be shown the government's workings to say: 'This money isn't needed. This is how it's not going to impact on services'—you might be able to trust them. But when you ask questions about it you get zero. You get silence. So it's pretty clear that the reason that $74 billion has been taken out of this budget is that the government has decided, 'The disabled community haven't got much political power, so they will just have to suck it up. This is outrageous, particularly when you put it in the context of other things that the disabled community and disabled people are having to put up with. We have had an absolutely paltry increase to the JobSeeker allowance of $2.85 a day, which won't even buy you a kilogram of potatoes or a loaf of bread.

There was no increase, however, to the disability support pension, despite the recognition that people on the DSP actually need more support, more funding and more resources to be able to live a decent life. There was zero increase to the disability support pension. People on the DSP are still in poverty. In my Senate committee's inquiry into the extent and nature of poverty in Australia and our inquiry into the adequacy of the disability support pension last year, we have heard the most heartbreaking stories from people on the DSP, as well as from people with disabilities who should be on the DSP, of the circumstances they are having to live in—not being able to pay the rent; not being able to afford food, let alone healthy food that's going to help them to stay well; not being able to afford their medications, which is critical. If you're on the DSP, it's for a reason. There are significant health costs. Some are not able to afford to go to see specialists to help them deal with their disability. With this government, these are the choices being made.

And yet at the same time the choice is being made to go ahead with stage 3 tax cuts. At the same time that we're ripping $74 billion out of the budget from the National Disability Insurance Scheme, there is $254 billion that is being given away to the wealthy. It's being given away in $9,000-a-year tax cuts at the same time as the people on the NDIS are having that money ripped away from them. Every single one of us in this place, every single politician, is going to get a $9,000-a-year tax cut. We're going to get an extra $25 a day in our pockets, compared with the cuts that are being made to people with disability and the cuts that are being made to other people who are struggling to get by. These are the choices that are being made.

We absolutely need to have transparency and accountability to show up how inadequate and how wrong these choices being made are. We need to know the rationale for not increasing payments above the current rates. We need to know the rationale as to why the petroleum resource rent tax is only going to bring in an extra $3 billion when it could bring in an extra $30 billion. That's right. Transparency and accountability are critical.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I like Senator Farrell. He's a good bloke. We don't always agree. I accept that he's overseas right now. Yet his repeated nonresponses are not acceptable. His behaviour is not acceptable, because answering questions is important for accountability. The people that we serve deserve honesty and accountability. There's only one word to describe this government's attitude to Senate estimates, to questions on notice and to orders for the production of documents. That word is 'contempt'. They continue to treat this chamber with contempt. Almost every order by this Senate to produce information is met with contempt from this government, and it is appropriate that we begin to treat appropriately the ministers who treat this Senate with contempt.

We have had explanation after explanation after explanation from ministers. Ministers are all too happy to come into this place and cop a lashing for an hour and continue to refuse to produce the information that this Senate has ordered. The explanations are not good enough. They are intentionally inadequate. It is not good enough that this Senate continues to accept them without any further action. It's time for this Senate to use its constitutionally enshrined powers to hold ministers to account, and that must be through charges of contempt when they continue to disrespect this Senate's orders.

I remind senators that it is this Senate, not the government-dominated privileges committee, that makes the final determination on matters of contempt. If this Senate is not happy with a minister's disobedience of a direct order, then the Senate itself can vote on contempt, which we would do and which should happen. The time for meaningless, hollow blather, in explanation after explanation, is over. Start serving the people or face contempt motions. There are jail cells in the basement. It's time for the executive government to be reminded why they're there. That's not a joke. That is fact. It's time for the government to be reminded why there are jail cells in the basement.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on the answers provided, through Minister Farrell, from Minister Shorten. I have been involved in this place in a couple of capacities for quite a long time now, coming on 13 years, five of them as a senator, and I probably read more answers to questions on notice as a member of staff in my previous life. I have read, literally, many thousands of answers to questions on notice. I cannot recall answers that are as sneeringly contemptuous, as my good friend Senator Scarr described them, as arrogant, as patronising and as hubristic as the answers we are looking at here today.

To give those listening or reading Hansard an idea of the questions—you might think they were highly politically charged questions, questions that deserved a political answer in some way. Let me read a couple of the questions to you, just to demonstrate that they are completely reasonable, legitimate, straightforward questions. The first is:

What is the current efficiency dividend rate for your department and any relevant agencies;

Are any agencies or another entities within the portfolio exempt from the efficiency dividend; if so, please list them;

Is the efficiency dividend referenced in the Portfolio Budget Statement for your department; if so, where; and

Are there any agencies or entities that have an efficiency dividend that is higher or lower than the rate applied to the department; if so, please list them.

That's a fairly straightforward question asking about a technical matter in the budget.

No question deserves such a contemptuous answer, but if you are listening to that question then the answer served up by the minister displays such a level of contempt—not for us, not for the askers of the questions, although there is contempt for that, but for this place, for this chamber. We speak a lot in this chamber about the need for civility, order and maintaining the comity of this chamber. This flies directly in the face of those demands, those requests from the chair, on a regular occurrence. In fact, just this morning the President of the Senate asked that we respect the chamber. These answers do not respect the chamber.

Let's look at the second question under consideration today. It's not a highly politically charged question. It's a very straightforward question that deserves a straightforward answer:

Has the Minister, the Minister's office or the Minister's department met with any representative or employee of Anacta Strategies Pty Ltd in relation to TikTok, either in person, via video conference or phone.

If so, what was the date, time and duration of the meeting.

That's a very straightforward question. All it requires is a very simple answer. It does not require a political attack on us. It does not deserve the contempt displayed of this parliament and its processes that we received from the minister.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Shall I send you some of the answers that your side gave?

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Senator Pratt? I believe you're interjecting over there. The contempt displayed in these answers is appalling and you should be ashamed of the way your government is treating—

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brockman, you will ignore the interjections and direct your remarks through the chair.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Interjections are always disorderly, Mr Acting Deputy President. Through you, I would say that answers to questions on notice such as this are also, in their own way, disorderly. They are a contempt of this place and demonstrate that this is a government that is arrogant and hubristic but still thinks it's in opposition. These answers that we see are the answers of a political party that is still in the mentality of opposition. At some point, they have to realise they need to start behaving like a government. Sadly, I don't think that realisation will ever come. (Time expired)

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We know what's happening here: the government are trying to hide their cuts to disability services. They're trying to hide the efficiency dividend cuts through giving virtually useless responses to these questions on notice. They were very cagey about their cuts to the NDIS in Tuesday night's budget. It's coming to light now, thanks to the forensic investigation of Senator Steele-John.

Seventy-four billion dollars is being cut from the NDIS, and you know what? Some of the tiny little bits of sugar that they've sprinkled around to other cohorts of desperate people who deserve far more are not kicking in anytime soon. They have to wait a few months. You know what's kicking in on 1 July? The cuts to the NDIS. As if it weren't insult enough to find $74 billion for some pathetic surplus off the back of people with a disability, those cuts are going to come in virtually straightaway and everybody else's meagre sprinklings of inadequate support have to wait. The priorities of this government continue to surprise and deeply disappoint me and, I'm sure, many people out there in the community.

So we're here today because they weren't properly answering questions on notice about cuts to disability services. That itself is troubling—the lack of transparency and the lack of respect in actually responding to questions that were very reasonable and deserved to be asked and to be answered. But this government hasn't responded properly, and now it's disguising the fact that there's a $74 billion cut to NDIS in the budget.

If you take a look at what else disabled people got served up on Tuesday night, there was a tiny, tiny increase to income support for young people and for people who are seeking work—tiny, $2.85 a day, almost insulting in its uselessness. Sure, every dollar will help, but it is so far below the poverty line. But you know who didn't get that increase? People on the disability support pension. The government didn't even have the decency to increase the DSP, but they certainly had the temerity to cut $74 billion from the NDIS and have that cut kick in from 1 July. It's absolutely shocking. I recall Labor promising that they wouldn't make changes to the NDIS without a co-design process with people with disability. That was an appropriate commitment. But where was that co-design process in cutting $74 billion? It did not happen. As Senator Steele-John has said, the disability community will fight these cuts and the Greens will be there every step or roll of the way.

This budget leaves millions of people behind, including people with disability. Budgets are about choices, and their wafer-thin political surplus is off the back of people with a disability. It's off the back of women who are seeking support in fleeing violence, where frontline services still don't have the funding they need to help everyone who seeks their help. It's off the back of people who deserved far more of an increase in the pathetically inadequate income support that keeps people jobless because they can't afford to get to the job interview, to have a decent shirt to wear or to be job ready.

This is a budget that just so deeply disappoints and leaves so many Australians behind. I thought that was meant to be the tagline. Well, you're not doing what you said on the tin, and I'm afraid people are going to notice. You can't really get away with it. When you have a wafer-thin surplus and inadequate provision for people who really need it, but you're failing to cut $254 billion of unnecessary tax perks to mostly wealthy white men, people are going to notice. Budgets indicate what your priorities are. Nuclear submarines—billions of dollars. Fossil fuel subsidies—$41 billion over the forwards. Billions of dollars in perks to property investors and moguls that are part of the problem and part of why housing is so unaffordable—$254 billion to wealthy white blokes who already have enough money and certainly don't need any more support. That's who is getting benefit from this budget, and yet you're hiding the fact that you're cutting $74 billion from the NDIS. I thought we had a change of government. We expected a change of policy and a change of approach. Do better.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At its core, what we're discussing here are two elements. The first is another broken promise from Labor, which I will come to shortly. Secondly, it is a breach of the separation of powers, because the executive should be accountable to parliament. I will deal with both of those issues in turn. One of the characteristics of this government has been its propensity to make promises, from quite outlandish ones to quite sensible ones, particularly before the election, when they were attempting to garner the support of the Australian people, and then they break the promises.

We should not forget that the Prime Minister said that if you make a promise and a commitment you have to stick to it. Ironically, he also broke that promise. Remember, they promised to cut electricity bills by $275. Labor and Prime Minister Albanese said that 97 times before the last election. They promised cheaper mortgages. We have had 10 interest rises impacting on people's mortgages since the election—another broken promise. Remember the promise of no changes to super? Broken. Lower inflation—broken. They weren't going to touch people's franking credits—broken. They said industrywide bargaining was not part of their policy in relation to industrial relations—broken. They said they'd do their bit to assist real wage increases, and they broke that promise also. They said they weren't about raising taxes, and they broke that one numerous times. They said they would cut the cost of consultants and contractors, and they broke that promise.

The promise we're discussing here this morning is the promise that they would be an accountable and transparent government. They have broken that promise. No doubt Minister Shorten and his staff, sitting in the blue carpet wing of this building, think this is all a bit of a laugh. They're probably sitting there, watching the screen, giggling away at opposition senators and minor party senators raising our concerns about the approach of the government. They probably do think it's a big laugh. It's not.

Quite sad and quite juvenile are the answers that were given. They're not even the answers you'd expect from a first-year politics student or indeed from one of the students who occasionally come into the gallery upstairs here, whether they are from year 6, year 7 or later in high school. It appears that the minister's office have maybe gone to Wikipedia or used ChatGPT to find answers, thinking: 'How can we snub our noses at the Senate? How can we disrespect the Senate?' With their answers to the questions asked by my colleagues, they have actually snubbed their noses at the people who are affected by the issues.

You have heard from colleagues with a range of political views across this chamber about their concerns with how the NDIS is operating and has operated. We do disagree along that particular spectrum, but we all want answers from the government. We got an answer to a question on notice—in particular, the one that was asked by my colleague Senator Jane Hume—that is just so rude, so patronising. It's just wrong that any parliament, that any elected body, would be treated in such a manner by members of the executive in relation to answers that are put on notice.

For those that don't understand, a question on notice is like a take-home exam. You get the question and you've got a period in which to answer it. For questions on notice you've got up to two weeks, sometimes four weeks—whatever it is—but the government is always late with its answers. You're not doing it on the run. It is an opportunity for the opposition to ask serious questions and for serious answers to be given. (Time expired)

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to add my voice on this issue and echo the statements made by my colleagues who've spoken on this very important matter. There are very few times when we agree with the opposition, but we agree with their commentary around this. It's particularly relevant that coming out of this budget we all had some hope. We had some hope that with a new government there'd be change and new policy, as Senator Waters outlined. But we learned that $74 billion would be cut from the NDIS. That is beyond acceptable for those disabled people across Australia, the ones that my colleague here from Western Australia, Senator Steele-John, does so much amazing work with. Thank you for your work, Senator Steele-John.

So much for Labor stating that no-one will be left behind. When you have that in your campaign slogan, when that is your mantra, you actually have to walk that on. You have to continue to do that and not leave people behind. When you deliver your budget and set your priorities you are not to leave people behind, and that includes disabled people in this country. It's shameful that members of this government sit in this chamber and hold their heads high when they're doing this to disabled people, who do not trust the major parties of this country because of the experience they've had over the last decade. They continue to be stabbed in the back by the Liberals, who did it for a decade, and now Labor, who have picked up the mantle and continue to do this to disabled people across this country.

I want to talk specifically about the double disadvantage of First Nations people in this country who are disabled. The First Peoples Disability Network of Australia have done some incredible work in fighting for the NDIS to be better supported for First Nations people across this country. They estimate there are actually 60,000 First Nations people who should—'should' is the operative word here—be in the NDIS, but in reality there are far fewer disabled people getting the support that they deserve, and there are many reasons why. They include spending years on long waiting lists to access NDIS's assessment process. There are lots of First Nations people who live in rural and remote areas, meaning that sometimes they actually can't get that access. It is only available to those who have the means and capacity to travel hundreds of kilometres to access these services. You might need to have a car. You might also need to have someone else drive that car, depending on what your disability is. You've got to pay for fuel, have the time to drive for hours and pay for accommodation if you can't make the trip in one day. These costs add up very quickly, meaning it simply isn't feasible for many First Nations people. Let's not forget, everyone, that we are in a cost-of-living crisis; yet we expect people First Nations people with disabilities who live in rural and remote areas to travel to those services.

I'm sure people in this chamber don't need a geography lesson, but Australia is actually vast, and it's a very spread-out nation. That's especially true for my home state of Western Australia. In a previous life, before I entered this workplace, I worked for a place in the Goldfields. It is quite a remote part of Western Australia, and the nearest service centre is approximately 600 kilometres from Perth. Imagine a First Nations disabled person, whose first language might not be English, having to travel to get services under the NDIS. Not only are there cultural insensitivities in mainstream disability services; there are simply not enough of them. The measly $1 million sugar hit, the little sprinkles that have been given out—I'm going to borrow Senator Waters's description—are not enough for those potential 60,000 First Nations people on the NDIS. This is a big slap in the face for disabled people, and for my people in particular.

Asking questions on notice in this place is important. It's part of a healthy and transparent democracy. Significant changes have been announced in the budget. We need those answers to be able to relate those questions to our constituents. Labor promised 'no big changes without co-design'. Co-design means you involve people, not just rip $74 billion out of the budget for the NDIS. (Time expired)

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a very serious issue that we are discussing today in the Senate. It's an issue of contempt of this place. Very serious, sincere questions have been put to the minister, or ministers in this case, and we've had a very contemptuous response to those questions, which were put on notice by Senator Hume and Senator Paterson.

I try always to be very measured in my language and in the way that I approach debates. I don't try to conflate or overstate the seriousness of an issue, but I have to say that this is quite genuinely one of the most serious issues of contempt that I have seen in this place. I've only been here for 3½ years or so, but this is already the most contemptuous issue that I've seen.

Normally we see some confected outrage in debates and on issues. The contributions that have been made by my colleagues on this side and, indeed, by my colleagues in the Greens party present some very serious issues, because the questions that were asked go to very important points that matter for our national security or, in the case of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, to people who need the services of the NDIS. It is very disappointing that the questions, the very sincere questions that were put, have been answered in such a contemptuous way.

Sometimes I feel sorry for ministers who have to come in and have the job of defending the indefensible, but I don't feel sorry for Senator Ayres in this instance. I feel he was discourteous to the Senate in the answer that he provided in responding on behalf of the minister today. He was given a tough job to do, but he could have dealt with it in a less contemptuous way. It is a poor reflection on the good order of this chamber, because as Senator Brockman said in his contribution, when these issues come up it's a matter of being discourteous or disrespectful not just to the questioner, the senator who is asking the question, but to this chamber. The good working nature of this chamber is important. We have a role to play. We are not here as individuals. We are here representing our communities. I am here, having been duly elected by the people of Western Australia, to come in here and ask questions.

Of course, as others have remarked, sometimes in the heat of battle in a debate on policy or issues there can be a bit of political to-and-fro, but this was a question that was put on notice. As Senator McGrath remarked, when a question is put on notice there is a due date, which is usually more than two weeks away. That gives the minister the chance to seek advice from his departments and his agencies to assert regard to the substance of the answer that is required by the question. I will read out the question in relation to the NDIS:

a. what is the current efficiency dividend rate for your department and any relevant agencies;

b. are any agencies or another entities within the portfolio exempt from the efficiency dividend; if so, please list them;

And it goes on with very straightforward questions requiring just a factual response. But in return, Minister Farrell, in his response, provided a very political answer that didn't mention the budget, any efficiency dividend, finances, or even the NDIS. This was a question of the NDIS minister. It didn't even go there or have anything to do with the agency. It's a very disrespectful— (Time expired)

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These non-answers are embarrassing responses, showing not just contempt for the Senate but, worse still, contempt for the disability community. This is a government that made the promise of co-design on the NDIS. 'Nothing about us without us' was the promise that was made. And then, in this budget, they deliver $74 billion in cuts to the NDIS—secret cuts hidden in footnotes. Nothing about us without us? Well, this budget is a disgraceful portrayal of the disability community. I think it's important in this debate to put some of the words of those extraordinary activists and campaigners from within the disability community about what the NDIS means and why this betrayal cuts to the bone. In particular, I want to put the words on of El Gibbs—

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Shoebridge, I'm afraid that the time for this debate has expired. I will now put the question that the motion moved by Senator Birmingham to take note be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Senator Shoebridge, a point of order?

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. I just seek leave of the house to table four paragraphs of contribution from El Gibbs, a disability activist from my home state on this matter.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It hasn't been distributed, so leave has not been granted.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy to distribute it. I'll seek leave again.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll let you deal with the clerks later.