Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

May I refer senators to the statement made by Minister Farrell on 17 October 2023.

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

():  I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

I take note of the answer given by Senator McAllister on behalf of Senator Farrell. Here we are again—the third time, I believe, the minister has been required to appear before the chamber and make the explanation required of him by the Senate. That is a very clear requirement. The Senate is not asking for a complicated piece of information. It is simply asking for the grounds upon which the government has claimed public interest immunity over the financial sustainability framework which it has adopted, along with the states and territories, in relation to the NDIS. This is a document of critical public importance. It has been cited in the government's budget as being the primary driver for the reduction over the forward estimates of some $50-plus billion in NDIS expenditure. There could not be a more textbook definition of a document that was in the public interest for release than this framework. Yet, for a third time in a row, this government, which was elected on a platform of greater transparency, greater collaboration and co-design of NDIS policy with disabled people, refuses to release such a basic document with such profound implications for disabled people.

This is in a context where, once again, we now see the government refusing to release additional pieces of information in relation to the NDIS. I am a strong believer that you judge a government on the pattern of its behaviour, and what do we see in the pattern of behaviour from the Labor Party in relation to the NDIS? We see that they have consistently taken decisions, and are still taking decisions, in relation to the National Disability Insurance Scheme in violation of their commitment to co-design those changes with disabled people. Not only are they refusing to release the financial sustainability framework; they've also ceased publishing the full financials of the scheme in such a way that, had the former government done it, I am absolutely sure that the crossbench would have led the charge, and Labor would have joined in, to release those documents. Yet the government has continually failed to release them.

Last week, we saw the government refuse to make public the full report of the Independent Review of the NDIS, even though that was handed to state and territory disability ministers on 30 October. This review has been the subject of so much time expended by the disability community and so much hope that the government would finally listen to disabled people and implement the changes that we need to see in relation to the NDIS. This is a significant milestone moment, and the government refuses to release it. The Senate asked for that document last week, and Ministers Farrell and Shorten responded to that request by saying—what do we want to guess they said, folks, given that we are currently debating a question of whether the government should release something over which they have claimed public interest immunity? They said: 'We will not release the report, because to do so would jeopardise the relationship between the states and territories. We will not release the report until after National Cabinet.' Isn't that funny? It's the very same National Cabinet to which the financial sustainability framework was sent and the very same National Cabinet, once that framework was there, in relation to which the government now implements a public interest immunity claim.

On what possible grounds should the Senate trust that this government will not make a public interest immunity claim over the report, or some part of the report, of the independent review once it has gone to National Cabinet? We have absolutely no reason to trust the government in this, because they have refused repeatedly to release this basic document for months now. I will continue to press this with them. Disabled people deserve transparency. Disabled people have the receipts, ministers, of your commitment to co-design—a commitment you are flagrantly violating. (Time expired)

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

I too rise to speak on this motion, and the first observation I would make is that everybody in Labor should hang their head in shame. Six hundred and ten thousand Australians with serious and permanent disability and their families rely on this scheme, and increasingly they are getting very nervous and upset at the lack of transparency and the uncertainty that that is causing them. We've seen the utter contempt. Last week Senator McAllister stood up on behalf of the minister and spoke for about 10 seconds, and today it was less than five seconds. That is utterly unacceptable and is nothing more than a two-fingered salute to every Australian who relies on the NDIS.

But let's go into a bit more detail about what they're hiding and why they are hiding this data. As Senator Steele-John said, the Labor Party came into government. Minister Shorten, as opposition spokesman on the NDIS, said: 'There will be no cuts to any plans. There's nothing wrong with the scheme. There's no sustainability issue.' He raised the expectations, knowing that what he said was not true. It was a cruel hoax, because in the last budget the Labor Party cut $74 billion over the next 10 years from the scheme, and they have progressively shut down all transparency on the scheme.

So what have they done? In February, they cut the monthly financial statement reports that I implemented as a response to requests by the Labor Party and by many others in the sector to have more frequent information. The monthly reports are gone. As to the quarterly reports, the last one that came out was in June, so they haven't even got the next quarterly report out. The quarterly reports have a lot of data which would enable us to identify where they are making the cuts to the scheme. The most important document at all for budget transparency is the annual financial sustainability report, which they are now refusing to release. We have a very short report. In fact, we have four pages only in the annual report, with big text and lots of white space, to replace a 270-odd page report that provided the detailed actuarial data. So they have completely denied the Senate, the sector and the Australian public any transparency at all on where they are making the $74 billion worth of savings.

Not only that—they're showing complete contempt to everybody in this chamber with this public interest immunity claim. What they're actually supposed to do for a public interest immunity claim—as they well know, because they reminded us all the time when we were in government—is two things. One is to provide a statement on the grounds for that conclusion. The ground that they provided is that it would cause problems with state and territory governments, which it simply couldn't do. But what they haven't even bothered to do is the second test: to specify the harm to the public interest that could result if the information is provided. They haven't done that either. Again, Senator McAllister has shamefully come into this place and spent five seconds speaking to the 610,000 Australians with serious and permanent disability. Shame on you all.

Here is what they're trying to hide, and I say to them: you will not get away with this. You will not get away with this breathtaking lack of accountability and transparency. There are only two ways you can cut $74 billion from the NDIS. There are two drivers of cost: participant numbers and average cost per participant. One or both of those have to be cut. There was a very short statement from the Australian Government Actuary. It must have galled Minister Shorten that he couldn't avoid putting the government actuarial report in here, and the Australian Government Actuary has let the cat out of the bag, because he said:

Amounts included in the Baseline projection are then reduced to allow for initiatives in the May 2023 Budget …

So somehow the $700-plus million is over time going to make $74 billion worth of savings to this scheme. It is completely and utterly ludicrous, and those opposite should hang their heads in shame. (Time expired)

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

I too rise to take note of the minister's response. I should say at the outset that, when I listened to that response, I looked through Senator McAllister to Mr Shorten, the member for Maribyrnong. Senator McAllister has been sent into the chamber to give the statement on behalf of the member for Maribyrnong. Minister Shorten is denying the information that should be provided. Senator Reynolds made the observation: should Senator McAllister have come in and given that statement? I think that's a question only Senator Allister can answer. For the people sitting in the gallery so they know what is going on in this regard, the Senate asked for key information relating to the NDIS scheme, one of the most significant social welfare schemes that this parliament provides for the people of Australia. What was that information? Documents going to the heart of the financial sustainability of the NDIS scheme.

This was in a context where, as my good friend Senator Reynolds said, up to $74 billion, on the government's own records, is going to be cut from that scheme over the next 10 years. If the government, through budget documents, has said $74 billion is going to be cut from the scheme over the next 10 years, the question is: how is that $74 billion going to be cut? As Senator Reynolds said, there are only two ways in which you can cut the $74 billion: you decrease the number of participants, or you decrease the amount that is provided for each participant in the scheme. There's no other way to cut the cost, and what this Senate is seeking is key information with respect to how that saving is going to be crystallised. The Labor government promised transparency. We on this side of the chamber remember all of the promises they made around transparency before the election. Judge them by their deeds, not their words because the Labor government are saying they're not going to provide this information because it may harm Commonwealth-state relations.

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

It'll harm their electoral interests.

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

I'll take that interjection from Senator Reynolds: it may well harm their electoral interests. I'm sure it will, and it should because of its furphy about Commonwealth-state relations. How is it going to harm Commonwealth-state relations for the Commonwealth government to provide documents in relation to the financial sustainability of the NDIS? I represent the state of Queensland in this chamber. Those opposite can't provide us any explanation as to how providing us this information is going to harm state-Commonwealth relations. Why? Because there is no cogent response to that question. We here in this Senate are left with the situation where the Albanese Labor government say that they're going to cut $74 billion from the NDIS over the next 10 years. The Senate legitimately asks questions. The Senate is the house of review, the check and balance, in the system of Australian government. We asked for the documents which explain how that cut is going to occur, who is going to be impacted amongst participants, which future participants are potentially going to be denied access to scheme because of these cuts and how the Australian taxpayers are going to be impacted. These are legitimate questions being asked by the Senate, and the Labor government refuses to provide the key documents in response to those legitimate questions.

What are they hiding? Why won't they provide the documents? For those on the government benches to talk about transparency, Senator Reynolds was quite right to remind them that under her ministerial leadership there was oodles of information provided in relation to the NDIS, including monthly financial statements. We in government provided monthly financial statements, not just quarterly statements, and the Labor government are behind with the quarterly financial statements and abolished the monthly reporting. Judge them by their deeds, not their words, and in this context in relation to this legitimate call for the production of documents, the Labor Albanese government is falling short of the standard that should be expected.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the attendance and the statement given by the minister in relation to this matter. I draw attention to the fact that this is week 3. We've been asking for this information to be provided to the Senate, to the public, for well over a month now. The minister responsible, Minister Shorten, knows exactly what information it is that we are seeking. It's not as if this is a broad, sweeping fishing expedition. This is a specific request in relation to documents that the minister is able to give us if he is to comply. The Senate asked for this documentation. The minister denied. The Senate said, 'Well, come in and explain to us why you won't give us this information,' and the minister refused. We now have a standing order that requires the representing minister, Minister Farrell, to cough up at the beginning of every sitting week to provide this explanation. Something's got to give here.

I know why Minister Farrell isn't doing it today and is being represented by Senator McAllister. We know why: it's because Senator Farrell is a busy person and probably off in another meeting. That's how much respect the government is giving the Senate in relation to this order for the minister to appear.

Now, the Senate has extraordinary powers. Most of the time, the Senate is able to come to a resolution with the government of the day to provide at least some of the information that's requested, and there's often a negotiation as to which parts need to be given in what time frame, but all we've had from the government on this particular matter is, frankly, pure arrogance. When you put in your own budget statement that you're going to 'save $50 billion', it is only appropriate that you explain how you are going to save $50 billion from a program and a service that is so heavily relied on by everyday people across this country.

Whether you are an existing member of the community who accesses the NDIS program, the loved one or the family member of somebody who does, or, indeed, a member of the community who is trying to get access to the NDIS program because, perhaps, you have a child with a disability or a loved one in need of assistance, Australians have the right to know what is being cut from this program and know whether they are, indeed, impacted. You'd think that the government of the day would want to provide this information to give certainty and assurance to their constituents, to the community.

I am all up for having a conversation about how to ensure that the delivery of the NDIS is done better—heaven knows we need that—more efficiently, more effectively, more compassionately and more respectfully, but you can't have that conversation if the government won't even tell us where $50 billion is being cut from. Who will lose out? There are always winners and losers when it comes to making budget choices, but here the government wants to have their cake and eat it too. They want to say they're saving $50 billion—otherwise known as a cut—but they don't want to tell anybody who is the loser and who will win. It is not good enough. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.