Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, I present the final report of the committee on the capability and culture of the NDIA together with accompanying documents and I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

The NDIS joint standing committee is one that usually, as we work though issues, approaches our inquiries and what we're looking into in a reasonably bipartisan say—something that we always endeavour to do because we know that this is not only the largest part of the budgetary spend in the social services space and a program that is growing but also one that affects some very vulnerable people in our society. So it is important that we do try to work together as much as we possibly can.

So, whilst there were 27 recommendations through the final report, there were a couple of them that I really was concerned about and felt fell well short, especially when the actual report was about the culture and the capability of the NDIS. Now, one of the issues that we were looking at was the financial sustainability, because, without financial sustainability, there is no scheme. We think it's important that, if you're saying you're going to improve the culture and you're going to improve the capabilities of an organisation, you want to make sure that there's some funding there for that to happen. And so we did feel that we needed to bring to the attention of those that might be interested in the report that this was not supported by all members of the committee. It was supported by the coalition and it was supported by the Greens that the financial sustainability reporting be part of the report, but it was not supported by members of the government that that should be something that we looked to. That is why—and I'm sure my colleague Senator Reynolds will speak to this more so when she makes her contribution. We know that it is disappointing for people that are participants in the scheme and their families. Because it is demand driven, there are only two ways that the government, as they've claimed, can start to bring inflation costs—the costs of the scheme growing—down so it will not grow by as much as it currently is. That is either by cutting the number of participants or cutting the value of their plans. Those are the only ways you do it. There's no other way.

Because we cannot get the financial transparency that we need to be able to see where the scheme's heading, we don't know. Participants and their families don't know what conditions are going to be cut, what disabilities are going to be deemed not worthy of being assisted by the NDIS, how participants are going to get funded or how much they will get funded for. Will everyone just get a carte blanche cut, or will some more thoughtfulness go into it? We don't know, because no-one will present those figures.

We held a very late hearing into a sexuality, sexual development and sexual expression part of the NDIS. Again, it had to be manoeuvred through, I would suggest, Senator Steele-John. We worked together to make sure that we had that part of it. I know everyone hears the word 'sex'—and we get a lot of headlines about how the NDIS is going broke because of sex workers. That's not what this was about. It is really important that this doesn't overshadow this report.

One of the things that we learnt might actually shock people. All students receive sex education at some point in their schooling. In different years they receive information about sexuality but also about their body and puberty, who can touch them and who can touch them where, who they can touch and who they can touch where, and what's appropriate, what the societal norms are and what the expectations are. We learnt that a lot of children with disability are actually removed from those classes, so they are never taught any of these things that every other child is taught. I acknowledge that kids with an intellectual or cognitive disability quite often need to be taught things in a very different way because they have a very literal mind or they have a different way of understanding things.

We know that there are a lot of young adults that enter the juvenile justice system and the justice system because they don't understand the behaviours that are appropriate, they don't understand what is acceptable and what society accepts as normal behaviour, and so they find themselves getting into trouble. And they get themselves into trouble not only as a perpetrator but also as a victim, because a lot of people with a disability, especially, again, those with cognitive and intellectual disabilities, are never taught about public versus private—what sort of behaviour is acceptable in public and what sort of behaviour is acceptable in private. But they're also not taught how to have autonomy over their own body. They don't understand what's appropriate behaviour and what's not. So, many of these people become victims of inappropriate sexual behaviour and have no framework in which to understand that.

Puberty is another one, for all of us that are parents of teenagers. As of Sunday week, I will have three teenagers in my house; lucky me! Puberty for any kid is a pretty tricky time, but you throw in a disability and it can be a whole new level of complexity. I am going to tell this story. If you're an autism parent, we teach our kids to do things and then they start to generalise it. So, if you teach kids to wash their hands in the bathroom, they then generalise that to other bathrooms. They learn to do that in their bathroom at home, but they know that they can wash their hands in the bathroom at school or in a public restroom.

So, with a teenage boy in the house, when you get to the quite sticky situation of masturbation, let me tell you, there are certain things we need to teach them. One of things that we teach children with autism, and children with intellectual and cognitive disabilities, is that those sorts of behaviours happen in the bedroom. You might wonder: why not the bathroom, or anywhere else, for that matter? It's because we do not want those children to generalise that that activity can occur in any bathroom. But sometimes children are not taught these things, and you can imagine how much trouble someone can get into who's 15 or 16 and generalises that activity to a bathroom at a train station perhaps on the way to school or on the way back. They're going to end up in a bit of a difficult situation.

So one of the recommendations that we have made is that, when a teenager with a disability is doing their NDIS planning, there is some recognition of this, particularly during those years of puberty and sexual development, and that those children are given a framework—that there is an understanding that there will be a need for this, as unpleasant as people might find talking about it, and people might prefer not to think about it. As I said, as the mother of three teenagers, I'm kind of there with you! But I have to face facts because one of mine has autism, and you have to make sure that your child has the best possible opportunity to live a full life. That means that they participate fully but that they participate within societal norms and that they are acting in a societally acceptable way. So we have recommended that, particularly during puberty, there is a sexuality framework and that there is an understanding that there may need to be an increase to the plan. Usually this would be through behavioural supports. It might be through the use of a communication tool to help give a cognitive understanding of what this is all about.

I don't want this to overshadow it. The recommendation from the inquiry we held into this issue was unbelievable. Anyone who wants to read it should go and read it. I'm not going to read it out to you, because it makes no sense at all. The government was clearly so uncomfortable, out of touch and unwilling to address this issue, which can be uncomfortable. It can be awkward. They were so unwilling even to acknowledge the challenges faced by these adolescents, particularly those with intellectual and cognitive disabilities, and the support that they and their families might need for what is a tricky enough time to navigate for any teenager, without the disability, but without any additional support. All that the government has supported through the main part of the report is recommendations from the disability royal commission which allude to this, talk about this and recognise that but provide absolutely no guidance of the agency at all. That is exactly our job to do, to decipher and pull these things apart to make sure that these sorts of services, behaviour programs and understanding are there.

I will mention the information, linkages and capacity-building, ILC, programs, which are the third plank of the NDIS and which are there to allow community participation. Again, they sort of feeds into it. There are community groups and organisations that well suited to allowing people with disability to participate in certain activities without requiring additional support out of a participant's plan for one-on-one individualised supports. The ILC program and its grant process was moved into the Department of Social Services, outside of the agency. Coalition members have made a recommendation that it come back into the agency so that synergy between what the agency is doing and what those programs are setting out to achieve is something that is aimed for and working cohesively. Why that was controversial I have no idea, which is why the coalition felt the need, as did Senator Steele-John, to put that in as part of the report.

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

First of all, the Australian Greens would like to acknowledge and thank the disabled people and disabled-led organisations who have contributed to this important inquiry and also to thank the secretariat of the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS who were, once again, superb in their support of the committee's work.

This inquiry into the cultural capability of the National Disability Insurance Scheme covered significant topics that impact the lives of disabled people. It is, I have to say, deeply concerning that in some instances the NDIA has failed to fulfill its promises under the NDIS Act or Australia's international commitments. The Australian Greens, in submitting additional comments in relation to this report are pretty concerned to say and pretty disappointed to observe that the Australian government has failed to make recommendations on key areas that were asked of the committee by disabled people.

One of those areas is in relation to guardianship and financial administration. It was deeply moving and at times quite infuriating to hear of the unjust experiences disabled people are subjected to while under guardianship or public trustee orders. It is clear that the NDIA could do better in its support of participants who are under guardianship and trustee orders. Of great concern to us is the number of NDIS participants who are subject to guardianship and financial administration orders. Let's be really clear. The evidence we heard as a committee is that we now face a reality in Australia where the majority of Australians who are subject to financial trusteeship and public guardianship orders are either NDIS participants or disabled people. Yet the way in which guardianship and public trustee orders are regulated and monitored in Australia differs from state to state, often vastly disempowering disabled people as a result of their processes and practices. There is an urgent need for a nationally consistent approach to guardianship and financial trusteeship orders in Australia, one which enables people who are subject to these orders, some 50,000 Australians, to be able to retain their right to speak about their experience, and one which supports the right and role of journalists to report on that experience. The gag laws must end. They have no place in a modern-day Australian society. And those elements of legislation that so deeply entrench substitutive decision-making, which robs people of their agency and often violates their rights—these rules, procedures, pieces of legislation—must be replaced by structures that enable proper supported decision-making.

The Australian Greens, in responding to this report of the joint standing committee, are making a commonsense recommendation, and that is that the issue of guardianship and public trustee orders and the arrangements subsequent to them be referred to the Standing Council of Attorneys-General to enable the Commonwealth to play a leadership role in the national standardisation of these processes. This is a commonsense recommendation which unfortunately was rejected by the government.

Another recommendation that the Australian Greens have made in our additional comments is that the Information, Linkages and Capacity Building program, commonly known as ILC, be returned to the NDIA to manage. ILC is the critical third plank of the NDIS, designed and conceived to be a funding program to enable the provision of Commonwealth funding to specific programs of advocacy, support, capacity and linkage building, which would enable disabled people to connect with each other, to build our capacity to advocate and to navigate the systems we use.

This program should always have remained within the NDIA's control to be coordinated with other NDIA policies and approaches. The previous government made the decision to remove ILC from within the management of the NDIA and to place it within DSS, with disastrous consequences. I do understand that who gets to sign the cheques of these programs and announce them in media releases is often a subject of internal political debate. Ministers do like to be able to announce things. But this should not come at the expense of disabled people and the advocacy and information programs we need. ILC needs to go back within the NDIS, and I'm proud to make that recommendation in the committee, alongside a recommendation that calls on the government to make clear that all automated algorithmic practices, so far as they exist within the NDIS, be ceased. We cannot see—we must not see—a repeat of robodebt within our NDIS. We must do these things as we ensure that there are properly coordinated programs and policy supports in place for women, non-binary people and the LGBTQIA+ community, and programs and policies that ensure the creation of an NDIS that works for First Nations people.

Finally, I want to tackle the issue that we got to right at the end of the inquiry process, that being the need for a full and comprehensive sex and relationships and sexual expression policy within the NDIA. Let's be really clear; let's say something that often goes unsaid in this place: sex and sexuality—sexual expression—is a good thing, and it is a right to be celebrated, a right of all human beings. Whether you are a person who is proudly a member of the asexual community, whether you are a queer disabled person—wherever you occupy on the spectrum of sexual expression—the reality that as a human being sexual expression is a right must not be denied. As a legislative space invested with real power when it comes to shaping the supports and services and information accessible to the community, particularly to disabled people, we cannot let our community down by failing to engage in conversations which sometimes make some people in this place feel a bit weird. There is nothing odd about the sexuality of disabled people. There is nothing inherently taboo. They should be nothing inherently taboo about sex or sexuality ever.

The reality is that disabled people are sexual beings. When it comes to the NDIS and the reasonable and necessary supports that may be considered to be provided to an NDIS participant, sex based supports should be the types of supports that are able to be applied for, in addition to educative services, in addition to supports. There shouldn't be limitations placed on disabled people's sexuality or sexual expression simply because ministers think that it might be too tough to talk about. That is not okay.

What we need to do is have a fully formed and codesigned sexual expression policy within the NDIA so that planners making decisions have the information they need to engage with participants at different stages of their lives, depending on their goals, empowering and enabling them to have conversations and to navigate what supports would be necessary and reasonable in which situations. That information doesn't currently exist, leaving people to make judgements on a case-by-case basis. This is inappropriate. (Time expired)

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

I too rise to speak on this NDIS report. The areas I want to focus on are the coalition comments, particularly in relation to the financial sustainability and transparency of the scheme. Financial sustainability and transparency light the heart of the future success of this world-first and incredibly life-transforming scheme. When in government, as the minister, I significantly increased the amount and regularity of NDIS data that was released publicly. Sadly, this transparency has been progressively eroded by the Albanese government, to the point where current actuarial data is no longer available on the future projections of the scheme beyond the next three years. There is a very clear reason for that, which I'll come to shortly. The government have made $74 billion worth of cuts to the NDIS program over the next 10 years, and they have now hidden any of the data publicly were participants, senators and the Australian public could have found out exactly where those cuts are coming from.

To put it in context, the scheme in 2019 was just under $10½ billion. What the last quarterly report—which was thankfully released, albeit very late by the government—has now demonstrated is that the scheme is almost that in the first quarter of this year alone. Those $74 billion cuts apparently are going to come from a framework of initiatives that have yet to be implemented and a framework that does not yet exist. It is no wonder they are not revealing the data.

Again to put the scheme in context, the last publicly available NDIA actuarial forecasts predicted the scheme will have more than one million participants by 2032 and cost Australian taxpayers close to $100 billion annually. This quantum of growth is not reflected in the latest federal Labor government's budget, hence why they haven't released this year's actuarial forecasts. The government continues to refuse to provide the detail on where these cuts are coming from. Instead, they're claiming—as I said—a yet-to-be-developed financial framework that will magically make $74 billion in savings without cutting either of the two drivers of the insurance costs to the scheme, the number of participants and the average cost per participant. Why is this important in relation to this report? Coalition members absolutely understand that, no matter how good the recommendations in this report might be, if you cannot fund them and you cannot even fund the scheme then, no matter what recommendations this place makes, they are pointless because they cannot be funded.

Let's have a look at what we have gleaned from the reports they have made available. The quarterly report, which has just been released, has five key figures which combined demonstrates that this government cannot deliver those $74 billion worth of savings over the next 10 years without slashing participant numbers and slashing participant packages. They very cunningly hid that data until after the next election, but I can guarantee you they will not get away with a $74 billion fraud on Australians with serious and permanent disabilities. The quarterly reports says:

Total Scheme expenses for the 3 months to 30 September 2023 were $10.1 billion …

That is one per cent higher than the estimates in June this year. The second point is that in September, so this last quarter, total planned inflation for that single quarter was 5.5 per cent, which annualised is well over 15 per cent. Remember that 15 per cent because the government are trying to tell us that they are trying to cut the annual increase down to eight per cent when inflation went up in one quarter from 12 per cent to over 15 per cent. Somehow without cutting participant plans and cutting participant numbers they are magically going to reverse that trend.

The third piece of interesting data is that participant numbers themselves are still increasing significantly and by three per cent in the last quarter alone when over 21,000 new participants joined the scheme. This quarterly increase is the equivalent to an annual increase to the scheme of 15 per cent. These numbers are still trending upwards when the government is telling us these mythical yet-to-be-identified measures are magically going to drop the scheme's growth. The fourth bit of interesting data they have tried to hide but cannot is that the average payment per participant during the last quarter was $63,600 per annum, or 1.3 per cent higher than the projections from the last budget alone. Participant numbers, average plan costs and the total budget amounts are all still trending upwards, and, significantly, there was no reduction in the average plan budgets of participants who were continuing in the scheme. In fact, that number was still trending upwards.

You have a scheme that is still exploding in numbers and an insurance scheme where the two drivers of costs, participant numbers and the average cost per participant, are not and cannot be controlled by the federal government on behalf of the taxpayers. That is why in every quarter of every budget since 2019 those costs and numbers have been going up. No matter what committees in this place report, no matter what review Bill Shorten is hiding from this place and people with disabilities—the independent review that has taken of time a long time, which he has, the states have, but is not going to be released to us—and unless structural changes are made that mean the government of the day or board can control both drivers of cost, the scheme is not sustainable. This government is not actually offering a hand of bipartisanship, as we did to the current government and I did as minister over two years ago when I said, 'Let's work together to fix this to put it on a sustainable trajectory,' and that means it can't live within the budget the taxpayers give them. They are hiding actuarial data and putting to people with serious and permanent disability the completely false and cruel narrative that, while the scheme costs are going up, they can somehow cut $74 billion from the scheme over the next 10 years without cutting plans and participant numbers. It is probably the cruellest financial hoax of any government in living memory, and certainly we on this side will not let them get away with it.

In finishing, I want to highlight that, while they suppressed the annual financial sustainability report, which is the actuarial data—it has been 239 previously, with probably well over a hundred tables—in their four-page actuarial report they had the Government Actuary's report for the annual report. The Government Actuary could not have been any more damning. They didn't even give the Government Actuary the full actuarial data, the projections over 10 years. He got the executive summary of the report and some draft Excel spreadsheets from the minister and the agency. He has clearly said he does not believe the numbers from the NDIS. He said he considers this risk to be greater in the middle term, which is exactly the data the government is now hiding from us. Remember, they have gone from giving us 10 years of actuarial forward data to giving us three. Guess what? That gets them through the next budget so they can maintain the fiction that they are not cutting the scheme by $74 billion. In fact, with the cost of the scheme still rising greater than was forecast—they were trying to get it down to eight per cent, and in the last quarter it has gone from 12 to 15 per cent—not only will it have to be $74 billion; they're going to have to rip out even more than that to bring it down to the eight per cent. (Time expired)

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you seeking leave to continue your remarks, Senator Reynolds?

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

I am, thank you.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.