Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have previously outlined to the Senate details of the government's claim for public interest immunity over documents related to the NDIS Financial Sustainability Framework. I refer senators to these comments.

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

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

Another week goes by and another failure to comply from the Albanese government to this simple request of the Senate. The Senate once again refutes the public interest immunity claim made by the government over this vital document. Again, I remind the government that this is the document on the basis of which the government in its budget has booked billions of dollars of cuts—so-called savings they present to the chamber—in our NDIS. I find it ironic that we are once again back here trying to extract this basic information from the government, asking them to engage in what really should be a baseline level of transparency at a time when the minister, Bill Shorten and others, are out right now engaging in a public campaign calling on state and territory ministers to join with them in changes to the NDIS. One of bases of these requests for changes is they say we should be able to come together transparently and collaboratively to chart the pathway forward for the NDIS.

I would suggest that if the government want to states and territories to join with them in that work, let alone if the government want the disability community to have trust in the government as they undertake that work, the very least they could do is comply with a basic request from the Australian Senate to produce a financial sustainability framework that they signed off with their state and territory chief ministers and premiers before the last budget. If the government can't even cough up a basic document like this, upon which over $50 billion of so-called savings has been baked into the federal budget, then why should the states and territories engage in a process of reform with the Commonwealth? And why should the public trust the government in this work if they aren't willing to be transparent about the agreements they have already made with state and territory chief ministers and premiers? No reason at all.

This Senate, at least for the part of the Australian Greens, will continue to insist that the government comply with the orders of the Senate and cough up this document, which they agreed with state and territory chief ministers and upon which they put so much emphasis in their budget. It may annoy members in the ALP Senate team that we continue to do this, but, quite frankly, the annoyance of the ALP Senate team is nothing compared to the obligation I feel to the 4.4 million disabled Australians who want to know exactly what their government has already agreed in relation to their NDIS, particularly when that government has framed the so call independent review of the NDIS as an authentic explanation and exploration of what is to be the future of the NDIS.

A key question remains in the minds of the disability community. In the independent review of the NDIS is independent, if it was really empowered to explore what the future of the NDIS should be, then why, during the conduct of the review, did the government admit to a framework upon which it then booked over $50 billion in so-called saved revenue in relation to the NDIS?

That is a very legitimate question. The government may wish to refute that, and all they need to do to put that concern to rest is to cough up the document—so cough it up. It is a simple and basic thing to do. We have asked you now sitting after sitting. As far as the Greens are concerned, we will continue to ask you for this document because it is a request for a basic level of transparency that you committed to at the federal election.

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

Senator Steele-John, I said we'd be back. It's 'Ministerial Lack of Accountability Monday', and every Monday we'll be back, asking for these documents. That this government is hiding behind a public immunity claim is just shameful. This government said during the election campaign that they would be all about transparency. They said they'd be all open. But we also had Minister Shorten out there talking about the demand driven scheme, saying that there would be no cuts. He said he was a friend of the disability community. That is farcical. We are seeing this campaign ramping up, ramping up and ramping up, with Minister Shorten now getting into an almost threatening position with the state premiers as we head into a disability ministers' meeting this week—and we know National Cabinet will probably meet this week—and we are going to see the Bonyhady review presented. The Bonyhady review was actually due in October, and we were told that we would have the Bonyhady review in October. But, actually, during the last round of estimates, we found out that no-one was going to get the review until it had been through National Cabinet, and at that stage no-one could tell us when National Cabinet would meet. Thankfully, I managed to find out during estimates that it would meet in the week of 4 December. So it was to be buried until the end of the year. They were hoping that they could, fundamentally, put this review out with the trash. They could put it out just before Christmas, hoping no-one would notice. Shame on all of you.

I can tell you that, on the weekend, I've been getting messages from a number of families whose concerns are increasing about their child's access within the NDIS. These are kids who were diagnosed long before the DSM-IV became the DSM-5 and who were not diagnosed autism level 1, 2 or 3. They were diagnosed as 'classical autism'. They weren't given PDD-NOS or global development delay. They weren't given a diagnosis of Asperger's or any of the diagnoses that now don't exist anymore and fall under autism level 1. They actually were given 'classical autism'. They also had delays. Many of them had an intellectual disability tied in with that. They are now concerned because, as their kids have got a bit older, in some areas they're now being classified as autism level 2 and some as autism level 3. These parents don't understand whether or not their child is still going to be covered by the scheme because autism is being used as the catch-all for where they're saying that they're going to cut from this scheme. But we wouldn't know. No-one knows where they got these figures from. We know that the transparency they promised is a complete myth. We know that the transparency they proposed was a slogan, a bit like the promise of $275 off your power bill. It actually had nothing to do with reality and how they were planning to govern; it was just a slogan they put forward.

The claim is that the reason for not providing us with this document—this framework for how they were going to cut billions and billions of dollars out of the NDIS—is that this would upset our relationship with the states. I will give you a tip. Have a look at any of the newspapers today and even some over the weekend, and you will see that the premiers aren't that happy with you guys anyway. They're already not that happy. They're not that happy when it comes to your infrastructure cuts. They're absolutely not that happy now that Minister Shorten is not really being upfront with them. We've actually got Jacinta Allan, the Premier of Victoria, saying, 'It's completely irrelevant, Mr Shorten,' because she's only going to deal with Albanese anyway. And Albanese is the one who, I understand, said to Shorten, 'Just go and cut a whole lot of autistic kids out of the NDIS.'

This is going from bad to worse. It is a farce, and this is just compounding the fear that families of children with severe, significant, permanent and lifelong disabilities are facing, because they know that this government doesn't actually want to provide services and assistance for people with a disability. What they're more interested in doing is providing job opportunities for those that will join the HSU.

All they're interested in is boosting the service providers who will join their mates' unions. It's not about the participants, for those over there.

Now, I'm the first to say that the states have vacated the field. But that was because, when Prime Minister Gillard negotiated the NDIS, she said to all the states, to get them on board: 'Hey, don't worry about any increases in costs. The Commonwealth will bear those.' So, as the scheme has continued to grow, it has been the Commonwealth that has been picking up the tab. But, to boost that, the states have vacated the field; they've taken away community health and the supports they'd provided in the education services—which is their responsibility; constitutionally, that is their purview. They have vacated the field.

Not only are Mr Shorten and Prime Minister Albanese treating the ministers and premiers of states with contempt; they're treating this Senate with contempt and they are treating the Australian disability community with contempt.

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

Here we are again: yet another Monday, with this government showing a scandalous disregard for not only those in this place but also all Australians. From me as the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the Labor Party, Senator Steele-John and the entire disability community asked for more transparency, and I delivered it. I delivered far more transparency than there had ever been before. It's not comfortable, sometimes, having all of that information out there, but it is incredibly important.

What has this government done? They've got rid of the monthly reports. They're not now releasing the actuarial data that is so important for those in the sector and in this place to actually understand where they have made those $74 billion of cuts. Somehow, magically, they're going to reduce scheme growth, which is still going upwards and is now 15 per cent per annum. They're magically going to cut $74 billion out of this scheme over the next decade and reduce that growth rate to eight per cent. It will not happen.

Sadly, despite the Albanese government having bipartisan and, in fact, multipartisan support to engage in the discussion that is required to save this scheme—because that is where the scheme is at now: it is on an uncontrollable and unsustainable trajectory of growth—and instead of working together to fix the scheme, they've tried to perpetuate the biggest ever fraud on Australian taxpayers and on people with serious and permanent disability by saying that they can somehow cut $74 billion out of the scheme and not cut participant numbers and participants' plans. It is a complete nonsense.

With this public interest immunity claim, there are two tests. They haven't even bothered to try and meet the second test. And they've got this tiny little fig leaf of an excuse for the first test, and that is the reason. Well, the only reason they've been able to provide is that it may jeopardise Commonwealth-state/territory relations. Well, it will only jeopardise them if you have something to hide. I tell you what: from having a look at the papers, as Senator Hughes has said, over the last week, that ship has sailed. Minister Shorten and the Prime Minister have completely and utterly stuffed the process with the states and territories on the NDIS.

Now, over the last 18 months, they could and should have been having productive discussions with all in this place, with the sector and with states and territories, to fix the endemic structural issues that are putting this scheme on a pathway to failure—and nobody in this place wants to see that happen. But, until those structural issues are fixed, the scheme will continue to run out of financial control, and that is a fact. The government has to find a way to repair its relationships with and to regain the trust of the sector and of those in this place—and of the state and territory governments, who are also equally responsible for the scheme being where it is today.

So let's have no more of this coming in here for 10 seconds—in fact, less, this time, the minister spoke for. It is wrong.

Well over three years ago, as minister, I offered the hand of bipartisanship, on behalf of the coalition government at the time, to Bill Shorten and to the Labor Party. Instead, what did Bill Shorten do?

He denied there was any problem with the scheme. He made promises to the sector and participants. He made promises that he knew he could never keep. And now he's trying to, very duplicitously, hide what they are actually doing with the scheme, because they are cutting this scheme. They are cutting this scheme in a way—

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

I'm rising in relation to imputations. I think that some of the language Senator Reynolds is now using veers into imputation. I would just ask you to draw her attention to the standing orders.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't think it quite got there, but I'm sure the member is going to be mindful going forward.

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

Yes, Deputy President. Bill Shorten as the shadow minister promised—he promised!—every participant and their family that there would be no cuts to plans. $74 billion worth of cuts he's made, and he has not provided one skerrick of information—in fact, they are hiding it—that would demonstrate where those cuts are coming from. This week, with the release of the report, finally this government has to show some leadership, some honesty and some transparency. We have time to save this scheme, but not with the way this government has conducted itself over the past 18 months. We are still here to work with you.

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

I just want to make three quick points, and I've made these points before—as Senator Steele-John has made, as Senator Reynolds has made, as Senator Hughes has made and as we continue to make on Mondays of sitting weeks.

The first point, for people in the gallery who are watching this debate: what is happening is that both the Greens and the coalition are seeking crucial additional information in relation to the sustainability of one of the country's most important social programs—that is, the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We're seeking further information with respect to how sustainable the program is given the cuts that were announced, of $74 billion over the next 10 years, by the relevant minister and by the Labor government at the time of the last budget. What the Greens and the coalition are seeking are the actuarial documents, the key supporting documents, for those cuts of $74 billion. How was that figure calculated? What was the basis upon it being calculated? And, as Senator Reynolds has frequently said: if you are going to cut funding from a scheme like the NDIS you are either going to cut the number of participants or going to cut the amount that is spent per participant. There's no other way to do it.

We're seeking the key documents which form the evidential base upon which the government has sought to cut $74 billion from that scheme, and the government refuses to provide those documents to the Senate. We're not seeking those documents for ourselves; we're seeking them for you. We're seeking them for the current participants in the scheme and for future participants in the scheme and their families who try to get them onto the scheme. That's why we're seeking those documents. That's our job as a Senate, as a house of scrutiny, as a house of review: to seek those documents so that we can examine them and ask questions of the government in relation to their assumptions based on the evidential base, and the government is refusing to provide those documents to us.

The second point I want to make is in relation to the basis upon which the government continues to refuse to provide those documents. As Senator Reynolds said, it's on the basis of what's called a public interest immunity claim—that, amongst other things, the release of those documents could harm the relationship between the Commonwealth and the states. It's an absolutely nonsensical argument in my view. How can the release of an evidential base for a decision made in the budget harm relations between the Commonwealth and the state?

Let's just talk about the relations between the Commonwealth and the state in the context of this debate at the moment. This is a quote from the last day or so that was published in the Guardian from the Labor Premier of New South Wales with respect to the scheme:

If Bill Shorten wants to remove people from the NDIS, he can do it.

This is the Labor Premier, Chris Minns. He continues:

What he can't say is the states will take up the services because we handed over both our public servants and our money to the commonwealth a decade ago for them to run it—

to manage the scheme.

That's what the Labor Premier, Chris Minns, said. The state premiers and the minister are at each other's throats already in relation to this. How would agreeing to the Senate's requests to release this information have a negative impact on the relationship between the Commonwealth and the states? It wouldn't. The evidence is clear that the claim of public interest immunity is spurious.

I come back to the original point. This is one of Australia's most important social programs. In the last budget the government announced they were cutting $74 billion from it over the next 10 years, and they refused to provide this Senate—to provide you—with the evidential basis for that. That's the reason for the debate we're having at the moment, and that is the reason why the Greens and the coalition and, no doubt, other members of the crossbench are seeking that information from the government.

Question agreed to.