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

The government continues to reiterate its view that it cannot agree with the assertions made in this motion. We do, however, acknowledge the interest in the chamber in reforming the NDIS to get it back on track and ensure its sustainability for future generations of Australians. I also acknowledge the recent commitment by the Leader of the Opposition to working together with the government to this end.

On 8 February 2024, the government tabled the final report of the Independent Review of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which was publicly released in December 2023. In producing this report, the independent NDIS review panel travelled to every state and territory, including regional and remote communities. It heard directly from more than 10,000 Australians, worked with disability organisations to reach out and listen to more than 1,000 people with disability and their families, recorded more than 2,000 personal stories, and received almost 4,000 submissions. The review delivered 26 recommendations and 139 supporting actions to respond to its terms of reference. In delivering its recommendations, the review provided exhaustive analysis and proposals to improve the operation, effectiveness and sustainability of the NDIS. The independent NDIS review panel has said its reforms can improve the scheme and meet National Cabinet's annual growth target of no more than eight per cent growth by 1 July 2026. Discussions have continued with senators across this chamber, as well as members in the other place, to address questions about the government's NDIS reform agenda that it is pursuing together with the disability community. We look forward to working with senators in this place to get the NDIS back on track and ensure its sustainability for future generations of Australians.

In relation to the order being discussed, the government has previously outlined that it has claimed public interest immunity over the requested documents as disclosure would prejudice relations between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. The Minister representing the Treasurer has already tabled key documents for the benefit of the Senate in addition to the aforementioned review.

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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

Once again, we see the government come in here and refuse to comply with the Senate's orders using the same, tired, worn-out talking points that they have been parroting in this place for month after month. Let's just be really clear; the independent review of the NDIS's final report is not relevant to the orders of the Senate. It does not contain the documentation that the Senate has requested. The information tabled by the Treasurer is not relevant to the orders of the Senate. It does not contain the information that the Senate has requested. The government is in flagrant violation of the orders given to it by the Senate and has repeatedly failed to provide documentation proving that its public interest immunity claim has any grounds. All that they would be required to do is present to the Senate a letter from the state and territory premiers and chief ministers backing them up. They can't produce that information because it doesn't exist.

This is a critical issue for the Senate. The National Disability Insurance Scheme matters. It affects the lives of over 640,000 disabled Australians. We deserve to know what the government has already committed to in relation to our NDIS, because let's remember that in the middle of last year, halfway through the independent review, the government brought down a budget and, on the basis of a so-called sustainability framework, booked over $50 billion of so-called savings to our NDIS—the very framework which the government is refusing to release to the public. What are we seeing now? I can tell you what I am seeing. I am seeing more participants coming to my office in critical need of help with plans that have run out of funding and without access to the supports that they need—to have a shower, to get their catheters, to get their basic supports, to get the support hours that they need—than I have done in seven years.

We were able to identify some of the drivers of these wait times and these terrible situations that people are confronted with. It is the botched rollout of the pay system by the NDIS, combined with a seemingly complete inability to plan for the very predictable outcome that, given the government refuses to release this baseline information about what it intends to do with the NDIS, more people are contacting the agency than they previously have done. Why, I have to ask, is it that the pay scheme is being rolled out in such a way that it is failing so profoundly? It is failing profoundly. We heard at estimates that the agency has been unable to provide the public with aggregate data in relation to the NDIS since September 2023. They are unable to comply with the participant service guarantee. In simple terms, this means they're not able to tell anybody what the wait times are, why the wait times exist, what people are waiting for, how many people are waiting for access to the scheme, how many people are waiting for a review or how many people are requesting a change to their plan. It is unable to tell us any of this information, because of the botched rollout of the pay scheme.

At the same time, they seem to be already implementing some of the changes which have been flagged by the review to only take place in the context of new services that do not currently exist. They are rolling out a program right now, the community connections program, which requires participants, it seems, to fill in a community connections plan. Now, the agency swears that this is not mandatory for access to the scheme, yet participant after participant comes to us and says that this is what they're being told. This is resulting in another unnecessary delay.

The government has a responsibility to be transparent with the Australian public, particularly with disabled people, to whom they pledged greater transparency and consultation. The government must now comply with the Senate's orders.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To Senator Steele-John's point around transparency, I would say that it wasn't just to the disability community that those opposite promised transparency. They promised transparency to the Australian people, yet as soon as they got their backsides on those government benches the clouds came in, the opacity increased and the curtains came down, and what we now learn in a number of areas—not even just around the NDIS but also, we understand, around the religious discrimination bill, and we see it with the fuel emissions standards—is that negotiations are happening in secret. Consultations are happening in secret and, in some instances, those that are consulted with are being forced to sign NDAs. This is a government that is petrified of transparency.

But where there is such an issue with this lack of transparency and with the disdain that this government is showing to the Senate by refusing to release these documents it has been told it must release is the fact that it has actually baked the savings into the budget. It is saying that there will be an eight per cent cap on growth, and it has baked those savings into the budget. In fact, it's now looking like it will be in excess of $60 billion. That is a big black hole, because what we do know about the growth of the NDIS at the moment is that it is tracking at around 15 per cent, so it is almost double what those opposite have put in their budget. This is a serious issue. This is $60 billion that's going to have to be found somewhere.

Now, this is a demand driven scheme, so there are two ways you can make savings: you can cut participants or you can cut the average value of their plans—that's it. But there are other efficiencies that could be made. I don't know who those opposite are doing this alleged consultation with. One of the issues we've got is with the price guide. No-one has come to talk to me about the price guide. No-one has come to talk to the NDIS joint standing committee about the price guide.

We know that those opposite have a slogan: 'same job, same pay'. They love that—same job, same pay—except if you're getting paid by the taxpayer. If you're a provider with DVA or with aged care, you earn less than if you're charging an NDIS participant, because the price guide for NDIS participants is set by the board and is at the highest level—higher than anywhere else. Therefore, businesses are charging more than if someone is a veteran, more than if they have a health care card, more than if they're an aged care participant and more than if they're just a general member of the public.

What has absolutely appalled me this weekend while I've been having a look at this—Instagram has very interesting algorithms for how you get things—is that I've been getting all of these NDIS advertisements on my Instagram and things that it has suggested I follow. They were particularly around supported independent living, which is an area that is ripe for reform. Lots of people talk about the number of participants with autism. Autism is about five per cent of the NDIS spend. The biggest part of the NDIS spend is in supported independent living. All of these ads and suggestions for me to follow on Instagram were advertisements to invest in housing for supported independent living, and the rates of return that these organisations were promising were wild. We're talking about a 25 or 35 per cent rate of return annually on these properties that you invest in to go into supported independent living, because it's funded by the NDIS.

We know that there are providers that are absolutely rorting this system. They are completely and utterly rorting this system. But guess who a lot of them are? They're the old block-funded guys. They're the guys whose workers are all members of the union. And guess where everything that Mr Shorten is looking at is? He's attacking unregistered providers. 'Unregistered provider' doesn't mean 'unskilled'. It doesn't mean 'unqualified'. It just means that they might be a sole provider. They might be a small business and can't afford the audit costs imposed on them by the NDIA. These providers are not unskilled. We do need to look at, perhaps, a scalability of registration. Why not have a website where they put their name, their ABN, what skills they have, their qualifications and their working with children and police checks, without the onerous NDIA requirements?

These are all savings that could be made, because the CEO actually told us in estimates that the least amount of fraud occurs within self-managed participants. Do you know why that is? It's because the participants work directly, quite often, with a sole provider who provides bespoke services. You don't end up with whatever worker these big old block funders send you each week without any goal provision being factored into when they are working for you. Many of these guys offer nothing but glorified babysitting services, which is not the intent of the scheme. But these are not conversations that we can have, because Mr Shorten's hiding. Mr Shorten won't talk to those in the sector, and this lot are baking in a $60 billion black hole that we're all going to have to pay for.

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

I want to talk to the issue of the lack of transparency and the unwillingness to reveal critical information that the Senate needs to do its job. This isn't new, of course—it's a pattern, and it goes across all shades of government—but it undermines democracy. It undermines good decision-making. How on earth can we make good decisions if we haven't got a body of evidence in front of us? Trying to make decisions that will suit a particular perspective and ignore the evidence that suits the other is the sort of thing that totally undermines people's trust in our democracy, because people know that decisions are being made on a political basis rather than on an evidence basis. It would be wonderful in this place if we could agree. Even if we disagree on what to do about a problem, let's at least get all of the evidence on the table about what the problem is. Then we can have a sensible discussion about how to move forward. As I said, the unwillingness and refusal of the government to release these documents is something that has been characteristic of governments of both Labor and coalition persuasions for a very long time. This government said they were going to be different, but they have been exactly the same.

I have currently got an ongoing process going through freedom of information for documents related to sports rorts from the previous government, and the department is still fighting. They're appealing against having to release these documents. You remember sports rorts: the manipulation of funding for party political purposes, which the ANAO did an incredibly scathing report about. It dates back to before the 2019 election. That's a very long time. There was a critical document that this Senate requested through an order for the production of documents that we did not get. It's related to the so-called talking points memo that an adviser in then minister McKenzie's office prepared for the minister before a meeting with the Prime Minister. This document was blocked. It was not provided through the order for production of documents. I have been pursuing it through freedom of information, and we are now at the stage where the Information Commissioner has agreed that the document should be released. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner said three weeks ago, 'Yes, this document should be released.' However, the department has had four weeks to appeal. That four weeks is up on Wednesday, in two days time. We will see whether the department, under this government, is still trying to hide information from the public that is critical for an understanding of good governance. It's critical to be laying bare the information that is being used and the misinformation that is being misused in decision-making in this place.

We've also got an order for production of documents at the moment about issues relating to a contract which was incredibly dodgy, supposedly improving the operations of Meals on Wheels. Meals on Wheels is an incredibly important institution in this country, but the department employed a contractor who, frankly, did an appalling job and divided the Meals on Wheels community across the country. There is a whole range of documents that I'm trying to seek at the moment, to unpack just how badly this contract was managed by the department and the poor job that the contractor did. But we're still waiting on those documents. Again, if we actually had the evidence base we could say: 'This is what's happened. This is the information that we need in order to be able to make some rational evidence based decisions moving forward.' But what it goes to is that governments of both persuasions aren't interested in evidence based decisions. They aren't interested in making decisions that properly evaluate the information on the table. What they are interested in is making decisions that suit their mates. What they are interested in is trying to pull the wool over our eyes about decisions, because it's information that suits their mates. That's what has such a corrupting influence on our democracy. It's what makes people not trust what governments do. Transparency of information is incredibly important in good governance. That's why this issue is so critical.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We hear a lot about transparency in government from Mr Albanese, the Prime Minister, and we hear a lot about transparency in government from his representatives in this place. But talk is cheap. What we need to see is a government delivering on transparency in government.

There would be few, if any, better places for the government to start demonstrating transparency in government than by releasing the NDIS financial sustainability framework. The reason the release of that framework is so critical is that it's the framework the government relied on when it made its decision to set the growth of the NDIS scheme at eight per cent by 1 July 2026. Let's be clear about what that decision actually means. That means cutting $59 billion out of the NDIS over a decade. That is $59 billion that, in the absence of this decision, could be spent on improving the lives of disabled people in Australia. Some of the fundamental rights that they have could have been underpinned by the expenditure of that $59 billion.

Labor, disgracefully, has made the decision to undercut the supports that disabled people will receive in Australia into the future. In making that decision, they are relying on a secret document which disabled people and the rest of the country are not able to read and are not able to understand because Labor are keeping that framework a secret. That is disgraceful. It is insulting. And it's not just insulting to disabled people—although it clearly is insulting to disabled people—it's insulting to all Australians. Everyone has got a right to know what the government is relying on when it makes a decision to slash and burn such vital expenditure into the future.

That $59 billion cut was the biggest cut in the budget in which that decision was made. The Labor Party, which went to the election claiming it would do everything it could to look after disabled people, has turned around and massively cut the funding that would allow for vital and urgent supports to be given to disabled people in Australia. Of course the supports available to disabled people in their plans are now under threat, and many disabled people in Australia are rightfully nervous that their plans are going to be affected by this cut. They want to understand why the government has made this cut, but they can't understand it because they simply do not have access to the framework. That is the issue here.

I want disabled people to know that they have an absolutely staunch and passionate advocate in this Senate in Senator Steele-John. They'll have heard his speech today and they'll have heard a multitude of speeches that Senator Steele-John has made not just on this issue relating to disabled people but on a range of other issues. I want the disability community to know that it is not only Senator Steele-John who's an ally, although he shoulders a lot of the responsibility for this. In the Australian Greens they have a group of allies. They have a group of allies who are prepared to go to the wall and fight for the rights of disabled people—a group of people in this chamber who are prepared to be counted as allies and go in to bat for proper funding so that disabled people can lead dignified lives in Australia.

The NDIS was a critical reform in Australia that was brought in, I acknowledge, by a former Labor government. This is the time for Labor to rediscover itself, to actually not only release this framework but increase the supports available for disabled people in Australia. The Greens are with disabled people. We are—

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

Thank you, Senator McKim. There being no other contributions in this debate, I put the question that the motion be agreed to.

Question agreed to.