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

Thank you, President—

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

Playing the role of Don.

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

Indeed, Senator Birmingham. The government continues to reiterate its view that it cannot agree with the assertions made in the motion in relation the NDIS. 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 into 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 a thousand 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 that 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 we have 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 relation 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 minister's statement.

At the election, the Labor Party promised the Australian community transparency and accountability. To the disabled community of Australia and our families, the Labor Party pledged collaboration, co-design and a return to a national disability insurance scheme that worked to uphold the dignity of disabled Australians and to support their communities and their families.

What Labor have delivered since winning that election and coming to government is a seemingly endless series of broken promises and betrayals. They promised transparency and accountability, yet they refuse to reveal the details of a deal that they did behind closed doors to cap and cut our NDIS. They promised co-design. They pledged co-design, consultation and a return to dignity, yet their sole focus right now in relation to the National Disability Insurance Scheme—the goal that they are most seeking to achieve—is to cut $14.4 billion that funds vitally needed supports to disabled people across the country. That is their goal. That is what they are working to achieve in this Senate right now—to cut as much as they can and to remove as many of the protections that disabled people and our families are currently guaranteed under the law.

Just this week, we have seen exactly where these types of policy decisions end up. We have seen exactly what will happen if this bill passes. We have been given a rare opportunity, as a community, to see exactly what the end result of a government policy will be before it has passed. One of the most significant removals of rights and protections contained within Labor's NDIS bill is the removal of the principle of reasonable and necessary individualised supports being guaranteed to every participant—that is, the right to make the case for the individualised, specific supports that you need as a disabled person or that your family needs in order to live a good life. The bill removes that and replaces it with a list created by politicians, by ministers and by bureaucrats, and, if what you need is not on that list, you will not get it.

This week we have seen the draft of this list published by the government, in which they gave the disability community two weeks to provide feedback and two weeks to provide consultation. I have milk in my fridge with a longer expiration date than the time the government gave the disability community to give feedback on the vital, necessary supports we need to live our lives.

Worse than that, they created a category of things they wouldn't support, because they were 'lifestyle choices', and on that list of 'lifestyle choices' they placed period products. A government led by a bloke decided that period products are a 'lifestyle choice'. I want to thank Share the Dignity and the excellent journalists who have called this out. Every person who menstruates who needs specialised period products should be able to get them, and this bill grants the power for any future government to take back off the list what we as the community might force them to put on the list during this process. This bill cannot be allowed to pass.

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

I feel like I need to correct the record. Last week, on 'NDIS Monday', I made reference to the fact we have been calling out this absolutely ridiculous denial from the government to produce these documents. We've been here, between six and eight months, doing this every Monday. I note, Senator Steele-John, that you put this motion up on 14 September 2023, so in less than a month we will mark our one-year anniversary of 'NDIS Monday'. The government should be very, very comfortable in the knowledge that we will continue well past the one-year anniversary, should we be required to, to try to get access to this framework.

Honestly, they really cannot make up their mind. We see the quarterly reviews come out from the NDIS that now say, 'Look at this. Isn't this great? We've managed to slow growth'—that's slowing growth without the introduction of this dog's breakfast of legislation that's currently before this chamber. What's extraordinary is that on one hand we've got Minister Shorten out there saying, 'Any delay to passing this bill is going cost $1 million a day,' and on the other hand he's also out there saying, 'Aren't we good at managing to slow this growth?'

We know how they've managed to slow the growth. We only get this through anecdotal evidence, but we know, from some numbers, that what's actually happening is that wait times are blowing out for people who are looking for change-of-circumstances reviews and for new plans to be put in place. So basically what's happening, to slow the growth, is that fewer people are being serviced. They are servicing people well outside of the scheme's guarantee of service. So it's absolutely false for them to claim that they're achieving some victories, movement and success with regard to the reforms of the NDIS, because all they're doing is manipulating data.

I note that we have now not only heard from the states and territories, who are asking for this legislation not to be passed until there can be agreement between the states and the Commonwealth, but also seen comments put out, over the weekend and at the end of last week, from Allied Health Professions Australia and Physical Disability Australia—but we've also heard from the Autism Partnership—about the risks that the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 poses. Senator Steele-John referred to the two weeks given to the disability community for response and co-design—ha-ha-ha. But the two weeks that they've had to respond with regard to the proposed reasonable and necessary supports will be accepted by the agency moving forward. I don't know why this government is so opposed to looking at a definition of 'permanent and lifelong', because that was who the scheme was set up for. If we looked at 'permanent and lifelong' we'd see some significant changes through the scheme anyway, and it'd be an opportunity to then force the states back to the table.

Whilst we have this legislation in front of us, we have a thing called 'category A supports'. The category A supports require unanimous support and unanimous agreement by the states and territories, with the Commonwealth, as to what they will provide. We don't have that at the moment. We do not have unanimous support. In fact, we don't have any support from the states and territories when it comes to the list of category A supports. That's still a bit of an unknown. But the states and territories are already saying they're in no position to agree to these.

If/when this bill passes this chamber, what we do know is that it won't be worth the paper it is written on without the unanimous support of the states. What is that support from the states predicated on? It's the sustainability framework that we have been asking for for now almost a year so we can understand where the figure of 'capped eight per cent growth of the scheme' actually comes from. We don't know. Is this an arbitrary figure that was just pulled out of the air? Was there some actuarial evidence behind it? What was the modelling that was done? What were the assumptions that underpinned that modelling? We know that the assumptions given to the actuary, when it came to the costs of the eight-week delay because we had an inquiry—heaven forbid we had some hearings into this legislation, which was allegedly ready to pass eight weeks ago but now requires 30 amendments from the government itself, so it was no way ready to be passed. But we don't know how much is actually going to be saved, what the growth is going to slow to and how that's going to be achieved.

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

Here we are again, sadly, almost at the 12 month anniversary of this government's lack of transparency to this chamber. If only Minster Shorten and the Labor Party had spent the last 2½ years not performing gymnastics, trying to find new ways to not provide any information to senators in this place. If only they had spent half of that effort for the last 2½ years negotiating with the states and territories in good faith so that, by the time this legislation came to this place, the states and territories would be ready to sign off on this. Instead, Minister Shorten has employed spin companies to spin this, to assist him to—I was going to say 'lie'—not tell the truth to the sector. 'Oh, there's no problem here.' Remember, before the last election, they said: 'There is no problem with the scheme. The opposition don't know what they're talking about.' And I seem to recall as late as last week Minster Shorten saying, 'When I came into this portfolio I had no idea that this scheme was in trouble.' What? He couldn't read the budget papers? He couldn't read the quarterly reports? He couldn't read all the other transparency documents that we, when in government, made available? So here we are again.

We've had nearly 12 months of those opposite and Minister Shorten not providing any transparency. They provided the fourth-quarter report after our last hearing with the actuaries so we could not ask questions for information on that piece of legislation. But, to be kind, this report is cooking the books before the legislation comes forward. It is very clear that this Q4 report is not worth the paper it is written on. The government are now saying, 'Yes, well, we're moderating cost down to 10.1 per cent per annum.' Actually, the truth is this: if you take quarter on quarter, they've moderated it down to 18.88 per cent; it is still increasing 18 per cent quarter on quarter, fourth-quarter to fourth-quarter.

But how have they cooked the books? How have they cooked this quarterly report? Well, they've done it at least two ways, which is what they're not providing us information on. The first thing is that there are between 50,000 to 60,000 participants who have got plan variations in because—guess what?—the cost of living has gone up; the costs of the services they use have gone up, and they have run out of money or are about to run out of money in their plan. Instead of actually giving them an answer and giving them more money, this government has got 50,000 to 60,000 participants who are desperately waiting for an answer. That shows the scheme has moderated until all of their plans are reassessed.

Then, the other way they've cooked this report is that there are tens of thousands of people who are waiting to come into the scheme. The government have admitted there is an enormous backlog that they have not processed for technical reasons. That means those people also don't go onto the books, and the government are not paying for more people's plans. Not only have the government completely stuffed up this process; they have caused untold anguish to 650,000 participants and their families, who are in complete—I was going to say 'dismay', but it goes well beyond that. They are concerned for their life, for how they're going to live, all because of the incompetence—well, it's actually not even incompetence. If you are incompetent and transparent, at least we would understand the figures and we could work with you to actually reform this scheme to make it sustainable. But, by hiding the figures for 2½ years, by conducting a review—the minister has just come in and said, 'We did this review, and it reported in November.' Well, yes, it did, but we still haven't got the government response to that report from November last year. So the sector doesn't even know what the government response is, yet you have this legislation here—and the budget paper said 18 times, 'We're going to fill your $60 billion gap,' but you have not provided one single shred of evidence, including the document in this OPD, on how you are going to do that. Australians with disability deserve so much more.

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

I rise to make a contribution on this matter, and I can't not take the opportunity to speak about the affordability, or lack thereof, of period products for people on the NDIS and living with a disability. Among the many problems with the NDIS bill is a plan to exclude period products from the list of eligible products that can be purchased with NDIS funds. This is absolutely the wrong policy.

The recent Bloody Big Survey done by that fabulous organisation Share the Dignity found that 78 per cent of people with a disability or a chronic condition are already struggling to afford period products. Making those products less affordable by prohibiting people from using their NDIS supports to purchase period products would make that statistic even higher. I would've thought that, if the government had information that 78 per cent of people on the NDIS already can't afford period products, maybe they'd be thinking about making those products more affordable. Instead, we see a proposal to remove period products from that list of things that can be purchased. It absolutely boggles the mind.

Menstrual products have been categorised as 'lifestyle related', rather than as an essential assistive product for personal care. I mean, hello! I thought we'd had this debate, when we finally had the GST removed from tampons, pads and other period products. Having periods is not a luxury. These are not luxury items. I thought this chamber had already agreed with that proposition. Menstrual products are not a luxury; they are essential to maintaining health and hygiene. Categorising them as 'lifestyle related' ignores the realities of people with disabilities and it prevents them from accessing the menstrual products that they need for basic hygiene. It also further marginalises those already facing significant barriers to health care.

Now, I note that the consultation on this proposed list has been extended, and I welcome that, but it was two weeks and now it's three weeks. That is not a decent period of consultation. As my outstanding colleague said, he's got milk in his fridge that lasts longer than this consultation period.

We are urging this government to listen to people's feedback and to ensure that people with a disability can access the essential period products that they need. The Greens believe that everyone should be able to manage their period with dignity, and that means making period products more affordable and more accessible for everyone, not less affordable or less accessible—particularly not for people with disabilities.

Menstruating isn't a choice, but those who are experiencing period poverty often have to choose between period products and other essential items, just to get by. The Labor Party told us that there would be no cuts to the NDIS under their government. Disabled people who menstruate need to see them keep that promise, and I am absolutely heartbroken that, here we are, having a debate about cutting even more funding from people with a disability and doing absolutely nothing—in fact, making it harder—for the 78 per cent of people on the NDIS who already can't afford period products.

Is this government completely not listening to the concerns of folk on the NDIS? That's what it sounds like. I was going to say, 'Is this government completely deaf to those concerns?' but I caught myself before I said it. I think people with disability on the NDIS will be absolutely outraged that, once again, they're being punched down upon by a government that said it would stick with them.

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was sworn in to this chamber on 13 June 2023. If you're asking, 'Why is she telling us this?' it's because I've been here only 10 weeks longer than Senator Steele-John has been seeking this information, which is of significant concern in my view. This government kept talking about accountability and transparency, as all the other speakers have noted, before they came into office. Why is that important? Why are we all talking about it? It's because this is the basis on which they went to the Australian people and said: 'Pick us. Pick us because we're going to do government differently. Pick us because we're going to be accountable. Pick us because we're going to be transparent. Pick us because we are going to do things the way you want us to do them.' That hasn't happened.

It's very sad in particular that not only has it not happened in other elements of government but it most particularly hasn't happened in the NDIS space, where, as Senator Steele-John noted, co-design, consultation and return to dignity are so critical. The amount of emails and phone calls that my office has received in relation to concerns about the lack of transparency and the lack of consultation in relation to the NDIS and legislative changes is really, really troubling.

One of the things that I'll talk about is in relation to that vulnerability and why this matters. Think about personal care. It's probably something we don't want to think about on a day-to-day basis—in terms of how someone on the scheme navigates that. If you need assistance going to the bathroom or showering, you want to make sure that the person that is helping you go to the bathroom and helping you shower is someone you trust and someone that you are okay with touching your body. If a provider sends you somebody that you don't like or you are not comfortable with, why on earth should we expect you to be okay with that person not just being in your home but actually helping you shower or go to the bathroom? I think it is totally unreasonable to expect somebody to be okay with that. We need to think about why we are not being louder about this. Why aren't we pointing to this more often and going, 'This is totally and completely unacceptable'?

The other thing that worries me about this is: who are the providers that are usually trusted in terms of providing in-home care and having long-term relationships? They're usually localised providers who are in the community and have known the participant for a really long time. They are usually smaller providers—small businesses. They're not large providers that have a large churn of individuals coming through them, for a variety of different reasons. This has a further unintended consequence of taking away the community based localised care, driving people back to larger institutions and impacting small and family businesses. What is concerning me here is that we're focused on elements that actually don't deliver best outcomes. If you're not delivering the best possible outcomes, it goes without saying that a system is not efficient. If it is not efficient, it's going to cost us more. What will happen? There will be a churn. You'll have somebody come out. A service won't be provided. Someone will have to come out again to provide the service, and we'll have a repetition.

These are the things that we need to think about and understand why there is concern in the sector. But, I think most importantly, we need to understand why the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and this government have refused for almost a year—for almost as long as I have been in this place—to provide the information that Senator Steele-John has requested. My OPD has only been in place for a little over a month, but I hope that it doesn't take a year to get the information that I have requested as well.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For those listening: first and foremost, the fundamental role of the Senate is to scrutinise the actions of the government and the actions of this parliament. We have seen a government refusing to accept that this place has a role to play for nearly a year. I commend those who have turned up at this place on a Monday, week after week, and said to the government, 'It is unacceptable for you to hold the Senate in contempt,' because that's exactly what you're doing. The request for information in relation to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Financial Sustainability Framework was asked for nearly a year ago. We're not talking about a small number. The minister has come out and said that there are savings of $60 billion. By anyone's terms—even for this government that spends like drunken sailors—$60 billion is a lot of money. Yet we have yet to see any information to understand what underpins that $60 billion.

Senator Steele-John is absolutely within his right to ask for this place to have greater oversight of what that actually means. It's not only that. The government has twice had its public interest immunity claim rejected by this place. The government is the government of the day, but it is not above the operations of the parliament. The parliament is supreme. Yet this government seems to think that they can run this place as if they are the supreme being in the Australian Constitution. The Australian parliament is. You have contemptuously refused to accept the decision of this Senate on numerous occasions. Week after week, your minister comes into this place and puts up some pathetic response as to why you're refusing to provide this information.

Second to the role of this place in terms of scrutiny, is the obligation of the government. Particularly given it was a government that went to the election professing that transparency was going to be its modus operandi, you have been nothing but opaque. Transparency is not in your DNA. You have acted as a government that believes you don't have to tell anybody anything. This is a classic example of a government refusing to allow sunlight to be shone on the issue that you are trying to shove through this place.

Right now, exactly the same thing is happening in relation to the bill that is before us, which we will see come through this week. It's quite a substantial bill. Obviously, it is really important for the people who rely on the NDIS that we have a sustainable framework going forward so that they are able to be supported. It's not just this generation of Australians who will need the NDIS support; it's for future generations. As a government, we have to make sure that the NDIS is strong and sustainable into the future. Of course, we need to make sure that it's efficient and effective—that we're spending taxpayer money efficiently but also making sure that the people who need the support of the NDIS are able to access it.

We heard a few weeks ago that apparently at the end of June, if we didn't pass the NDIS bill, somehow the world would come to an end. We subsequently find when we get back here, after that period of time, that the bill was actually not in a fit state for it to be passed. Imagine if we'd passed it in June! What we would be doing right now is we would be sitting in here with a whole heap of amendment bills, trying to fix up the mess that hadn't actually been dealt with. Once again, this is typical 101 Labor Albanese government—don't worry about the details; we'll worry about them later. But the one thing I've learned in this place over my time here is that the devil is always in the detail. If you don't attend to the details and you don't make sure that you have done the consultation and got the voices of the people who your legislation, regulation or policy is going to impact in the room to find out what they are saying about it, you will invariably come up with bad policy, which is obviously what happened in this situation.

We had very little consultation. The states and territories didn't turn up to the hearings over the break despite the fact they were asked to do so, and then we find last weekend, all of a sudden, the states and territories aren't so happy with what's being put into this place. What I would say to the government is: be transparent. Use transparency as a mechanism to protect you, because if you don't consult and you're not transparent and you keep being contemptuous to the Senate, this will continue happening, and it must stop. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.