Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The committee is considering the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.1) Bill 2024 and amendment (1) on sheet 2649 moved by Senator Hughes. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Hughes be agreed to.

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

The agency mentioned during our last hearing with them that there will be an educational approach to ensuring compliance with the new NDIS supports. What will this educational approach entail?

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

While I am just waiting for some notes in relation to that, I might respond to your previous contribution, just prior to senators' statements. It's important to characterise these positions correctly. We had just had a discussion about what would happen in the very narrow set of circumstances where a participant in the scheme sought agreement to have, under the new provisions, a support that's on the prescribed list replaced with an alternative support and sought agreement from the CEO. It was a very narrow set of circumstances that are not available to participants now. What is being proposed is a better system that is more flexible, that has more clarity and transparency, not just for participants and their families, carers and their communities but also for the community at large; therefore, it means a more sustainable scheme with a deeper reservoir of community support.

In the narrow circumstances where a person makes an application for a support that is not on the list to be substituted for a support that they have been given access to, there is now an additional process that allows for the CEO or, as you say, their delegate to consider that request and make a decision. I don't think, while we were heading towards senators' statements and people were making statements, that your characterisation of that as a somehow worse situation than what is occurring now is fair. That doesn't mean to say it's not above criticism, and I certainly don't want to convey that. We are open for business in terms of criticism and debate here, but I don't think that's a fair characterisation. In terms of the education questions—I just wanted to be certain about this point. As I am briefed, the act doesn't refer to an 'educative approach' or whatever the phrase was that you used. The agency have said the way they operationally deliver compliance—I don't have anything additional to say to you on this beyond that it will be their responsibility to provide participants in the scheme and service providers in the scheme with as much education material as is judged appropriate to make their responsibilities, particularly for service providers, as clear as they possibly can be. I think that's a proper approach to compliance, and, in terms of what the agency has said, it's obviously mobilised by a view that that will assist a deeper understanding of the obligations and will assist with better compliance.

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

Maybe we'll just try again with that one so that we're absolutely on the same page. During the inquiry hearing into this piece of legislation, the agency gave evidence that there will be an educational approach to ensure compliance with the new NDIS supports. I didn't make any reference to the act in my previous question, and I'm not referencing it now. I'm referencing what the agency stated to us would be their approach. What will this educational approach entail?

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

I think it's an operational question for the agency. I understand, as you've indicated in your question, that the agency has said that in response to questions, no doubt from senators in one of the inquiry processes. It is an operational question for the agency. It sounds to me to be consistent with the kind of approach that you would anticipate would happen in these circumstances, but I'm not able to provide you with any more information about that. It seems to me to be a question that the agency is very likely to be happy to directly engage with you about, but, certainly during the estimates processes, that kind of operational question is likely to get officials at the table who can answer those kinds of questions.

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

Will there be any grace period after the list of NDIS supports has been implemented where participants cannot be penalised for noncompliance?

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

I think we touched on this slightly with Senator Hughes. If a participant has, written into their plan, a support or a service that is not on the list and is prescribed 28 days after royal assent, that support will continue to be provided for the duration of their plan. There is a transition period, if you like, depending upon the duration of their plan and if it's written into their current plan.

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

Minister, as I'm sure you are aware, the bill makes clear that those individuals who are presented with new plans, who move within, or are placed upon, new framework plans, must expend their funds in line with requirements—principally, that they expend them on an NDIS support. It's one of the main parts of the bill. My question to you is: will there be a kind of grace period, after the list is created, when people are on new framework plans as part of the 12-month transition, and also for new participants entering the scheme, where, if they inadvertently claim, or make a claim, for something that is not an NDIS support, they will not be penalised? That's the fundamental question.

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

There are two approaches here. Again, in this very narrow set of circumstances where a person either enters the scheme or—more likely, I think, given your question—is on a plan now that includes reference to a support that is not on the list—

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

No. Let me clarify. I don't want to get too bogged down here. What I'm trying to identify is: say a participant comes into the scheme in such a way that they are placed on a new framework plan, which creates the requirement for them to spend in line with the requirements of a new framework plan—specifically, the requirement to expend their funds on, to make purchases of, things listed as NDIS supports. Given that you have, in your previous answer, not been able to outline to the Senate what the educational approach is, around what is and is not an NDIS support—you've referred to it as an 'operational matter'—and given that there will be a process of education that the agency has identified during the course of the inquiry, I want to know: will there be any grace period given to those on new framework plans who will be required to spend, in accordance with those plans, only upon NDIS supports, to ensure that they are not penalised while that educational process is occurring?

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While we're waiting for the minister to return, Senator Steele-John: I am going to stick with you, but I just want to get an indication of how much longer you want to go with this line of questioning, so others—

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

I've one question after this and then I will happily cede to the opposition.

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

I think that we were talking past each other a little bit there. Your previous question, in relation to an educative approach, I had taken to mean how the agency approaches participants at large. Your question really is about what the approach of the agency is going to be in relation to 'legitimate and reasonable'—whether it is by error or whatever—during the period between 28 days after royal assent, when the act is in operation, and when the new framework applies, 12 to18 months after that. The evidence that the agency gave, as I understand it, is consistent with how the government understands that it will operate, which is that the educative approach—that is, not a punitive approach—is the approach that the agency intends to take. I hope that assists.

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

I have one final question. What will be the penalty for purchasing non-NDIS supports?

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

AYRES (—) (): There is not a penalty other than that the participant may incur a debt if the money is not properly expended consistent with the list of supports that are in their plan and consistent with the prescribed list. However, where that is unintentional the intention of the agency is—as you said in your question, and I've tried to respond—to take an educative approach. That will, of course, be a question of practice and operational judgement, but that is the intention of the agency in terms of how it will achieve these outcomes—not to take a punitive approach. Beyond that, there is not a civil penalty or whatever in relation to that.

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

Good evening, Minister. I will come to a series of questions on the actuarial data that underpins this legislation, so I hope you have the right officials there. Just as a bit of a heads-up, I have a series of questions on the numbers that underpin this legislation and some of the assumptions that underpin that. Is that no problem? Have you got the right officials here?

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

Whether or not that is a problem I will leave for others to judge.

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

I wanted to give you the courtesy of making sure you have the right officials here. First of all, can you describe the trajectory that underpins this legislation. As we discussed before, this year's budget mentions this legislation at least 18 times and says that this legislation is going to deliver $60 billion worth of savings over the next 10 years. I'd like to go to that aspect, particularly the numbers that underpin the savings in the number of people on the scheme and those who are projected to come off the scheme. Can the minister please describe the current trajectory of expenditure on the scheme. We have just had the fourth quarter figures drop and, on my calculations, it has gone from quarter to quarter. Last quarter it was just over 20 per cent year on year. From the fourth quarter, from memory, it was about 18½ per cent growth based on the quarter-to-quarter figures. I'm just wondering if the minister can confirm that and then explain, year by year, how that growth trajectory is to come down to the projected eight per cent, which is where the budget has been cut to.

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

I think questions in relation to the quarterly report really are questions for estimates. Officials will be available, as they are in the normal course of events, to answer questions about the veracity. Senator Reynolds, I've listened to you and your colleagues asking questions about the assumptions that underpin those reports and the impact of the government's objectives in terms of what you would say is the credibility of the claims that the government is making in relation to moderating the growth of the scheme.

I can say that this bill is part of a process of reform that the government is undertaking that is designed to achieve a moderation in growth. I understand that, in the context of the partisan conflict around the NDIS, there are participants in that argument who want to characterise that as a cut to the NDIS. I don't think any sensible construction of a rate of growth that is at eight per cent could be characterised as a cut. I don't think it's possible to do that in a credible way.

It does mean that less will be spent by the scheme if the reforms are undertaken. That is certainly true, and that eight per cent target of moderated growth is designed to apply from 1 July 2026, consistent with what the minister has said.

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

Thank you, Minister. I almost don't know where to start, apart from admiring your ability to try and say that is not a $60 billion cut. In your own budget papers, it's mentioned 18 times that $60 billion is being cut out of the budget, through some heroic but as yet undefined method, by this government. Minister, would it help if I go and get your own budget papers and actually bring you the 18 sections of your budget that demonstrate that you are cutting the scheme? Your budget papers say specifically that you will be realising $60 billion worth of savings. You might call it 'Shorten-omics' or whatever, in terms of $60 billion coming out of a budget not being a cut, but I think the NDIS participants, who know that that cut will come from their plans, are not fooled by this.

If I can get it correct, you are saying that, by 1 July 2026, somehow this year-on-year, quarter-on-quarter growth—as in, comparable growth—which was 20 per cent last quarter and 18½ per cent this quarter, is going to magically dip down to eight per cent in two years, with no information, data or actuarial evidence. Clearly, as to these numbers, to make these budget savings which your budget says are coming from this bill, it's not part of a process; your own budget says it is this bill that is going to make the $60 billion worth of savings by reducing the scheme. There are only two ways to reduce the scheme. You either cut participant numbers or cut the average value of participant plans. Those are the only ways to realise $60 billion worth of savings out of your own budget.

You say, somewhat disingenuously, in my mind, that the Q4 report is not an issue for this place. Of course it is. The Q4 report dropped late, after our last hearing into this bill, and we did not have the opportunity to inquire of any NDIS official or the actuary about the figures behind this. In fact we have spent probably 18 months to two years doing a very unseemly lack-of-transparency dance with this government to get any information out of it—out of Minister Shorten, in particular—about this scheme.

So here we are in committee stage on this bill. The government is still saying that a $60 billion cut to the NDIS budget is not a cut. Well, that is simply not good enough. We have thousands and thousands of people on the NDIS who are scared out of their minds because, unlike your attempt to convey 'Shorten-omics', people understand that the only way you can realise these savings is by cutting the scheme. If anyone looks at this legislation, it is all about giving Minister Shorten godlike powers to unilaterally cut people's plans, and the states and territories hate and do not agree with that. To do that, you must have actuarial data available to tell us how many people will be impacted, whose plans will be impacted and how much they will be impacted by. That is what 660-odd thousand Australians are worried to death about today.

You're making cuts with this legislation, but you are not being in any way transparent with participants. Minister, I'd like to ask you this, if you can answer this question. We'll take the $60 billion bit by bit. The legislation and the budget confirm that the intraplan inflation in this scheme will be cut and that you will cut it down to four or five per cent per annum. How much does that work out to over the forward estimates, Minister?

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

It is true, Senator, that there may be participants who are apprehensive about what the impacts are of these reforms, but that's because you are running a disgraceful scare campaign, because you are out there making claims about the impact—

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

There are 660,000 of them. It is in your budget document. I'll ask my office to bring down the document.

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

I don't think that'll help you. That is the impact of your scare campaign. When you make the claim, less than honestly, that there are going to be cuts of $60 billion, that claim makes ordinary people in the street think that there is an amount that is allocated to the NDIS and that $60 billion will come out of it. Well, that is utterly disingenuous—utterly.

What the government is saying here, and what has been worked through with the states and territories in the National Cabinet process, is that over time—and I think we would all agree—the growth in this scheme, in order to make it sustainable, must be managed. If we are to provide this incredible service for families, for our kids and our grandkids, for future generations of Australians, the scheme must be made to work.

There is not an inherent clash between fairness and equity and operational efficiency and meeting a target of moderated growth. Eight per cent growth is a higher level of growth than could be attached to almost any other scheme that the government operates. It is a moderation in growth. The numbers, every year that the Commonwealth spends on the NDIS and the NDIA, will continue to increase. Under this government, they will continue to increase. Year on year, the amount will increase. The objective of the government is that the amount that it increases by is around eight per cent. That is well and truly above any other index. The approach that you have taken to this reform in particular lacks moral seriousness.

There is not, in any piece of policymaking, the relationship that you say is there. The only things that can make a difference in terms of the amount that the Commonwealth expends on the NDIS, you say, can be reducing the number of participants or reducing the amount that each participant is expending on their plan. Making sure that the participants in the scheme are consistent with the original intent of the scheme and the stated purpose of the legislation here is a completely appropriate public policy objective.

Making sure that every service that is provided by the scheme is consistent with the proper purpose and with the needs assessment process that is designed to simultaneously make sure not only that the services provided are on the list but also that they are founded in either sections 24 or 25 and that they are granted to a participant on the basis of a holistic assessment of the whole person. These approaches are not narrow and are not about cuts. They are about ensuring the scheme is sustainable for future generations of services.

Identifying where fraud might be undertaken, where there might be duplication or where there might be inefficiency, and making sure that people are provided with good-quality services, all go towards a better outcome for participants and a more sustainable scheme. Of course, the government, in the normal budget processes, is supported by all of the kinds of actuarial or other data that you might refer to in the normal way that it is provided to government, consistent with the budget processes.

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

That is simply not true.

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

The government has reached—

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

We have always provided the actuarial data. We provided it. You have not.

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

The government has reached an agreement with the states to set an objective—because we're serious about reform, Senator Reynolds. We're not sitting on our hands like the previous government did, just watching this all go past us. We are determined to seize the nettle of reform here and do what it is in the public interest and in the interest of the scheme operating, in the coming decades, for Australians who are participating in the scheme and for the Australians who haven't come along yet. That is what we are determined to do, and I think characterising it as cuts at the very best lacks a sense of seriousness about the task that is in front of us.

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

I think we're going to be here for days, in committee. If we can't get one simple actuarial question answered, we are going to be here for a very, very long time. Minister, I commend you. You've obviously read all four editions of the RedBridge research, because almost everything that came out of your mouth then was from the talking points provided by RedBridge to Minister Shorten and the NDIA. There was not a single fact about this legislation, about the impact of this legislation on 660,000 NDIS participants, but you managed to capture just about all the buzzwords out of this RedBridge research. I tell you what: NDIS participants and their families deserve so much better.

You might call $60 billion of money that has been cut out of the budget a 'moderated growth', but NDIS participants and senators in this place are not stupid, Minister. We understand that when the budget says it is a cut, it is a cut. Everybody in here, and certainly everybody on the NDIS and their families and carers, understand that in an insurance scheme, which this is, there are two drivers of cost, and they are the number of participants and the average cost per participant. There are things around the sides that you can improve to decrease fraud and improve administration, but the only way to realise $60 billion of cuts is through cutting participant numbers or the average cost per plan. You know that. Minister Shorten knows that. Every single state and territory minister knows that. Anybody who has ever had anything to do with an insurance scheme understands that principle.

Minister, over the next four years how much will intraplan inflation be reduced to and over how many years? My recollection is that it was about $8.5 billion. Could you please explain what data that is based on? So that $8.5 billion of intraplan inflation savings, where is that going to be coming from in terms of participants and plans?

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

Whether or not something that somebody says is consistent with a bit of research that you claim to have read—I have never read any of this research. I don't know what you're talking about.

I don't know what you're talking about. I've heard your questions. I have never seen this. I occasionally read a bit of research, I occasionally do, but I have never seen this. What I'm telling you is what—

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

Ask Mr Shorten's staff for your talking points.

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

Senator, I listened to what you said and your mischaracterisations of the government's approach, your narrow appreciation of what is actually possible in terms of reform here—a position that you want to convey to families and participants that your party, the party of cuts to services, can only imagine one way through making a scheme of such public importance sustainable, and that is to cut it. I understand that the narrow field of vision from which you view these things means you see that there is only one approach, but the government's approach here is to moderate growth. That means that every year of the scheme's operation, while this government is the government, the amount of expenditure on the National Disability Insurance Scheme will increase every single year over the forwards and beyond the forwards. The objective is to try to moderate that growth to a level where it is around eight per cent.

The impact of the spending provisions in this bill have been estimated to reduce scheme expenditure over the forward estimates. In relation to intraplan inflation, this component is responsible for about half of the moderation in growth. The legislative reforms will support participants to spend in accordance with their plans, which is not a very difficult concept for people in the street to understand or for participants and their families. We will develop an approach that means that there is a common understanding for participants in the scheme of what is available for them to spend, rather than exhausting their funding for reasonable and necessary supports and then needing to be topped up with additional funding for supports. This is achieved through amendments to section 33 and 46 of the act, which will provide the agency with the power to set a total planned funding amount and then require a participant or nominee to spend within that funding amount. I think that that is an approach that fair-minded Australians would say is consistent with the good management of the scheme. A legislative instrument will set out the method by which the total funding amount is calculated. That will be available for you to scrutinise and, no doubt, ask questions about in future estimates.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The last time I asked questions we were talking about the co-design and the two-week period that people had to look at the draft list and provide feedback. After questioning from Senator Steele-John, I understand that the consultation has been extended by a week, which is very welcome. But I wanted to raise the issue of period products being excluded as a 'lifestyle related product' alongside vapes, gambling and sports tickets. I understand it does provide a carve-out if the costs incurred are 'solely and directly as a result of a person's disability'. My first question is: are period products a lifestyle choice like vapes, gambling and sports tickets?

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

In the government's view, where those products appeared on the list was the wrong place for them to appear on the list. Period products are not a lifestyle product. I think what is intended to be conveyed, though, is this principle: payments for supports must have a connection to the impairment as it arises under either section 24 or section 25 of the act—that is, period products are not used arising from the disability. I think everyone in the government would concede it is not appropriate to describe them in the way that you have just described them—as you sought for me to clarify—and that it is simply as a result of them being put in that category. The principle, though, is that, if support is required because it arises from a disability that comes out of sections 24 and 25, and if it's on the list, then that will happen. That is not the case for those products. The alternative language that the department intends to provide says that menstrual products are a 'daily living item'. That must be a category that was set out in the thing. I think 'lifestyle' is a very unhelpful place for those products to have been ascribed to. They are a daily living item.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can see why there's angst amongst the community when your government puts them on a list that also includes things like vapes, gambling and sports tickets. Thank you for the clarification, but I just want to dig into what it might be that the NDIA are going to have to test when they have to determine whether someone's access to period products is 'solely and directly' related to their disability.

Before I do that, I want to recognise the work of Women With Disabilities Australia, who've been surveying their members on the potential impact of this change as quickly as they can so they can respond to the consultation in the small time that has been given to them by the government that talks a lot about co-design.

I've heard stories of people with connective tissue disorders who cannot change their own tampons without assistance. It's not safe for them to wait with a tampon in, potentially for hours, for a support worker to assist, so they may need to use period underwear, which they likely can only obtain, at the moment, with the assistance of the NDIS. Let's not forget that period poverty is a very real thing in Australia. Minister, under the test of solely and directly, would those participants be able to access period underwear?

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

I'm reluctant to make a declaration about a specific proposition, but what you just put to me then sounds like something that is related to the disability that a person experiences that would be found in an assessment to be grounded in either section 24 or section 25. Certainly, it is the intention that those kinds of products would be supported. In terms of the normal daily living of participants, it is not the intention to provide support for those products, but I'm sure you could take me to a range of other circumstances where it clearly would fall within the ambit of the scheme.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I'm really concerned about what sort of evidence the NDIA is going to require of participants to show that they need access to period products. We have a recent survey conducted by Share the Dignity that found that one in three people struggle to afford menstrual products. They found that it's particularly acute for people with disability. Seventy-eight per cent of respondents with disability said that they struggled to afford this basic dignity; 78 per cent of people with a disability said that they struggle to afford period products in Australia. How much of a saving is the Commonwealth actually expecting to make from making it harder for NDIS participants to obtain period products? Honestly, to go to some of the questions earlier, surely this is something that Australians would be happy to fork out for—to allow women to have the dignity of being able to afford period products for people who may need period underwear, which are more expensive.

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

I have two responses. One is that I've just had some response from the agency. It is their intention to align their approach to this with incontinence products. This is why a list is provided. It's not anticipated that the list that is provided will get it all right. It is an effort to engage with the community, and then we get feedback. When we've got it wrong, we pay attention to the feedback and make changes. In relation to this issue, feedback from the community has been very helpful. Those products have never been on the list, but we've heard the community in this case and we'll respond, as part of the consultation, to pick up on the issues that you have highlighted here and that have already been highlighted by the consultation process that the government, department and agency have undertaken in relation to the list.

I think the second proposition in your question goes to the dignity of individuals who are going through the needs assessment process, so the act comes into play. We have a 12- to 18-month process of designing that needs assessment tool and framework. As you've indicated, those co-design principles mean that questions like this will have to be deliberated upon carefully. Yes, participants will need to engage with a needs assessor about their requirements, but, in terms of those questions of the dignity of participants in the process, they are absolutely capable of a co-design process that improves that process and the experience of participants as they engage with the needs assessment tool for the future.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister. From what I've heard—and you can maybe clarify in your answer—it sounds like it was on the list for consultation and, based on feedback, it's going to be removed from the not-funded list. It seems to me that secure access to period products can only be a good thing, particularly for a population of people who consistently report difficulty in obtaining them.

I'd like to read you a few quotes from women about how appropriate period support has increased their independence. One woman said, 'I'm actually able to leave the house during my period.' Another woman said: 'It is challenging for my daughter to manage the use of traditional period products. Using period underwear has given her the independence to manage her periods every month, maintaining her privacy and dignity.' Another person said: 'I'm in my 30s and living a fulfilling life with a career and a family. Period undies are one useful support that help me sustain this. I think the NDIS might suggest that having a support worker or setting reminders on my phone would be a replacement, but they are not appropriate. These supports were embarrassing and unreliable when I was a kid. At this stage of my life they would be humiliating and degrading. I would like to be able to get on with my life when I have my period.'

Minister, I think these quotes speak volumes. Period products are not a lifestyle choice; they are a necessity for full, independent social and economic participation. That's what the NDIS is all about.

Minister, just finally, can the government assure the disability community and all Australians that menstrual products will be scrapped from the draft list and will continue to be available for people with disability who need them?

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

This is the first time that we, as a government, have gone through an assessment of what should be on the list. I think I've indicated in my earlier responses to questions that period products certainly weren't in the right place on the list; that's for sure. The department and agency have already responded to feedback in relation to that question, and I understand why people would have been concerned, to say the least, about where that was allocated and how that was described.

We will listen and we are listening to feedback on this question, and the government will make decisions in relation to that, consistent with the approach that I've outlined. Without providing some sort of adjudication on this question while on my feet, it would be, I think, quite straightforward to make the case that the kinds of circumstances that you describe attach themselves to the kind of disability that arises from sections 24 and 25. I understand your complaint on this goes slightly broader than that. The government is listening carefully to that feedback.

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

Minister, you've just said that period products were on the list in the wrong place. Are there any other items listed on that consultation paper that you gave out to the community—they have spent so many hours giving feedback using that framework. Are there any other items on those proposed lists that were placed in the wrong place?

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

The reason that you go out with the list to consult is not so that you insist before or during or after the consultation process that the list can't be changed. The reason that you consult is in order to listen carefully to feedback and to make changes. In relation to that item that the government has already—I think I've made clear mid-step that, as that consultation process is going on, the government will make changes in relation to that issue. There may well be other changes. That is the point of open government here. The list is not predetermined. It is not that people sent a letter and said: 'This is the list. We are not going to change our position.' The list is provided there for public commentary, and we're not sensitive; we don't have a glass jaw about these things. Where we need to make changes, the minister, the department and the agency, in exercising their proper functions, will make changes. That's inherent in the consultation process. Even outside of the ideas of co-design and all of that sort of stuff, the very idea of consultation does connote that changes will be made.

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

Minister, I just wanted to come back to when you were answering the question from Senator Reynolds regarding the number of people on the scheme. I don't think it's any secret—I've been quite open and honest—that I think there are too many people on the scheme. I think there are too many people that are looking to the NDIS as the only lifeboat—that there are people who are going onto the scheme who do not have permanent and lifelong disabilities. We do know, in a demand-driven scheme, that the only way that you can get the cost down or you can cap the growth—whatever way you want to refer to it—is by cutting the number of participants or cutting the value of their plans.

We're just trying to find the exact words, but, during your answer, you said, 'If the people who are on the scheme after this bill is passed are those who the scheme was intended for,' which I don't have a problem with. I was just wondering if you could perhaps offer us some clarity on who the government thinks are the people on the scheme at the moment that shouldn't be and, in the future, who are the people who will perhaps no longer qualify for the scheme.

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

I think there are a number of competing concepts in all of this. The first is that people's eligibility for the scheme is founded, as we traversed earlier in sections 24 and 25, in one or both of those schemes. There will be, as a consequence of the act, a co-design process that determines rule making in relation to that, but eligibility and access to the scheme is not of itself changed. The provisions of the act in sections 24 and 25 do not change. If you were eligible under section 24 or section 25 last year, you would be eligible under sections 24 and 25 next year. There will be a process in the assessments under the scheme to ensure that people are in fact receiving supports that are consistent with 24 and 25—or 25, I should say. It is also the case that, within the growth of the scheme that the government has targeted, it is not the intention of the government to reduce the number of people in the scheme. The number of people who are in the scheme will presumably, if we are properly applying 24 and 25, increase over time as the population grows. I think any construction of that will mean that the number of people involved in the scheme will not fall away. But the assessment of whether you are eligible for supports in the scheme will be properly founded in 24 and 25, and the kinds of supports that participants receive will be clearly understood and also founded in 24 and 25. At the very least, because of the list that has been developed, there is some more clarity about what kinds of supports will be available under the scheme.

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

I am sorry, but I am less clear than I was before. That Minister Shorten has referred to the NDIS as 'the only lifeboat in the ocean' is indicative of the fact that a whole lot of kids are going onto this scheme who should not be on the scheme. In fact, we know that we have around 11 per cent of boys aged between five and seven currently receiving NDIS plans. There is no way on God's green earth that 11 per cent of five- to seven-year-old boys in this country have a permanent and lifelong disability. If that were the case, we would be in for a world of pain in the next 20 or 30 years, if 11 per cent of boys currently aged from five to seven have significant, permanent, lifelong impairments. That is impossible to be the case. There is no way, under this legislation—and from Minister Shorten's own words around the importance of foundational supports, around the importance of bringing the states and territories back to the table. People who do not have significant impairments, who do not have permanent and lifelong disability, are not on the scheme.

For that to be the case, there has to be some concept of who the next lifeboat, the second lifeboat in the ocean, is for. We have the NDIS as the only lifeboat in the ocean at the moment, according to Minister Shorten. So who is going from this lifeboat into the foundational support lifeboat? Who is going into the other lifeboat? What are the disabilities or conditions? What are the temporary impairments? We know they will not be lifelong and permanent disability. And I'm not having a go at you here. There are too many people on it. There is no way that 11 per cent of five- to seven-year-old boys have a disability. It is not possible.

But I think the Australian people deserve to know, and parents in this country—parents of that 11 per cent of five- to seven-year-old boys—have a right to know which one of the conditions that their children have stays on the NDIS lifeboat or moves over to the foundational support lifeboat. I am less clear. I don't think the intent of this bill is for the scheme to grow in numbers, because there is no way you are capping growth if that is the case. So I think that—whoever is saying that—it is a myth, or it is certainly misleading. There is no way that we want to keep this level, this volume, of children being pushed through to the NDIS. I think it is just fair—it is not attacking; it is not having a go—because this is the reform we're talking about. If we're doing reform, we've got to put our big boy pants on and have some tough discussions.

If your child has a global developmental delay, some fine motor skill issues or even some gross motor skill issues, a sensory processing disorder or oppositional defiant disorder—there are a lot of disorders going around these days. To have made the modelling, the figures and the assessments for how much this is going to save—and I'm sure Senator Reynolds will take us through some of those numbers. If these saves are going to be made and the growth is going to be capped, which of these disorders or conditions are going to move from the NDIS lifeboat to the foundational supports lifeboat?

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

The bill does not make changes to who can access the NDIS. It makes it clear that, when a person meets the access criteria to become a participant in the scheme, the agency must advise on whether they meet the disability requirements under either of the two sections that we've referred to: the disability requirements under section 24 and the early intervention requirements—or both. That is the first step in establishing a new early intervention pathway, which will be developed over time using the appropriate rules. Until that has occurred, the only difference for participants will be the information included in their access decision.

The bill will also clarify and expand the power to make NDIS rules relating to access provisions, including the methods or criteria to be applied when making decisions about the disability and early intervention criteria and the matters which must or must not be taken into account. As you would know, rules already exist under section 27 as it is currently in force. New rules will be developed in that 12- to 18-month co-design process that we've canvassed a bit in committee and will provide some clarity and detail about the application and meaning of key concepts in the act.

You are right that the second set of concepts here is in relation to the foundational supports that have been agreed to be provided fundamentally by the states and territories. I won't go to each of the kinds of disabilities or disorders—or whatever the proper language is to describe those diagnoses—but the intention is that they will either fall into a disability that is properly founded in either section 24 or 25 or be supported in terms of foundational support. No person should receive less support as a result of that process being engaged in over time. But, for participants in the scheme now or applicants for the scheme, the provisions for access do not change as a result of this.

What is being sought here—big pants or not—is long-term reform that is designed to achieve moderation in growth from 2026 onwards. But, of course, we'll engage an enormous amount of cooperative work and reform, including the foundational supports work that you've alluded to, in cooperation with the states and territories.

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

I will hand over after this. I'm trying to understand the big selling point behind foundational supports—why they need to be implemented by bringing the states back to the table and making sure not only that there is community health, with OTs, speechies and psychs available for families who don't need ongoing and lifelong support to access but also that the departments of education will provide those supports to children who need a little bit of structure and scaffolding around them in the classroom situation. Maybe I've just completely missed the point, but my understanding was that a lot of these kids that are going to access some of this stuff won't actually be NDIS participants. They're not going to need an NDIS plan because they're accessing foundational supports. That's what I'm trying to understand.

We've got 11 per cent of five- to seven-year-olds currently with an NDIS plan. A big chunk of them should be accessing what would be these new foundational supports, not having an NDIS plan. Just take that 11 per cent cohort of five- to seven-year-old boys. Let's be generous and say six per cent of the 11 per cent shouldn't be on the NDIS. Who are that six per cent? What are we looking at to move them off? There will be families at home listening to this thinking: 'My son doesn't have autism level 3. My son doesn't have an intellectual disability. My son doesn't have cerebral palsy. My son doesn't have Down syndrome. But he's got a sensory processing disorder and oppositional defiant disorder. Does this mean he will no longer have an NDIS plan and will be shifted over the foundational supports?'

I think it is time for some clarity with the Australian public, particularly the parents of children on this scheme. Who are these kids that are going to move to foundational supports and who will no longer have an NDIS plan so that it is a scheme for those it was intended for? I appreciate the minister referring to 24 and 25 as access criteria, but the reality is that they've been blown out. They're not being adhered to. I am not coming here negative about it. There are too many people. These people should be coming off it. It is too lax with regard to the people gaining accessibility, but I think we need to be honest with the Australian people, with the community and particularly the parents of kids currently with an NDIS plan: What are the conditions? What sort of things are going to be put into place—maybe define 24 and 25 a little bit more clearly—for the kids that will no longer have an NDIS plan? Obviously, under what you're proposing—if the states come to the table and fairyland ensues—they will be well supported still in foundational supports, but I think we need to get some clarity on that. We should not have—at any stage in the future once this, or any other reform, is rolled out—11 per cent of five- to seven-year-olds considered to have a permanent and lifelong disability and on the NDIS.

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

I can only reiterate that the bill does not make changes to who can access the NDIS. It is absolutely the case, for parents of kids who are experiencing those kinds of challenges, that they will do anything to look after their kid. At the moment for many of them, the only pathway they see to supporting their kid at that crucial stage of development is through access to the NDIS. The minister, as you say, has used the phrase, 'It is the only lifeboat in the ocean for families who are in that position.' That is not the intention. It will not be the effect of this set of reforms that people who are accessing the scheme today will no longer be able to access the scheme.

I don't want to overwork the analogy, but the foundational supports are intended to be not just another lifeboat but a better kind of support outside of the scheme that means that participants' eligibility is founded in 24 or 25, and that goes to properly understood construction of what the NDIS is aiming to achieve. That is a good outcome for the scheme and a good outcome over time for participants because the supports will be getting better and more agile. And as you say, perhaps not lifelong supports, whether it is an education system or through community health or—that is the intention.

It is not the case that a world in which the states and territories engage in this is not credible. National Cabinet, which is a serious decision-making body of the Commonwealth, has agreed to the design of foundational supports that will be engaged by the Commonwealth and the states and territories. They will create more pathways outside of the NDIS, particularly for young children and young people and for people accessing the scheme. They will incorporate better access to mainstream services. There is more work to do as we engage with the states and territories to make sure that as this process unfolds, consistent with the agreement in the National Cabinet, that work is done in a substantial way that means that families in the future—families who will have kids who haven't come along yet—know that they will be supported.

The way that you've characterised the situation now for families is correct. We all know we'd do anything for our kids in this situation and that the NDIS is there as a beacon for those families now. We want to improve the NDIS. We want to make sure we get the foundational support stream right over time. But access for participants now—I want to be really clear to participants and their families—does not change as a result of the passage of this legislation.

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

Could I pick up where we left off, Minister? You were trying to explain how the $60 billion that has come out of your last budget is actually not a cut. I have gone back to the budget papers. Just to see whether you're familiar with what your own budget papers say, I refer you to page 7 of Budget Paper No. 1. Under 'Responsible economic management', it says:

These reforms are expected to—

realise—

$14.4 billion over four years—

of savings—

based on the NDIS Actuary's revised projections without further action.

It would be great if this place and other people could actually see the NDIS actuary's projections, because they've disappeared from the AFSR.

Page 7 of the budget paper says that these are going to be savings just over the forward estimates. Then in Budget Paper No. 1—again—on pages 96 and 97 it talks about how these savings are going to be 'realised by the government in the National Disability Insurance Scheme—Getting the NDIS Back on Track measures', which is this bill here today.

For the absence of doubt that this is actually money coming out of the federal budget, we turn to Budget Paper No. 2 and to table 2, 'Payment measures', on page 35. Minister, if you don't know, in budget papers when it's positive it just has a number; when it's actually money added into the budget it is a number. However, when it is a cut to the budget it has got a negative on it. In table 2 on page 35 it clearly says over the next four years, in the forward estimates, there's going to be $15½ billion worth of savings, which the actuary has confirmed is $60 billion coming out of the budget.

Minister, please do not try and play these ridiculous games. There is no sealed section in this budget for Minister Shorten and his 'Shortenomics' and the Redbridge spin. It is a cut. And if you're cutting an insurance scheme, it has to come from one of two places, or both—the number of participants in the scheme and the average cost per participant. So, Minister, I take from your obfuscation, yet again, that you are not going to answer any of these actuarial questions about this legislation, on the numbers that underpin these savings—is that correct? I don't want to waste the Senate's time if you are going to go into a mouthful of Redbridge verbiage for the next five minutes rather than providing the numbers. I asked you the question before, and you didn't provide a number. Maybe you will if I ask it again. If we're not going to get numbers, I'll move on to a different line of questioning, because it's clear that you're not going to provide the data.

Minister, can you give us the number of people who are currently waiting for a review of their NDIS plan? The last number we had was that somewhere over 50,000 participants are waiting on an indefinite holding plan to get their budget reviewed. The vast majority of those, probably somewhere over 95 per cent, will be plan increases. Can you provide that number first. Then can you advise how many—and I know it's in the actuarial data—of the people who have been put on a holding plan and are waiting desperately to get an increase or a change to their plan will not get their request for a plan increase. You have the number there.

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

There were a couple of questions in there, I suppose. I might take you to your claim that my disagreement with you about the claims the government makes about these issues is obfuscation. Obfuscation, of course, is the action of making something obscure or unclear or unintelligible. One, when confronted with sharp questions, engages in verbiage, I suppose, to divert the questioner from their original purpose. That is what I am doing now, Senator. That is what I am doing now by explaining obfuscation to you.

The problem is I disagree with you; the government disagrees with you. We don't agree—and we don't think anybody could sensibly agree, unless they were the most partisan of observers—that a reduction in growth over the forward estimates is a cut. You could quibble. If there were a scheme—another scheme—that was indexed by inflation, for example, and you decreased the growth of the scheme by less than inflation, you could argue that that was a real cut, but that is not what is happening here. I know that there is a sense of entitlement on the Liberal side that says no other party could govern the place properly. I know you lot don't think that it's conceivable. That's how you end up with the sort of complacency that characterised the last nine years of government. We are taking this approach seriously. If the reform is delivered consistent with the approach that the government has set out here, growth in the scheme will be around eight per cent per annum from 1 July 2026.

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

How many people are waiting for their plans to be reviewed?

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

We'll come to your second question. I'm answering the first of what sounded like several. That means that the growth of the scheme will be faster than inflation. I think most Australians—whether they are participants in the scheme, whether they are applying to be participants in the scheme or whether they have no relationship to the scheme but are supportive of the scheme—would say that eight per cent per annum growth is not a cut. It is not a cut. The budget allocations for the scheme will not get smaller each year. They will continue to increase. They will just increase by less than they would if the government were to take its hands off the wheel, which is what characterised the last nine years of government.

I know that there were attempts by the government to make changes that were not agreed by the parliament, and that is a great source of frustration for ministers; I accept that that is deeply felt. We are trying to do reform now. We have worked hard with the states and territories. We are working hard across the parliament, we are working hard with the public servants and the people who are delivering this work, and we are working hard with the disability community to make the scheme sustainable for future generations.

In terms of the number of people who are currently in the pipeline making applications for the scheme, I do not have that material at hand, and it would not normally be provided as part of this process. I look forward, very much, to Senate estimates in September—

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

November.

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

November—that's a small relief, Senator—where we can traverse all of those issues with all of the proper officials who would normally be available to answer those kinds of questions. I'd be delighted to engage more about whether the proper construction of 'obfuscation' is being used; we just disagree on this question.

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

Minister, again I applaud your ability to filibuster. I was just waiting for a definition of 'filibuster' to come into your filibustering. That's all that would have been needed. Minister, this is not a question that is inappropriate for this debate on this bill tonight. This bill, as the budget papers say, is all about realising savings to the scheme by moderating growth—yes—and by cutting money out of this bill.

There is a record number of people currently waiting in the queue. We were told last time that there were over 50,000; the question is appropriate. This government has deliberately slowed down the processing of those plans until after this legislation so that you can cut the plans and not increase the intraplan inflation so you could make the $4.5 billion of savings. That is very clear to the people who are currently desperately waiting for a review of their plan because the cost of living and the cost of services have gone up so much.

Minister, the first question is: how many are in the queue? The officials next to you absolutely have that number in hand; they have used it before. The second question is: how many people are waiting—again, in a different queue—for access to the scheme and then waiting to have their plans approved? It is very clear to us and, I am sure, to the Greens that, again, the government has been artificially turning the tap down to try and desperately moderate, unsuccessfully.

At the moment, we've got two lots of participants who have told us they are desperate. There are those who have no money left in their plan, for a variety of reasons, and can no longer get services. There are around 50,000 of them. What will happen to them, and how many of them are there? The second question is: how many people have put applications in and currently have plans waiting? That information used to be provided. It used to be available. But for some reason now it is unavailable, again, like every other bit of information, including the sustainability framework and actuarial data—data that underpins these budget savings and this bill itself. Those are two very basic questions. By my calculation, there are around 100,000 people desperate to know what their fate will be if your legislation gets through. How many are waiting in both of those queues?

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

'Filibustering' is acting in an obstructive manner by speaking for an inordinate amount of time. All the references in my notes refer to Liberals filibustering. It could be the kind of process that is engaged by asking inordinately long—

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

Would you like to table them?

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

It's on the internet, Senator Hughes. I'm not sure I can assist you with that. The screen lock has happened; it's gone! I just say this in relation to your claim about obstruction. This bill has been here for quite some time. The government needs to get on with the job here. I am not in a position to provide you with—nor could I reasonably be expected to provide you with—numbers to either sustain or contradict your claim about the number of people. I am advised that, since late 2023, the volume of requests from participants asking for a change to their NDIS plan has significantly increased. That significant increase has occurred all the way up to recently. But it's suspicious timing that the increase in requests from participants matches exactly the commencement of the Liberal Party's scare campaign about what the government's reforms to the scheme would mean. Reform, as Senator Hughes said, does involves putting on, as she said 'big boy pants'—they're big pants, anyway—and tackling tough issues.

I was trying to provide a gender-neutral pants option there, Senator Allman-Payne.

Honourable senators interjecting—

I was trying to work with Senator Hughes's expression. I think that embarking on a scare campaign and trying to claim that the sky is going to fall in for participants does have an impact on ordinary people—

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

I have a point of order. The minister has made a very, very serious allegation about the coalition—and presumably the Greens senators, as well—that somehow we have conspired with over 50,000 NDIS participants to rort the system and put in extra claims. That is outrageous. I'd like the minister to withdraw that and actually provide answers to the two questions I asked on figures. First of all, can I ask that he withdraw that imputation.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, to assist the smooth running of this chamber, you could—

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

I certainly did not make that imputation, if that assists. I'm not going to withdraw an imputation that I did not make. What I did say is that a lack of a sense of moral seriousness and responsibility about the claims that are made about the impact of legislation has an impact in households. A scare campaign creates fear.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Sorry, Minister. Senator Reynolds, on a point of order?

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

Could I ask, perhaps, that you take it away and ask the President to review what the minister actually said, because to my mind it was very clear that he was saying that there was a conspiracy in the timing of over 50,000 people putting reviews in. To assist the chamber, I ask that the tape be reviewed.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I will refer it to the President for review. Minister.

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

We can go backwards and forwards about this question, but I am not in a position to provide numbers on behalf of the department or the agency in terms of the number of applications for eligibility to the scheme or the number of applications for changes to plans. I have been briefed, in response to your question, that there is anecdotal evidence that the volume of applications for changes to NDIS plans has increased substantially since late last year. If there's information that can properly be provided in estimates or in the normal course of events, I'm sure we'd be delighted to assist.

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

I'm not going to even bother asking all the rest of the questions at this point in time because it's clear that the minister is not going to answer any of them. I would note that the minister has just misled the Senate, because these figures are available. They are available to Minister Shorten's office. They are available to the NDIA. They are available to the DSS. They are all readily available. In estimates and in the committee inquiry hearings, they are choosing not to release this information anymore. That is a very different issue, and I believe it's misleading the Senate.

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

I do not have the material to provide to you. It is not necessary to provide it in this process; it is not appropriate to provide it. The kind of claim that you have just made, asserting that somebody is misleading the Senate because they don't agree with you, is the kind of partisan nonsense that diminishes the debate, in truth, and lacks seriousness about the approach to the debate.

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

I have just learnt that a deal between the government and the opposition has been circulated in this chamber that would see this bill rammed through on Thursday. This deal means that this last 20 minutes of debate is very likely to be the last time any member of this Senate is given the opportunity to speak with substance to this bill. So, in the nine minutes left to me and on behalf of the Australian disability community, there are a few things that must be recorded here in this moment.

Never in the history of the Australian disability rights movement has a government so profoundly betrayed the trust placed in it by the community. The families and the disabled people who suffered so significantly under the 10 years of Liberal government placed their trust in the Australian Labor Party at the election that the party and the government elected would collaborate, co-design and restore dignity in the scheme. At every opportunity since coming to power, you have calibrated and carefully built a bill which now sits before this parliament with a single purpose—to cut as much from the supports we need to survive as quickly as possible to enable the redirection of those public funds towards the priorities set by and for your donors and those who offer you jobs when you leave this place.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme, founded because of disabled people and our community's collective power and advocacy, was brought into the world founded on two transformational principles: firstly, the idea of an individualised support and the end of 'yes-no' lists, template planning and the list of wheelchairs you can or can't have boiled up by a bureaucrat somewhere; and, secondly, the idea that the supports you may receive will be the result of an authentic negotiation between a disabled person and the government as to what they need. These principles transferred the power over the lives of disabled people, which was vested in the hands of government, back to disabled people. At every single moment since the passage of that legislation 10 years ago, people in positions of power, politicians and bureaucrats, have fought to get that power back. That transfer, that stripping of power from the community back into the hands of government, is the effect of this bill. Choice, control, reasonable and necessary supports are stripped from disabled people and our families with an almost surgical precision, leaving us to once again live with the fear and the horror of having our lives shaped about us without us.

During the course of this parliamentary debate, the government has sought again and again to dismiss, to gaslight and to attempt to frame disabled people and our concerns as being driven by needless fear. Tonight, if you take the opportunity to look into your inboxes and check back with your teams, you will discover that every single one of Australia's disability representative organisations have said clearly over the last 48 hours that this bill must not pass. The network for First Nations people who are disabled has said in the starkest terms that this bill is bad for First Nations people who are disabled. Advocates around the country have hit the phones, sent emails and begged and pleaded with you to listen and to see sense.

The minister comes into the chamber this evening and says in response to questions, 'Oh, period products were put on the wrong part of the list; the government no longer believes that they should be categorised as a lifestyle product,' without apparently being able to conceive of that mistake as being an example of why there should not be lists and why, in fact, somebody's individualised support should be the result of their individualised circumstances. This government, which makes such a song and dance about any tiny thing that it believes may help a person or a community in a cost-of-living crisis, brings a bill before this chamber and seeks to ram it through which would see the Australian disability community subjected to mandatory government assessments that we neither want nor need but it is going to make us pay for. And yet this is the bill that will be passed through this place on Thursday. It's almost as though you're running a bit scared, almost as though you feel that a bit more time left to look into this thing might actually reveal a couple more things you haven't thought through. I wonder how many amendments you might introduce if we gave this bill another couple of weeks. We'd come back, and there'd be 90, 100. You discovered a new agency function you had never at all, in any way, during the course of this debate considered or flagged, and you inserted it during the last week of debate. In my entire seven years here, I have never seen anything like it. We were engaging in a good-faith committee-stage process, with the government seeking to identify answers to the actual questions that remain before the community, and you move this deal, you ram it through, because you don't like being under pressure or under scrutiny. The disability community is left now to simply sit and wait for the inevitable deal to take effect.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister.

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

No. I haven't finished my bloody—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Sorry, Senator Steele-John. I apologise.

If I could sit down to indicate, you would know that I hadn't finished.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I apologise.

With the passage of this bill, the Australian disability community will enter a period of shadow, harm, difficulty and, yes, death. A type of life we thought we had escaped will return for many of us. The solidarity that we have built as a community in the fight against this legislation, however, will remain and it will grow. And, as we move together into this period of trial, we shall do so together. We shall not be alone. We shall struggle together. We shall cry together. We shall speak up together. We will protest together. And we will see a parliament elected that will restore our rights and protections together. And there will come a day when these supports are returned, when the government apologises for what it didn't know it was doing, and we will look upon that government and we will state clearly that it did know and that we do in fact hold it fully responsible.

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

I just say this in response to that contribution. A scare campaign has to have some foundation in the truth, no matter how much hyperbole—

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

Oh, shut up, Tim!

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

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

You disgrace this chamber with your nonsense! You've no idea what—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Steele-John! Order, please. You were heard with respect, and I would ask that you please accord the same courtesy to the minister.

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

It has to have a relationship with the truth.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Allman-Payne.

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister is impugning the motivations of Senator Steele-John, saying that this is about a scare campaign. That is a reflection on his motivation, and I ask it to be withdrawn.

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

I'll withdraw it if it assists.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you, Minister.

I would just say this. We just listened—

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're going to withdraw it or debate it?

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

I've withdrawn it—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order! The minister did withdraw, and I would ask that the minister please be heard with the same respect that others have been heard.

but what I just heard was a set of imputations about the motivations of the government in delivering this set of reforms. The problem with this debate, and some other debates that I've observed over the last little while, is that there's a group of people in here who think it's alright to make imputations, but, the moment that they are called on it, it's a big problem.

The result of the passage of this bill will be that the government will co-design, with participants and with the states and territories, a set of reforms. They will deliver better plans. They will deliver clearer expectations amongst participants. They will deliver on the expectations and spirit of the NDIS review. There will be good outcomes for participants. There will be a sustainable scheme—a sustainable scheme that will support participants for generations and generations to come. The access to the scheme as a result of the passage of this legislation will not change. It will not change. The kinds of services that participants will access will, within the scope of the budget that is defined for them, be flexible—more flexible than they currently are. The scheme will deliver real improvements, over time, and it will be co-designed with the community. The scheme enables that process to begin. That means that the proper foundations of the scheme will be protected.

I think that is a proper purpose for government. To say that it is motivated by anything other than making the scheme robust and improved, and to try and set up an argument that reforms and improvements to the efficiency of the scheme that will eliminate duplication and support participants in their engagement with the agency are somehow bad things, I just don't think that's right. This scheme will continue to grow, if the government achieves its objectives, by eight per cent every year. To characterise that as 'cuts' is just not right. It's just not fair.

We are not immune to criticism. We understand that the role of government is to listen to criticism and listen to feedback and to sometimes be criticised and sometimes be criticised unfairly—that's alright. But to make unfounded claims that create great anxiety is not a good idea. It may play politically, but it does not assist.

This is not a process where the government has arrived with a piece of legislation and pushed it through this parliament in five minutes. The government has signalled its intent here ever since it was elected. It's a National Cabinet decision that has been very widely canvassed and well understood. There is legislation here that has been in the parliament for quite some time. There will need to be a process of dealing with it in the parliament, and we will see how the parliament deals with it over the coming days. But it should not be held up. I understand that the position of one group in here is to oppose the legislation. Well, oppose the legislation. But the parliament should not hold this reform up.

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

One day, Minister—and it won't be very long—you will regret every single thing that you have said to Senator Steele-John. Everything he said is absolutely true. And the fact that you would say that he was scaremongering is not only a stain on this place but a stain on this government. We might not agree on many issues, but Senator Steele-John is one of the most compassionate and passionate disability advocates in our nation. And, if you did not recognise the genuineness in what he was saying to this chamber—what he said to this chamber is exactly what we have heard for months from the disability sector. It takes a singularly determined minister to turn every state and territory against him and turn every single disability organisation against him. They are saying the same thing because they know that what Senator Steele-John has said is true.

Minister, if you do not hear those voices, I can assure you: we do hear the voices. What Senator Steele-John said was not a scare campaign; it was absolutely what we are all hearing, and it is the genuine fear of people with disabilities right across this nation. One day, when you play back and you hear those words that you have just said in this chamber, you will hang your head in shame. I hope you'll have enough humanity to do that, because what this senator has just said is the truth. It is not only his truth; it is the truth of thousands and thousands of people with disability today, who are terrified by what you are about to do with this legislation—your lack of consultation with the sector, your tin ear, your coming into this chamber and refusing time and time again to provide transparency. So please, Minister, don't you dare ever say anything like that again to Senator Steele-John or anybody else in this chamber, because it is a stain on you and a stain on this place.

Senator Steele-John, I would like to apologise for what has just been said to you. It was not justified, in my view. If you, Minister—and the Labor government and Minister Shorten—had any decency, you would stand up right now and you would apologise to our colleague here, who has just given the most heartfelt speech he will probably ever give. You delivered the slick RedBridge-Labor lines again and again. Senator Steele-John, I am sorry for that, and I could not agree more with every single thing you have said. It absolutely represents the concerns of tens if not hundreds of thousands of our most vulnerable Australians, and their voice, through you, has been heard here this evening. So bravo, you.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is about a minute left.

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

Let's do the final minute. This legislation should be the subject of vigorous debate. But claims should not be made that aren't correct. Senator Reynolds, the claims that you have made about cuts are not correct. They are partisan claims. This scheme is designed, whether it's in relation to claims being made by the Greens party—

Progress reported.