Ann Sudmalis (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

A lot of the discussion around the NDIS goes towards the budget, so let us put this in clear terms. The budget is the document that outlines how the government spends your money—not your money, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, but that of the public out there, who may or not be listening but who certainly would love to hear about it. That is their money—it is their money if they pay tax.

No-one in Gilmore will ever begrudge funding that can assist people with a disability. But I have heard in this chamber some members of the opposition describing the process of trying to get a balanced budget as like robbing Peter to pay Paul. Well, I would say: we in this House have an absolute responsibility to make changes to a whole-of-country support system that works well now, to make sure it works well into the future. Labor says we are taking funding, like robbing Peter to pay Paul, but, in reality, their proposals are taking money and benefits away from our children and our grandchildren. So this is, in effect, robbing our children's future of stability—actually robbing Australia's future.

The NDIS was originally framed to be of assistance to those born with a disability and those injured who then, due to those injuries, were said to have a significant disability. That has since been expanded, and it was never originally budgeted for but we need to take care of those people as well.

The original work was inspired because there is a hodgepodge of service provision that has different levels of care from state to state across Australia. I recall the numerous bi-party briefings that were held during 2012 and 2013; at that time, I was a staffer and I was asked to attend those briefings in place of Joanna Gash. I knew that there were many people in our region who were struggling to get through the system, and at that time I was alerted to the needs, particularly, of custodial grandparents where the child was affected with a disability. I still have that issue as one of paramount concern. However, I will return to that issue and others later.

There is no doubt that all members in this parliament—and I mean all of us—will be 110 per cent in support of having an effective NDIS funding strategy. But I hesitate and take a breath. When Labor was in government, this NDIS was one of their signature policies. It was legislated in the House in 2013 with total bipartisan support, and, as the member for Jagajaga mentioned earlier today, their budget projections included an increased Medicare levy to pay for the NDIS. Some would say that that is a reasonable plan; many would be concerned with the cost implications for families at the lower socio-economic level. Labor failed—yes, I said 'failed'—to legislate this additional levy, yet they counted the extra revenue into their funding estimates for the NDIS over the forward estimates. This was a deceitful way of saying the NDIS was funded when really it was not. I need to put this in clear and understandable terms. In May 2013, the then Labor government had a fully funded NDIS based on an increased Medicare levy and other actions that they actually never legislated. The election was in September, so they had more than three months to get that legislation through before they called the election. Remember that federal elections are called by the sitting Prime Minister. I think at that time it was Kevin. It may have been Julia, but I am pretty sure it was Kevin. We are working—

See this speech in context