Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Hansard source

Yes! I gave my little bit. There were 50-plus participants who have disability, and they had the time of their lives. Some were a little bit frightened, but you could see their fear being overcome as something new came into their lives. You could see the joy—they were just thrilled to be in the water. By my count, there were over 200 volunteers there. It was one of the most uplifting events you could ever witness. It was Australians supporting Australians, locals supporting locals and families supporting families, in the best of all possible ways.

Many of these people and their families have endured extraordinary challenges and difficulties. Whether it is Tom McGann or the crew at the Disabled Surfers Association of Australia or the people for whom they are caring; whether it is Richard Stubbs or another local constituent, Alan Lachman, who, in order to give his daughter, Francesca, the best support he could, helped establish the Insight school for those with visual challenges, blindness and other forms of eyesight disability; whether it is those working in the autism space—and we have pledged to work with Senator Mitch Fifield, our shadow minister responsible, towards a national autism summit; whether it is any of those or the many other areas in which challenges abound, it is time for a National Disability Insurance Scheme.

The principle behind this is that, if you were designing a budget from scratch—if you had a blank sheet of paper—supporting those with disabilities in the best possible way would be right at the top of the list of measures because it is an expression of our humanity, an expression of decency and an expression of what we do. But, as we have developed in different ways over different times, we come to the point where we are today, with a different budgetary position.

So what we have to do now, I think, is adopt two fundamental principles: firstly, flexibility of delivery and, secondly, a non-bureaucratic model. The critical principle of flexibility of delivery is that we find the right solution for the right person. Each person's needs will be different. That may mean that for some it is about respite, for others it is about ongoing care and for others it is about material assistance such as customisation of a car or other vehicle or provision of computer equipment. Our approach should be flexibility, and that is what I think is critical—a flexible approach.

That leads to the non-bureaucratic model. I am very heartened by what I have seen come out of Western Australia. I think the Barnett model of flexibility is non-bureaucratic and an extremely important way forward. I think we should all look to the way in which Western Australia has provided a model. At the end of the day, we want to achieve a simple, flexible, non-bureaucratic model which is not about employing lots and lots of public servants but about giving individual families, carers and those suffering from disabilities the ability to meet their most significant needs.

That leads me to my third and final point, which is about supported accommodation. The Hastings model, as it is sometimes called, of small supported accommodation started just across the road from my office. Families such as Norm and Dizzy Carlyon, Joy and David Jarman, and Karl and Marie Hell—Karl has now passed on—came together to say that we needed a small, local supported accommodation centre. That was funded and it is largely built, but I have to say, with great respect to the Commonwealth, that nothing has happened in the best part of 18 months. The buildings have been frozen and the Commonwealth has not intervened to ensure that a building issue is resolved. I would respectfully say to the minister: now is the time to intervene, bring together the different parties and make sure that this building dispute is ended. It is a great model and one which I would like to see as part of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, but this case in Hastings can and should be resolved so we can get young people into supported accommodation. They are waiting; they are desperate; their families have visited. So I say to the minister: please intervene. This is an early example of the positive things that can be done by a national scheme. It is a pilot, an exemplar and a model. I ask for your help.

Having said that, when I think of Tom McGann, disabled surf Australia, Richard Stubbs, the work that Alan Lachman has done and those parents of children with autism, for whom we did our walk two years ago, they need and, above all else deserve, our support. As a parliament, we can be our best selves by supporting them. I commend the notion of a joint parliamentary committee. We will, as a parliament—as a unified group of people—continue to work towards a model which ultimately is not about bureaucracy nor tight rules; it is about finding the right solution to the needs of each family with a significant disability so that those families and those with the disability can be their best selves.

See this speech in context