Emma Husar (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2017. I thank the previous speaker for pre-empting what I might actually speak on! I remind the member for Durack that on 1 July, high-income earners, those people earning over $1 million a year, will actually be in receipt of a $16,400 pay rise in the form of a tax cut. So while the member for Durack might lecture us on class warfare, I think it is poignant to make that very salient point.

Labor welcomes the indexation of the income threshold below which Australians do not pay the Medicare levy or the Medicare levy surcharge. This is a regular process that ensures that the most vulnerable Australians are not disadvantaged while maintaining their access to the Medicare system, which is fundamental to the health of most Australians.

I have come in here today because during the speech the Treasurer, the member for Cook, made to this House on 24 May on this piece of legislation he said that it was 'to give families dealing with disabilities and their carers' some certainty. To the Treasurer I say this as the mother and carer of a child with a disability, we do not 'deal with' specific disabilities—

Ms Price interjecting—

Member for Durack, I do have a copy of the Treasurer's speech here that I am happy to table. But, as it is on the Hansard and publicly available, I do not feel that I need to do that. But it is here. We do not 'deal with' people who have a disability. To the Treasurer I say this: some of the things that he might deal with on a daily basis could be bad coffee, traffic jams or running late. Those are reasonable things that we might deal with. Some of the things that we on this side have to deal with are the raucous crew who run this country, for example. The member for Durack is providing a fine example of what that looks like. We deal with double standards and we deal with hypocritical answers from ministers about foreign donations during question time. They are what you deal with, Treasurer. We do not deal with people who have a disability. Parents and carers of those people with a disability simply do not deal with our loved ones who are affected by disability. We love them, and we love them hard. We love them on the tough days, the long days and the days we think will have no end.

I will also point out that during that same speech made by the Treasurer he also said that I showed a continuous lack of support for the NDIS. I might just take this opportunity to say exactly how I do not show a lack of support for the NDIS. I can put on record that that is one of the fundamental reasons why I actually sought election through a very hard-fought campaign to get here.

I have a son, my second child, who has a disability. When he was 18 months old, I realised that things were not right and that we might need to take a look at some of those things, and we might need to find some ways of helping him. He is now 10 years old. What I found with the system during that time, prior to the NDIS, was this: it was a system that was broken, it was unfair, it was difficult to navigate; and parents who were not educated or did not have access to a high amount of money for services for their child or other loved one were extremely disadvantaged. The system was mismatched to people who had a disability. It was incredibly inconsistent and completely broken.

I felt that we were one of the lucky families. There was me, driving my son's therapy. I knew who to ask for help. I knew where to go. So, when the idea of the NDIS came along, of course I jumped at it. My son was lucky, but not everyone else was as lucky. Some families could not access the services for their children or other loved ones who are affected by disability—not 'dealing with' disability but affected by it—by themselves. We needed a system that would actually provide for these families, a system that would care for these families and a system that was fair and equitable for these families.

So for the Treasurer to come in here and say that I show a continued lack of support for the NDIS is completely not true. For other people's children who are affected by disability; children who are in care or are taken into care because their families cannot care for them; for people who are in care institutions, where someone is charged with their care but abused that system, I welcomed the opportunity of the NDIS and everything that that represented, because as the parent of a child with a disability I know what a difference that will make.

I was involved in the Every Australian Counts campaign. To the Treasurer, who says I continue to show a lack of support for the NDIS: I was involved in those very early meetings many, many years ago, when the member for Lindsay was not me, and not a Liberal, but David Bradbury. We got involved and I started fighting. I started fighting for the NDIS, to ensure that not just my child but every child could be looked after—that every person who had a disability could be looked after. So, when I hear the Treasurer telling me that I have a continued lack of support for a scheme that I have fought so hard for, I am completely aggrieved.

As I said, I was involved in the Every Australian Counts campaign, and, when people from my electorate—whom I now have the absolute privilege of representing in this House—tell me about how their lives have changed through the advent of the NDIS, I am completely humbled, and the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. And it sometimes brings tears to my eyes, because I know the difference that early intervention and support for these families makes. It is life changing. It is a game-changer for this country. No big reforms that have ever been undertaken in this country were easy. We never got to the end of a big reform and said, 'Hey, that was easy,' high-fived each other and said, 'Let's do it again.' They are hard work, and we on this side of the House would know that because we are the only party that have been involved in major changes that this country has undergone and in major social reform that has been undertaken. The member for Moreton spoke very positively about the changes we made to Medicare many years ago.

What the NDIS means to me and my community is certainty for people in a space where we had no certainty before. We have some consistency. We have services available to these families who are sometimes at breaking point, who relinquish their children. And, when we as parents or carers or as the older people who are responsible for our loved ones shuffle off, we have people and systems in place and we have supports for our loved ones—not people who we are 'dealing with'.

My commitment to my community on the NDIS is that I will continue to be an advocate for it, using my experience to change their lives. The reason that I stood for parliament and worked my arse off to get into this place, in an eight-week winter campaign in a marginal seat that was tough every single day, was the NDIS. It was to ensure that this system was something that could go forward, be implemented and not be ruined. My efforts were hinged on my experiences of my son, amongst many other things, and the experience of those people I represent—the other mums I have met and the tired therapists who have always wanted to do more for their clients but were constrained by families' ability to pay or the ability to get those families through the door. So to the Treasurer who comes in here and accuses me of not caring or being someone who had to 'deal' with my son I say this: we do not deal with them; we support them and we fight for them.

Of course I support the NDIS being funded, of course I want the program to succeed. But I also offer this: I come in here today as well because during question time members of this government are frequently ending their questions not with quotes but with 'Are you aware of any alternative approaches?' I am progressive and I am pragmatic, but you need to be neither of those things to display absolute common sense—some people might even call it applying the pub test. So my answer to the Prime Minister and to his Treasurer, and to all of the backbench who constantly search for alternatives, is this: do not fund a big business tax cut in the order of $65 billion and slug average income earners with higher taxes to pay for it. The member for Hughes and the member for Pearce have had some interesting things to say about the NDIS and the cost of the NDIS. The member for Hughes was asked about the scheme on 29 May in a TV interview on Sky News. He said that the costs of the NDIS are 'almost double what Julia Gillard, when she first proposed it, actually are.' However, the minister in charge, Minister Porter, the member for Pearce, said it was 'wildly premature to make that conclusion.'

The Turnbull government must stop misleading the people about the funding of the NDIS. The NDIS is far too important for political games. People with a disability, their carers and their mothers have waited an exceptionally long time for this. In fact, there are people in my electorate who are 70 years old who I have known my entire life—which is not 70 years!—who have waited for this and who actually will be ineligible, but they know how important this is and they campaigned alongside me. To this government I say: stop playing with people with a disability, their families and their carers, who have waited their entire lives. Get on with the job of ensuring that we get the best possible NDIS.

See this speech in context