Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Hansard source

I commend the minister, who just outlined the best parts of the budget from a social services perspective, which were all measures inherited by the government from the opposition. Indeed, they are measures that were contained in a bill introduced into the parliament in February. I also commend the minister for her very fine words in relation to violence against women and children and the work that the government is doing. We will provide bipartisan support on that.

In light of those well-meaning words, it is very hard to understand how one of the largest pieces of new expenditure in this budget—$217 million to abolish the cashless debit card—accords with the stated objective to reduce violence against women and children. We know the consequences of abolishing the CDC for vulnerable communities will be dire, particularly for women and children, who will see a flood of drugs and alcohol in those communities. I will put on the record that the ministers are good people and would not deliberately do that, but how on earth can you justify taking a measure that is going to cost $217 million to put drugs and alcohol into those communities? I ask the minister to detail how that eye-watering expenditure of $217 million, the so-called enhanced BasicsCard, will differ from the already successful and functional cashless debit card. Is this $217 million to rebuild something—to call it a different name—that will have the same functionality and support, importantly, from the community as the card that it's replacing? It's very clear that the government put themselves into a corner here. They announced that they were abolishing the CDC, then realised the devastating consequences that would have but, stubbornly, instead of walking away from it, they have continued and are going to spend $217 million in order to do that.

I also want to know from the minister, in detail, what coordination, support and consultation have been provided to the communities in the following areas: Ceduna and the surrounding areas, East Kimberley, Goldfields, Bundaberg and Hervey Bay—not a telephone number that people can call, but what actual support is being provided to the services on the ground that are waiting nervously for the flood of devastation that is going to hit them. That's what I have for the Social Services portfolio.

In relation to the NDIS, the minister went to the election making a lot of promises. He very happily raised expectations. He very happily created an expectation that no plan would ever go backwards on his watch. It was all going to be a utopia. It was all going to be rainbows and lollipops under this minister. He also made clear before the election that he thought the scheme was sustainable as it was, that the only people referring to sustainability, those nasty Liberals, were out of step. Now he claims that the scheme 'is growing in its cost base too quickly'. When's he going to fess up to the people, for whom he created expectations, prior to the election? He said before the election that there were some people saying there was going to be a catastrophic disaster happening in the NDIS:

You can't move around the corridors of Parliament in Canberra without tripping over a Coalition Minister whispering the Scheme is unsustainable.

I'm here to tell you … that is a lie.

Can the minister finally make clear, what is his position on the sustainability of the NDIS? Level with the Australian people. Be honest with the Australian people. If the more than half a million Australian participants should be worried about your views on the sustainability and what you will be hoping to do following the NDIS review, level with them now and make it clear, because before the election you said no plans would go backwards on your watch and that the scheme was sustainable as it is. So if you are now walking away from that, make it clear and apologise for the expectations that you raised in those vulnerable half a million participants and their families. (Time expired)

See this speech in context