Mary Aldred (Monash, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to get up and speak on this motion put forward by my friend and colleague the member for Herbert. I know he feels deeply and passionately about this issue and about supporting all Australians with a disability to live their lives to their full potential. I want to go back to the core raison d'etre, or reason for being, for the NDIS, and that is to provide funding and support for Australians with a permanent and significant disability to live life in the most ordinary way possible. I come from regional Australia; I come from regional Victoria. I'm very proud to represent my magnificent electorate of Monash. What I passionately believe is that your postcode should not determine your potential. It should not determine your ability to access the services and support that you need to live your life to your full potential. That is, of course, in line with those core goals and aims behind why the NDIS was set up in the first place.

One thing that really concerns me is the way in which Labor's talking points on this motion have been presented. I've heard, in a number of contributions, references to dodgy providers. In this context, that is a very unfair slight on a great many providers, allied health professionals and people who care for those with a disability every single day, who have raised legitimate and genuine concerns about the impact of these changes on people in many communities, particularly in communities like mine in regional Australia. Unfortunately, these people fall into Labor's no-care zone. I think Labor has demonstrated, very unfortunately, a tin ear to feedback on genuine concerns and on the impact of these changes. Just as one example, I wrote to the Prime Minister on 8 July. I said, 'Dear Prime Minister, I write to express my deep concern about the recent NDIS pricing changes.' Since then a number of people in the coalition, particularly my friend and colleague the member for Herbert, have asked very reasonably for a slight delay on the implementation of these changes to take stock, to actually listen to feedback from the sector and to listen to people with a disability, their carers and allied health professionals about the impact of these changes. But, having a tin ear to feedback, this government haven't taken a moment to do that. They've just steamrolled ahead with the implementation of these cuts and travel changes, which will very adversely and unfairly affect many people in my electorate.

I would particularly like to note Natalie, Amanda, Lynelle, Meg, Helen and Danielle, among many other local support workers, who took the time to meet with me to explain how these changes will impact on their clients. There were two cases that really struck me quite deeply and profoundly. One of them is of a teenage girl from Moe in the Latrobe Valley, who receives weekly physiotherapy sessions. We don't have the market density that many metropolitan and city areas have, so the physiotherapy sessions for this teenage girl come via a provider who does need to travel a distance every week to provide that to her. These changes just make it uneconomical for that provider to continue to travel to this community to provide that care. And if this girl misses out on those weekly physiotherapy sessions, there is a huge impact—and the impact is that she will return to being confined to a wheelchair, because she won't be able to walk in the way that she's been able to develop to. There's another young man who receives weekly speech pathology sessions, and that, for him, is the difference between be able to communicate to those around him that he's in pain, that there's a risk or that there's danger present. If he doesn't receive those pathology sessions, he will go backwards as well.

As for the biggest risk at the moment, we all agree, I think, that the NDIS needs to be run in an efficient and effective manner, but I was most concerned to read recently that up to one in four NDIS workers are quitting every year, which is driving up significant costs. In fact, of the 264 providers surveyed for the workforce census report, more than 15,300 staff left out of a total of just over 60,000. There's a significant cost in replacing those staff. I thank the House for its attention.

See this speech in context