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

Firstly, may I note upfront that, whilst the opposition has some concerns with aspects of the bill in front of us, which I will briefly outline, we won't stand in the way of this bill progressing in the House and we won't oppose it. As background for members, the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill replaces the current Disability Services Act 1986. The current act has been in place for nearly 40 years, and, in the decades since its introduction, it's obvious to everybody in this chamber that there have been quite massive developments in the disability sector, including in the legislative framework, the regulations, the international agreements, of which Australia is a party, and, of course, the practical provision of disability services. So a huge amount has changed since the existing act was legislated. That's not to mention the establishment of the NDIS and the adoption of the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Now, as a country, we're onto our second national disability strategy. It's important, given these quite momentous changes, that Australia has the right framework in place to ensure that Australians with a disability, who we know are some of the most vulnerable people in our community, can access the right supports and services.

These bills establish an updated framework for the funding and regulation of programs that support the one in six Australians with a disability. It is also to support their families and carers and, of course, to make a number of consequential amendments to other bills and smooth the transition through transitional arrangements. The Disability Services and Inclusion Bill seeks to establish a streamlined framework to facilitate funding for supports and services, and we hope that, ultimately, this framework will assist with supporting all Australians with a disability, regardless of whether or not they participate in the NDIS. Much has been spoken about the NDIS, its great work and, certainly, its limitations, some of which have certainly been exacerbated under this government, notwithstanding a range of promises that were made by the then opposition, now government, in relation to the NDIS.

The bill itself, though, doesn't change or impact the NDIS or Disability Support Pension paid under the social security laws. Rather, it will provide legislative authority for new and existing spending on disability related programs outside of the NDIS. In that respect, it will operate in a similar way to the objectives of the existing framework that sit within the 1986 legislation. The bill doesn't directly allocate funding for specific supports or services; rather, it just oversees these supports and services.

The bill, importantly—and where we can provide bipartisanship—improves quality and safeguarding arrangements by the introduction of a mandatory code which will mirror the NDIS code of conduct. It is quite an important harmonisation between the largest single program for those with a disability in our nation and a framework that sits well broader than that for those with a disability who aren't necessarily within the NDIS.

Under this bill supports and services may be provided to any person with a disability, including those with physical, psychosocial, cognitive, intellectual or sensory impairment. The Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 also, as I said, makes a range of consequential amendments as a result of the repeal of the 1986 legislation and replacement of the disability services and inclusion bill. Schedule 1 in particular repeals the 1986 the act. Schedule 2 amends Commonwealth legislation reflecting the repeal and current replacement of the Disability Services Act. Schedule 3 sets out application and savings provisions for the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill, with part 1 dealing with some of the preliminary matters, part 2 with the operation of the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill and part 3 dealing with the operation of the Disability Services Act.

Now, as I said at the beginning, in our view there are some issues and potential concerns that we have with this bill. Most importantly, the bill does not define target groups that will be eligible for supports and services. This is quite a radical departure from the current legislation. Under section 8 in the current legislation, the 1986 act, a target group consists of persons with a disability that:

(a) is attributable to an intellectual , psychiatric, sensory or physical impairment or a combination of such impairments;

(b) is permanent or likely to be permanent; and

(c) results in:

(i) a substantially reduced capacity of the person for communication, learning or mobility; and

(ii) the need for ongoing support services.

Whilst not having a legislated definition of a target group, we acknowledge, quite obviously may provide greater flexibility and access to services and supports, without the additional infrastructure in place there may be unknown practical, consequential impacts on the provision and delivery of timely supports and services to those in need. We hope the inquiry that's currently underway will provide greater insights into these concerns, and it's certainly my hope that those concerns in relation to the significant departure from the current legislation, in not defining those target groups, can be addressed and can be more understood from our perspective. Should that be the case then it would be far simpler for us to provide wholehearted support for this bill.

I encourage those that are conducting that work to make very clear not only the reasons for that quite significant departure from the status quo but also the reasons for it and how it will ultimately enhance the framework, particularly given the context that we operate within at the moment. I think it's important to note that context, which is that, in an environment where we've got a government that went to the election saying, 'There are no sustainability issues with the NDIS,' the then shadow minister would travel around the country saying that it's really only those terrible, nasty Liberals that talk about sustainability in the NDIS. In fact, he's quoted as saying, 'You can't walk the halls of parliament without hearing a coalition minister talking about sustainability, and they are wrong and they should don't so.' And—surprise surprise—since being in government all we hear from the government is a discussion about the sustainability of the NDIS.

We see quite clear tension between the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the finance minister, who insist that they're savings that they've baked into the budget, $59 billion worth—that a reduction in the growth of the NDIS, from a 14 per cent year-on-year growth to an eight per cent growth cap is baked into the budget and is there—and the minister, who said it's aspirational. He was quickly pulled into line, probably once he understood that, once you've banked the saving, it's not an aspiration at that point; as a government you've got to deliver on it. So the definition of 'target groups' in that context, when we've got a government who I think is saying to a large cohort of people within the 610,000 who utilise the National Disability Insurance Scheme that their services and their supports are at risk. That's essentially what they're saying. That's a huge departure from what those people were told by this government before the election.

The then shadow minister and now Minister for the NDIS was pretty shameless in creating the impression out there that nobody's plan would go backwards, that the scheme was sustainable as it was and that its current growth rate trajectory was absolutely proper and didn't need to be addressed. I suspect that—quite successfully for the government—a number of people voted for them on the basis of those promises.

I think those people are now, firstly, feeling deceived by the government because of the rhetoric from the government now—more than rhetoric. The budgeted savings that have surprised a lot of people I think mean that there are large cohorts who are really concerned about their own plans and their own services. In fact, it's pretty clear that the government and the minister have allowed a whole lot of speculation to run in the media, particularly around children with autism spectrum disorder who are on the scheme. Really vulnerable families—people who want the best for their children, people who know they've got a finite period of time to get support for a child with developmental delay or ASD and a range of other diagnoses—are feeling very nervous that the minister and the government have allowed this to run in the context of the NDIS Review.

So, within that broad breach of trust and breaking of faith with the many tens of thousands of people on the NDIS, we want to understand what this framework is seeking to do, and how removing the definition of 'target groups' can possibly be consistent with what I think is a pretty clear approach from the government here, which is to try and find as many savings as possible from families who are currently using the NDIS. How those two can in any way fit together is, I think, unclear at this stage—not to the point that we won't support this bill right now. We won't stand in its way. But, as I said, we want to understand how those two things marry together, because the framework within this bill will have to dovetail with whatever the government decides to do in response to the NDIS Review report, which is a matter of weeks away. I would fully expect that the government have already thought about that and have only brought forward this legislation on the basis that they are broadly aware that those two things can be compatible. I don't think we as an opposition or the 610,000 people on the NDIS will look favourably on it if these two things don't marry together seamlessly. So we'll keep a close eye on it.

We're obviously operating in an environment where many have lost faith and trust in this government over everything that it said before the election with respect to disability. There are a few areas of policy where there's been a departure from what was said before the election to win votes versus what is being done now, and it's disappointing, from my perspective, that the greatest breaching of faith or broken promises will be inflicted on Australians with a disability, the people least able to deal with those broken promises. So we'll keep a very close eye on the framework, but at this point in time we'll not be standing in the way of the bill.

Anne Stanley (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make my contribution to the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023 and Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023.

The significance of these bills can't be understated. As a liberal democracy, we value the fundamental right of an individual to live a life of dignity and respect, a life free of neglect, abuse and exploitation. All individuals deserve to benefit from the collective success of our society. That applies to all Australians, including those Australians living with a disability. We hold these to be some of our fundamental principles.

Unfortunately, we know that these principles are not always upheld. Recently, the report of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability was released. For 4½ years, the royal commission listened to communities all across Australia. It held 32 public hearings and 1,785 private sessions and received almost 8,000 submissions and 18,000 phone inquiries. The final report handed down is 5,000 pages with 222 recommendations.

The work done by the royal commission has been the cumulative work and input of thousands of Australians over many years, and the details and the stories that have come out of this extensive process point to a simple fact: we can do better because we must do better. I commend the work of the commissioners and their staff for all they did to bring this to light. At times the evidence provided was harrowing, and the meticulous and thoughtful deliberations and recommendations will help the government address the issues in the system so it truly supports those people with disabilities and their families. The government is committed to ensuring that Australia not just in principle but in practice is a country where all Australians can fully participate and realise their potential and where all Australians can have a decent quality of life, free of abuse and neglect.

In 2007 the United Nation's Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities opened for signatures, with Australia becoming the first of the signatories. The convention has the simple yet profound purpose to promote, protect and ensure that persons with disabilities enjoy the full human rights and freedoms and to protect their inherent dignity. In 2008, it came into force here in Australia.

Additionally, the National Disability Strategy was introduced in 2010, with the most recent framework being implemented from 2021 to 2031. The NDIS was established in 2013 along with its own code of conduct and legislative framework. While we still have a way to go, Australia has moved forward over the past few decades, since the introduction of the Disability Services Act in 1986 almost 40 years ago. The bills being debated here today will ensure we can do better by repealing and replacing the act, which has become outdated and restrictive.

Importantly, these changes have undergone considerable public consultation to ensure that they work for Australians with a disability. We know that listening to those who have been affected by these changes means that we will get better outcomes. Public consultation informed the draft bill, and a second round of consultation informed the final bills before the House today. These bills will ensure that there's appropriate legislation that will give effect to our obligations under the UN CRPD and ensure a single, unifying piece of legislation authorises funding for disability services outside the NDIS.

Currently, funding arrangements for many disability programs and services rely on funding being authorised under the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Regulations of 1997. Simply, the current act did not envisage the types of programs we have today and their delivery functions. The alternate arrangements, to use the FFSP regulations, cause significant administrative delays which impact the implementation of programs and services for those with a disability.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate will be resumed at a later hour, and you will be granted leave to continue your speech.