Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Disability and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Minister, I've now met many allied health professionals who are concerned that the recently reviewed NDIS pricing structure, including cuts to travel and remote area rates, risks the supply of essential services in rural, regional and remote markets like Tasmania. Minister, will you pause these changes and properly consult with all concerned to ensure price settings are affordable for NDIS clients and sustainable for allied health professionals?

Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question. Can I say at the outset what an enormous honour it is to have been appointed as the Minister for Disability and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. On this side of the parliament, we take great pride in the establishment of this scheme. It is one of the great social reforms of our age, one supported by the now opposition and one, I remember, also strongly supported by the member for Clark in that term of parliament after 2010. We're very proud of it, but we're also committed to making sure we get it back on track and ensure that it's sustainable for the future, particularly in the interests of people living with a disability.

I think everyone in this parliament knows that the growth rate we inherited, when we came to parliament, of about 22 per cent per year was simply unsustainable. One tool in the NDIS reform toolbox is pricing reform, introducing more robust pricing arrangements than—I think anyone in this place would accept—we've had up until now.

The member asks me about the pricing determination that's been made by the independent NDIA board, taking effect this month. It follows, undoubtedly, the most comprehensive review of NDIS prices conducted in the scheme's history, a review that covered 10 million data points and had—to the member's question—very significant consultation behind it. The principal objective, of course, is to ensure that every participant gets the best possible value for money for their plan, that they're not paying above the odds for any of the supports and services that they get. I stress this was an independent decision of an independent board, but it is one I support. It's a decision I support.

To address the member's questions, I have a couple of points. For Tasmanian prices, many therapy supports were getting paid significantly more than the same therapies being delivered in Sydney and Melbourne. It was $30 an hour more for physiotherapy, about $20 an hour more for psychology—a temporary arrangement intended to develop a market in jurisdictions like Tasmania. That market is now mature, and it's proper that those prices return to the national level. I also make the point that rates across the board for therapy are still higher than pretty much any other system you could look at: health, veterans care, Comcare and other things like that. Even with some of the reductions put in place this month, they are still substantially higher. There are still remote loadings that would apply to areas in Tasmania like in Swansea and Queenstown, which will attract a 40 per cent loading, and in King Island, with a 50 per cent loading. The very generous travel arrangements for NDIS providers that apply to pretty much no other scheme in the country are being made slightly less generous but are still much better than any of those other schemes that I just mentioned attract as well. (Time expired)