Bill Shorten's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
National Disability Insurance Scheme | Questions without Notice | House debates
I thank the member for Pearce for her question. I'm pleased to inform Australians that since the Albanese government was elected the NDIS is getting back on track. In essence, people with...
I thank the member for Pearce for her question. I'm pleased to inform Australians that since the Albanese government was elected the NDIS is getting back on track. In essence, people with disability have been put back at the centre of the scheme and the financial numbers are actually improving whilst the integrity of the scheme is being maintained. Also, a consensus on the best way forward to keep the scheme on track has emerged, other than with the Greens political party and some senators. I can demonstrate the metrics of how, in the last 30 months, the scheme is getting back on track. Before we were elected, the scheme was growing in investment outlay by 23 per cent. Last financial year it was 18 per cent. This year we're on track for 12 per cent, and next year it will be eight per cent. Participant growth before we were elected was 15 per cent. Now it's at eight per cent, and many categories have stabilised. When we were elected, the NDIS was in danger of being the only lifeboat in the ocean. The states were contributing 25 per cent of the cost of the scheme, while we were contributing 75 per cent. We've been able to persuade the states to lift their contribution each year, from an extra four per cent growth to eight per cent growth. Most pleasingly, the states have agreed with the Commonwealth to start rolling out, in a year's time, foundational support services so that the scheme is not the only lifeboat in the ocean. When we came to office, there was rampant fraud. There are now 500 investigations being conducted or underway, and 50 people are in front of the courts. Billions of dollars of payments are now being investigated for their integrity, and I'm pleased to announce today that the Albanese government will be spending an extra $110 million to crack down on fraud. When we were elected, there was no clarity on what money could be used for. We've now clarified what it can be used for. When we were elected, over 90 per cent of the service providers were simply unregistered. We now have a plan to move forward and register the vast bulk of service providers. When we were elected, people could come into the scheme by all sorts of different assessments. We're going to bring the assessment in house so that there's some consistency and transparency. Before we were elected, you could, when you were fit for discharge, spend 160 days in hospital and on the NDIS before you got out of hospital. Now it's down to 22 days on average. External legal costs have fallen. The wages that are paid to disability support workers have increased. We recognise there is still more to do. Led by my colleague Amanda Rishworth, we've still got to keep working with the states on these foundational supports. We recognise that there are still integrity issues in the scheme. We recognise that decision-making is still inconsistent in parts. I will finish where I started. The reality is that this nation made a promise to ageing carers who were up at midnight thinking about whether there would be someone to look after their adult child when they no longer could. The good news is that, because of the Albanese government and the reform in this term, we are closer to keeping that promise than we've ever been before.
Valedictory | Parliamentary Representation | House debates
In the 123 years of the storied history of the parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia there are 1,244 individuals who've been elected to the House of Representatives. Each of those...
In the 123 years of the storied history of the parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia there are 1,244 individuals who've been elected to the House of Representatives. Each of those introduced themselves in their first speech, but only 216 ever got the chance to say goodbye, to give a valedictory. Political life is indeed tough. Election defeat, scandal, illness—section 44! I stand here neither defeated nor disposed, lucky to have served, fortunate to be able to say goodbye and thank you. My first thank you is to my greatest good fortune—my family. To Chloe: you cast everything around you in a golden light. I love you with all my heart—your gift with people, the way you leave every room with five new friends, no baby left uncuddled and a promise to follow up on at least three new policy initiatives. It's not a learned skill; it's an innate quality. It's exactly who you are. And you've passed that on to our three beautiful children. Rupert, Gigi and Clementine: you've been conscripts for the rallies, the speeches, the branch meetings, the polling places—me after polling numbers!—and every community event imaginable, always quick to lift me up when I'm down and even quicker to bring me back to earth when I've needed it. You've given me so much more than I can ever give you, and I don't tell you this enough but I'm so incredibly proud of each of you. To the McGrath and Bryce clans: I'm sorry that you've had such a shy and retiring relative. And I cannot leave off my family thankyou list my faithful British bulldog, Walter. Thank you, buddy, for your unconditional loyalty and being the best listener I've ever met. Mr Speaker, the first role of a member of the House of Representatives is as a local member. I am exceptionally grateful to the voters of Maribyrnong for electing me on six consecutive occasions to this place. When Barry Humphries dreamed up Dame Edna, he based her character on Moonee Ponds, the epitome and epicentre of post-war suburban Australia and the epicentre of my electorate. Today, walking down Puckle Street is to glimpse cultures and traditions from every part of the world. And, for all the diversity, the people are united by a common pride in our community. Gee it's been an honour to represent some superb family businesses: Lee and Tony at Fresh on Young, Ali at Dan Dan's, Cameron at Ascot Saddlery, Olga at Paulene Maree, and so many, many more. You've been the studio for countless live crosses, street walks and Today shows. A big shout-out to my neighbours—Josefina, Rob and his late wife, Katie—and to the Travancore brigade. You've had to put up with the giant buses, the stalkers, the staffers, the journalists and other undesirables. I thank the great people of Maribyrnong for putting their trust in me. You don't have to sit in the parliament to serve the parliament or our nation. I thank all the outstanding Commonwealth public servants I've worked with over many years in Treasury, the ATO, Education, Workplace Relations, the ADF, Hearing Australia, Services Australia, the NDIA, DSS and many more. I thank all the people who make this building tick—the clerks; the security guards; Dom and his team at Aussies; the cleaners, who are graciously here today. You are all indispensable. To my Comcar drivers, Steve, Smokey and Peter, and your wives: thank you for making the trip up from Melbourne. You flatter me very much. Then there are the people that Ryan Liddell used to call my 'paid friends'—that hurt! Behind every politician, all of us, there are dedicated personal staff. Through my 17 years in parliament, 196 have worked for me. The magnificent Sandra Papasidero, who's held my diary, my travel and my life together for 11 years, knows this because she has spoken with nearly all of them in the lead-up to today. There is the remarkable Rod Gurry, who's been my eyes and ears in Maribyrnong right the way through; he's seen them all come and all go. It's a bedrock convention in this place that we don't name all the staff; they don't seek the spotlight, and we don't put it on them. I wanted to up-end that, and name them all. Sadly, the central agencies, as they do, briefed against me in ERC! So I've compromised, and I'll table a list, a roll call, of 196 really great Australians. Honourable members: Hear, hear! I say to my staff and former staff: thank you for your patience and your sacrifice for going one day longer. Thank you for always being prepared to craft bold policy—and to tell me when to stop crafting bold policy! Thank you for taking, or faking, an interest in the Roman Empire and Napoleon—toy soldiers are not toys; they're miniature history—and dioramas. And thank you for dealing with the other servants of our democracy—yes, the press gallery. I should note that ever since I announced with the Prime Minister that I was leaving politics, I've never had better coverage and my opponents have never been nicer! I've worked with some outstanding people through the years—Amit, Sam, James, Fiona, Antonia, Maree, Shawn and many more. I'm pleased, in fact, that three of my former staff now sit here in the chamber as members of parliament. Indeed, many of my staff have gone on to great things. I'm sort of okay if some of you don't mention me on your CV—but only sort of! All of you will always be able to find your name in Hansard on this day, with my gratitude. On an occasion like this, a measure of nostalgia is impossible to resist. But I don't want to merely reflect on my past; I want to talk about our nation's future—about the better, smarter and more prosperous destination we can reach, and about the people and the institutions which will take Australia there. It is said that humanity's capacity for justice makes democracy possible but its inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary. Right now, around the globe, democracy is under greater challenge than at any time since the Second World War. We cannot dismiss these things just because we are the fortunate possessors of an island continent far away, hoping our distance makes us immune from troubles elsewhere. We have to jealously guard and nourish our democracy and safeguard our pluralist society. I'm proud to have served in three institutions essential to this endeavour: the Australian Workers Union, the Australian Labor Party and the Commonwealth parliament. I got my MBA from the Melbourne Business School, but it was the members of the first great democratic institution I served, the Australian Workers Union, who taught me about the economy through the privilege of representing them: steelworkers, shipbuilders, fruit pickers on the Murray, tow operators on our ski fields, greenkeepers, winery workers, chicken growers, embalmers and coffin makers, stablehand shearers, aluminium operators, civil construction, and netballers and jockeys too—champion athletes who had won everything finally winning the right to decent pay and conditions. These members were my school, and they taught me about people too. Across the diversity of Australia's locations, occupations and circumstances, when you scratch the surface we Australians share the same aspirations and nurture the same hopes. We Australians by and large are a pragmatic bunch. We don't tend to think in terms of 'isms' or 'ologies'. We don't have time in our day for every new outrage and shock. Most Australians focus on the fundamentals: family, health, home and community. The AWU took me from oil rigs in Bass Strait to farms and factories all over Australia, and it took me to Beaconsfield—the fortnight that began with a fatal, catastrophic rockfall and ended in a man-made miracle. I'll never forget that when Larry Knight's body was found on the Friday, after the rockfall of the Tuesday night, management talked about stopping the rescue so the coroner could take control of the site. I was witness outside the superintendent's office when a salt-of-the-earth AWU miner, Garth Bonney from Rocky Cape, looked at everyone—the police and the coroner—and he said: 'This is not a recovery operation, it's a rescue mission. Until we know different, there are men down there who are still alive.' So a group of modest heroes dug through hard rock and saved their mates, and when Brant and Todd emerged from that mine shaft and tagged out I certainly made sure they got paid for every day that they were trapped down there. I'll also never forget the faces and the names of members who were let down by the system. I remember the explosion at the Esso gas plant in Longford. Two men were killed; two others were badly burned, including Heath, whose wife gave birth while he was on that fateful shift, and the baby didn't see him without bandages for months, and months and months. There was Graham, a mechanic I had signed up one week, who was crushed to death under a bobcat the next. There was Allan, a fitter, whose arm was severed and amputated in a conveyor belt that was neither properly guarded nor immobilised. There was Mario whose lungs were scarred in a single breath after an explosion from a non-ferrous furnace. And Owen—I can still see him at the Caulfield rehab, sitting on his bed, one leg amputated at the hip and the other at the knee, because of a trench collapse. These are all reminders of the most fundamental workplace right of all: the right to come home safely. I was elected to the leadership of the AWU at a very tough time in its history—falling membership and neglected awards were the fruit of a poisoned amalgamation. At the 1997 ACTU congress, in Brisbane, there was only one thing on the mind of delegates: whether to dismember the mighty AWU and divvy up its membership to rival unions or not. But the state AWU leaders—some of whom are here today—our members and I reinvigorated the show. We held true to its best traditions as a modern, moderate, honest democratic union. In this colossal task, and often since, I've benefited from the wisdom of Bill Kelty, who's here today: the understanding that the right of workers to organise for fair wages and decent conditions must move in concert with the imperative for employers to create the wealth that pays the fair wages of the workers' jobs. Modern, honest democratic trade unions should always seek to work with good employers. There should be no dividing line any longer in this parliament between those who are pro- or anti-employer and those who are pro- or anti-union. This country no longer has the time to waste on that false choice. We can work together, and our nation needs this. It is what I've always sought to do. There is a degree of irony. With all the effort I put into ensuring that both workers and companies could benefit from negotiating better agreements, my reward was to be asked a thousand questions for two whole days at the now discredited trade union royal commission—more questions than any CFMEU official; although, to be fair none of them were Leader of the Labor Party! Genuinely, it's a bit easier for me to see the funny side now, and I'm sure the incomparable Sharon McCrohan would agree, as would Leon Zwier, known to many as 'Mr Fixit' and to me as just a great friend. The second important democratic institution I have served is the Australian Labor Party. In fact, serving as the Labor leader for nearly six years was the great privilege of my public life. Our party is indeed a grand and enduring national institution, but its life and strength have always been its people upon whose shoulders I have stood—from the rank-and-file members of the Maribyrnong Labor Party to true believers like George Wright, Neil Pope, Judy Maddigan and the late senator Kimberley Kitching, to name a few. Then there are my perennial comrades in arms, Earl and Luke, Andrew and JP, Michael and Silky, Mocca and Craig: thank you! But all of us in the parliamentary party are merely the tip of the spear. We march at the head of a movement. We carry the hopes and aspirations of millions of working people who want better for their families and our country, and we champion the cause of the most vulnerable. These are the values and policies that the Albanese government will take to the next election—and this is the work I am confident that my colleagues will continue in government after the next election. Serving the Labor Party gave me a rare honour to work with one's heroes. I got to work with Gareth Evans and Robert Ray, with Simon Crean and Barry Jones—and, of course, Paul Keating, who when I became leader I invited back to the caucus room for the first time since 1996. It remains a source of enduring pride that the last act of collaboration between Paul Keating and Bob Hawke was their joint opinion piece advocating for the platform that we took to the 2019 election. It's just a shame more people didn't read it! Through my time as Labor leader I was proud to lead not just a strong opposition but a genuine, positive alternative. I think it's a fitting time to thank my deputy, Tanya Plibersek, in particular for the unwavering support she offered me in those moments. When those of us who were here after 2013 look back after that defeat, we'd been reduced to 54 seats, and I recall—to borrow a phrase from Tony Abbott—the battlelines we drew. They united us, defined us, rebuilt us. Labor is always at its best when we know who and what we are fighting for. We stood against the cuts and austerity of 2014. We stood for Medicare, education and pensioners. We stood against the abolition of ARENA and we stood for real ambition and action on climate. We stood against the entrenchment of inequality and trickle-down economics and we stood for genuine tax reform. We stood against everyday Australians being ripped off. We stood for a banking royal commission. We stood against a harmful, unnecessary, lazy taxpayer funded opinion poll inviting strangers to vote on other people's relationships. We stood for marriage equality. I know we didn't win every battle. I know perhaps some of my ideas were ahead of their time—if there ever is a time for them! But some, such as new incentives for electric vehicles, more Australian manufacturing, new investments in TAFE, and childcare worker wages, are becoming a reality under this government. And there are others I hope can be picked up in the future, in particular the 2019 policy to ensure that all forms of cancer treatment are fully covered by Medicare. When you're in the fight of your life, Medicare should be there with you. Cancer may make you sick, but it shouldn't make you poor. The third great democratic institution I've served is the parliament. From time to time politicians declare that a particular issue is 'above politics'. Now, that sentiment does come from a good place. The parliament has the responsibility to make democracy work. The idea is that we shouldn't let big, important questions be caught in the quicksand of name-calling, gotchas and sloganeering that we are all prone to. But we all know this is not the totality of politics, any more than do the first salvos of question time reflect the business of a sitting day. And—no shade on you, Mr Speaker—I'm not proud to say that sometimes during question time we are pretty ungovernable, although you should count yourself lucky you're not in the Senate. I want to be clear, though, that we do have, and I support, an adversarial system to test ideas. The potential for disagreement or argument or the proper interrogation of ideas should never be avoided nor averted. That does nothing to build trust in politics or democracy. This place must rise to the big issues and engage with them thoughtfully and respectfully. Let us not just be a stage for noisy actors talking at each other, over each other and past each other. Parliament has a responsibility to ensure that the extremes of the left and the right do not set the terms of engagement of ideas in this country, otherwise ideological trenches become deeper and the centre ground becomes no-man's-land. I am a proud moderate. My goal has always been to turn ideas into outcomes. I reject outright the argument that being moderate is a sign of conservatism or apathy. You can be in the centre of Australian political life and be a reformer, be a humanitarian and, indeed, be radical in the terms of your ambition to get things done for the Australian people. I think being a moderate is an acknowledgement that Australians hold broad and diverse and competing views. But the majority in the middle should never be held hostage to the few on the zealous fringe. Personally, I know what good this parliament can do. I think back to the terrible times after the Black Saturday fires of 2009, where 173 of our fellow Australians perished. I saw our investments, informed by more than 50 of my own visits to communities devastated by Black Saturday. And I think back to the class action that spelled the end of robodebt, together with the royal commission to make sure that it can't happen again; better flood insurance definitions, when we listened to Queenslanders who explained how they were dudded in the 2011 floods; our FOFA reforms, shaped by people who'd been ripped off by unethical advice; and an asbestos safety agency and laws against workplace bullying, delivered because we listened to the victims and talked to the experts and examined the evidence. Sometimes progress in parliament takes time. When I was Assistant Treasurer in about 2012 or perhaps 2013, I moved, and we passed, legislation to increase superannuation from nine to 12 per cent. I'm pleased to say that on 1 July, 13 years later, we have reached that milestone. Slowed down by successive governments, it was initiated and has been delivered now by Labor. But closest to my heart, and I know to the hearts of many members here, is the National Disability Insurance Scheme. When I became Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services in 2007, I thought I'd seen hardship and disadvantage, but nothing prepared me for the way that literally thousands—hundreds of thousands—of Australians with disability and the people who love them were sentenced to a second-class life of lesser opportunity, or for the midnight sleepless anxiety of parents in their 80s wondering who will look after and love their adult child when they no longer can. Together with Bruce Bonyhady, John Walsh, Rhonda Galbally, Kirsten Deane, Bronwyn Morecomb, Jenny Macklin and many others, we created and organised and animated an army of everyday Australians determined to change this. I think the result was the most significant social reform in this century for Australia. But it is something that the whole parliament should take ownership of and pride in. The NDIS belongs alongside Medicare and superannuation as an example of Australian exceptionalism in building the fair go. In creating the NDIS, we didn't look to international precedent but, instead, we created a global precedent, because, at our best, we in this parliament know that the best in the world is only just good enough for the Australian people. The NDIS gives dignity and agency to people with disability. It is by no means perfect, but it is changing hundreds of thousands of lives. Choice and control—its great strength comes from putting people with disability at the centre, trusting them to make decisions. All of this underpinning the NDIS derives from the best of modern Australian values: kindness in another's trouble. The understanding that disability could affect anyone of us or someone we love at any time therefore matters to all of us. I am forever grateful to Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard for the privilege of serving as disability spokesperson and for recognising an idea that's time had come. I want to thank the Prime Minister for the opportunity he gave me to serve in his cabinet to get the NDIS back on track. At its birth and in its repair, I must acknowledge as well, though, that the overwhelming majority of the parliament, the opposition and the government, wanted to make sure of the scheme. Whilst the NDIS was a Labor government initiative, it is not a Labor government issue. This has been parliament at its best. In opposition, I took the same view on national security. We worked constructively with prime ministers Abbott, Turnbull, Morrison. But it was not unquestioning bipartisanship. For example, I think that my decision to oppose the Australia-China extradition treaty has stood the test of time. But I always understood, as did Labor, that dealing with threats of terrorism, foreign interference and homegrown extremism depends on us putting the national interest first. I understand now in a way I never could at the start of my 17 years of service that the party political process is important, but the parliament is even more so. This is the place where the national interest should be pre-eminent over partisanship and ideology. I've mentioned that in regard to industrial relations, to national security and to the NDIS, and I want to talk about some other areas where I think parliament can do better in the future, how future parliaments can best serve the next generation of Australians. This begins with the unfinished business for the nation: climate. Climate change is not a Labor issue or a Liberal issue or a Greens party issue or a teal issue. It's the world we live in, and it's the country we pass on to our grandchildren. It concerns every Australian. So too does the unfinished business of tax reform. At the beginning of this year, the government created fairer income tax cuts for all working Australians, but I still remain convinced our system still taxes property preferentially and lightly and income heavily. As a result, young Australians carry a disproportionate share of the tax burden. Not only do they pay more tax now than others did a generation ago; they also pay more for their education than ever before, and that's why I was so pleased with our government's announcement to help erase some of the burden. And it is harder than ever for young Australians to save for a first home. The government understands increasing supply is the essential part of solving our problem. It's why we're building more homes. We must not become a society where the best predictor of a young person's future likelihood of owning a home is their parents' current bank balance. We also have unfinished business on defence and foreign policy as our world changes. The government has made significant advances in our relationships with old allies and important trading partners, but we need to continue to develop even further our own defence capabilities within the bonds of existing alliances and prioritise even more Australian foreign policy with an Australian accent. There are big nations that threaten our small and close neighbours. The Pacific is not an empty ocean we fly over, rather a blue continent of diverse cultures. And, on the subject of enduring cultures, parliament has unfinished business with our First Nations people. The Uluru process proposed a voice to parliament to help this process. It was a novel idea. Sadly, recognition in our Constitution has become a toxic issue. I remain hopeful that, with good faith on all sides, we can achieve recognition of Indigenous Australians in our nation's birth certificate and genuine empowerment for our First Nations people, including the work of treaties. The traditional owners of this land don't actually ask much from this parliament, but they do ask for recognition of 65,000 years of continuing connection to this continent that we're all lucky to call home. Finally, our parliament and our nation most definitely have unfinished business on the march to the equal treatment of women in Australia, and there is no more shocking indictment or measure of inequality between men and women than violence against women. In this job, in my life, in every battle I've fought and in all the causes I've championed so far, my strength has come from having people believe in me—having people on my side. Now, in my new role as Vice-Chancellor of the University of Canberra, I choose the side of young people. I choose to be on the side of the people who will nurture their inquisitive minds: their lecturers and tutors. I choose to be on the side of the phenomenal researchers whose work impacts our society. I choose to be on the side of the knowledge keepers and the knowledge seekers because they are instrumental to our future. I choose young Australians—their aspirations, their dreams and their education. I choose those who embrace lifelong learning. I'm excited to have new horizons to strive towards in the national interest, consistent with the values that have animated me my whole working life and to give something back to the city of Canberra, which has been, for many of us, our second home for so long. Canberra gets a bad rap, usually because people associate it with us. But its role as the host of our parliament gives it a 'main character' energy—a welcoming and clever community, a culture and arts hub and a magnificent natural environment. It has 447 iconic bus stops. It has more roundabouts than any other city in the world. Soon after the 2019 election loss, I was chatting to some English relatives—well after I'd rescinded my English citizenship. There's scar tissue. They gave me a remarkable dose of perspective. They reminded me that my great-grandfather William Menzies Cameron was a dockworker in Tyneside—perhaps not surprisingly to some, chairman of the shop stewards at the Swan and Palmer dockyards. His daughter—my grandma—was a cleaner, a barmaid and, indeed, an air raid warden during the Blitz. She lived in council housing. Her son—my father—trained as a fitter and turner. He was a seafarer for more than 20 years. He then worked in the definite rough and tumble of the Melbourne ship repair industry. In fact, the family history of seafaring is one of the reasons why I, like the Prime Minister, have always championed a strategic merchant marine fleet, and I acknowledge the work that Minister King is doing on that. My English relatives said to me that my grandma could not have imagined a world where her grandson could be a member of parliament, let alone run for Prime Minister not once but twice. They could not wrap their mind around this country. And, ultimately, it's not a reflection on me. It's a tribute to us, and it's a tribute to our country. Our nation has flourished as the home of the second chance, the land of the fair go—a place where every generation can hope for better for the next. More than anything else, education is what makes that possible. Education is the hope of the world. It has lifted literally millions out of poverty. It has been a force for progress and equality. It is the most reliable path from disadvantage to advantage, and it teaches the critical thinking crucial to preserving our democracy. This is my mother's story. My mother loved the power of education. She loved university. She was the first in her family to attend. Her stock—and I'm surprised the royal commission missed this—were convicts. It was 1831; there's probably a statute of limitations. Her stock were unsuccessful gold prospectors, Eureka rebels and trouble-making left-wing tradies in the mid-20th century. But the first time my twin brother, Robert, and I were at university with mum, we were four years old at the kindergarten while she was lecturing in the education faculty. The next time, Rob and I were in first-year law, and mum was a mature-age law student who, that year, won the Supreme Court Prize. So I actually see this next phase in my life as a chance to pick up some of the threads of what my mother taught my brother and me all those years ago. She used to say: 'Never forget where you come from. Never judge a person by how much money they have or what possessions they own. Instead, everyone has merit. Everyone has value. Everyone deserves the chance to fulfil their potential.' That's what this parliament has been about for me. It's what the next chapter of my life is about. When I announced I would not be contesting the next election, I quoted 'Ole Blue Eyes', Frank Sinatra: Regrets, I've had a few, but then again too few to mention. You do regret your mistakes; you don't forget your failures. Oh, what I would give to go back to election day 2016 and turn that sausage in bread and eat it a different way. Some of your failures become the best of you. I have known in this place extraordinary highs and some painful lows. Good days and hard days and sleepless nights. I would not hand back a single minute of a single hour of a single day that I've spent in this place or in this job. I leave here full of gratitude to all those who've made it possible. I leave here full of optimism for the future of the movement and the party I love, the people we serve and the country we are so fortunate to call home. I have always been and remain ambitious for Australia. This flows through my faith in our people, my optimism in the future, and my deep and abiding love of our nation. I encourage future parliaments to carry this sense of ambition forward. Be ambitious and mature on climate. Be ambitious to be a good neighbour in the Pacific. Be ambitious for Australian foreign policy to have an Australian accent. Be ambitious on tax reform. Be ambitious for a fairer relationship with our First Nations people. But perhaps most of all, be ambitious for the young people of this country who currently feel disenfranchised, disengaged and dismissed by the political process. Be ambitious for what you all can accomplish here. It is a privilege to serve this great democratic institution. It is a privilege to be part of the power to forge a path for a more productive, moderate, compassionate and inclusive Australia. My final advice to future parliamentarians: our time here is finite. Fill every unforgiving minute with 60 seconds of distance run. I and the Australian people will be urging you on and wishing you well. For the last time, I thank the House.
I thank the tenacious member for Adelaide, whose win-loss ratio since the 1998 election is 6-3. He never gives up! I'm pleased to update the House and the people listening to question time about...
I thank the tenacious member for Adelaide, whose win-loss ratio since the 1998 election is 6-3. He never gives up! I'm pleased to update the House and the people listening to question time about the progress of the NDIS, and I'm pleased to explain how Labor is building the NDIS's future. We're making sure that every dollar gets through to the participants for whom the scheme was designed. The NDIS is an important economic and social nation-building project, and it is helping people. Labor has been working to get the NDIS back on track every day since the last election. I acknowledge the work of people with disability and their supporters for their efforts too. There are definitely still problems with the scheme, but I can update the House on signs of progress. Participants who've been on the scheme for longer than two years who are aged more than 15 are reporting that their community participation is up, and 15- to 24-year-olds report that their employment prospects or their jobs have increased from 10 per cent to 22 per cent. In fact, 51 per cent of their parents and carers are now able to get paid employment because of the NDIS. I can also update the House on the financial green shoots of stabilisation. In the last year of the coalition, the scheme outlays grew by 23 per cent, and the number of people joining the scheme grew by 15 per cent. Now the scheme outlays in the last financial year have grown by 18 per cent and the number of people joining the scheme has stabilised at eight per cent. Next year, we're on track for 12 per cent and, the following year, eight per cent. I'm pleased to advise the House that, even from the May budget to now, the outlays have decreased by a billion dollars less than were expected in the May budget, which means that, over the next four years, the scheme will invest $210 billion in people but not $229 billion. There are reasons why this is happening. Firstly, the states have agreed that the NDIS shouldn't be the only lifeboat in the ocean. We've also started the overdue process of registering providers, of whom 90 per cent in the scheme are unregistered. We've sorted out what you can and can't spend money on in the scheme. And we're sorting out a uniform assessment to make sure how you're eligible for the scheme is transparent. We've invested in the agency and the safeguards commission. And we've also put people with disability in top leadership positions in these organisations. Finally, we're chasing the crooks—519 investigations and 50 people before the courts, some of whom are now in jail, and over a billion dollars in payments investigated. More payments are being scrutinised than ever. But I think the best news about the scheme is that Labor has led the reforms in this term but we couldn't have got them through without the bipartisan support of the coalition. What this tells people with disability is that at least two of the parties in this House are committed to actually seeing the scheme be there for the future. At the risk of embarrassing the member for Deakin, he did a great job wrangling the litigious and soon-to-be departed coalition senators to support us eventually. Under Labor, the NDIS is here to stay. I acknowledge the work of the parliament to this goal.
Local Government: Governance | Constituency Statements | House debates
I'm afraid to report that a terrible abuse of power has been uncovered at a council in my electorate. The Victorian Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, IBAC, yesterday released...
I'm afraid to report that a terrible abuse of power has been uncovered at a council in my electorate. The Victorian Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, IBAC, yesterday released its special report into Operation Leo, an investigation into bribery and misconduct between some councillors, the Moonee Valley City Council and some associates of the Essendon Royals Soccer Club. The report is shocking and underscores the seriousness of local council work. IBAC spent 17 months examining Moonee Valley City Council and the Essendon Royals Soccer Club. It found systemic corruption, vulnerabilities, failure to follow proper processes, conflicts of interest and failure to report corrupt conduct. Former councillor Cam Nation, Councillor Jacob Bettio, Councillor Samantha Byrne and Councillor Narelle Sharpe were raided. They had their devices seized in August 2023 as part of the investigation. The wide-ranging anticorruption investigation found that some Moonee Valley councillors misused their positions as elected officials to seek or obtain preferential outcomes for the Essendon Royals Soccer Club. They used their power to influence council decisions, bypassed council decision-making processes and inappropriately disclosed council information to the Essendon Royals Soccer Club. IBAC found Cam Nation, the former Mayor of Moonee Valley City Council, in Melbourne's inner north-west, received drugs and kickbacks in exchange for using his power to influence council decisions. IBAC found that several Moonee Valley councillors received other inducements, including dinners paid for by the sporting club. I want it on the record that my office has attended meetings with the soccer club. As part of our electoral duties, my office and I meet with hundreds of sporting and community groups. As an elected member, I take my role meeting with various groups seriously, and nothing can be more serious than elected officials abusing their power for their personal gain. I'm glad this behaviour has been rooted out; Cam Nation resigned in May this year. However, the investigation does vindicate some of the other councillors of Moonee Valley City Council who are working hard to represent their community. Through all this, the three Labor councillors, Pierce Tyson, Rose Iser and Katrina Hodgson, have acted with absolute integrity, standing up to the worst of local council conduct. They consistently called out this bad behaviour. The IBAC commissioner, Victoria Elliott, said in her report: When councillors misuse their positions as elected officials, they undermine a council's effectiveness and the community's trust in their local government. It's critical, therefore, to vote for councillors who you can trust will always do the right thing. She also said: Operation Leo highlights the importance of progressing local government reforms to address enduring concerns with councillors misusing their positions for personal advantage and at the expense of public interest. This is not the community I know, nor does it reflect the values of the community. I fully support the report and its important findings.
Workplace Safety: Public Sector Workers | Statements on Indulgence | House debates
I'd like to particularly thank the member for Casey for giving me the opportunity to seek this indulgence. Yesterday at about 12.15 pm, after finishing her lunch, Joanne Lombardy, who's a...
I'd like to particularly thank the member for Casey for giving me the opportunity to seek this indulgence. Yesterday at about 12.15 pm, after finishing her lunch, Joanne Lombardy, who's a frontline public servant who's served for 22 years with Medicare and Centrelink, was returning to her office a few metres from the Blacktown service centre where she works. She was wearing the distinctive Services Australia uniform which many of us are familiar with. She was a few metres from that service centre when she was viciously, violently assaulted by a person exiting the service centre. It was a completely unprovoked, unjustified attack. Bystanders intervened. Police are investigating. I've spoken to Joanne this morning. She's shocked, she's injured but she's recovering. I've spoken to her Blacktown colleagues, who serve all Australians. Assaults on our public servants are unacceptable. We have 100,000 frontline Commonwealth public servants. Assaulting them is a crime. Being assaulted is not part of their job description. It doesn't matter what sort of day you're having or what sort of circumstances you're in, assaulting the people trying to help you cannot be excused. The first thing I want to do in this statement on indulgence is to take the opportunity on behalf of the entire parliament and millions of Australians and say thank you to our frontline public servants. You do a great job for people who need you. In this term, we've invested $361 million in the last budget resulting in 278 extra guards. We've had 15 service centres already upgrade security features and another 85 will be upgraded in the next two years. We've enhanced IT systems, including security alerts and information. Importantly, we've increased maximum penalties for assaults with support of the coalition. It used to be that if you assaulted a federal judge, you would get 13 years maximum. But for a Commonwealth public servant, the maximum was 10 years. It's now the same—13 years. We're on track in October to introduce a new nation-wide Commonwealth protections framework. In closing, I want to advise the House what happened in my conversation with the modest Joanne Lombardy. She said to me, 'I love my job. This is not going to stop me.' Joanne, and your team at Blacktown and our frontline public servants, we love you, and we thank you every day for what you do for Australians.
I thank the member for Bean. As people may be aware, he represents Norfolk Island as well as an area of Canberra. Before there was an NDIS, there were no disability services on Norfolk Island,...
I thank the member for Bean. As people may be aware, he represents Norfolk Island as well as an area of Canberra. Before there was an NDIS, there were no disability services on Norfolk Island, and now nearly 50 people there receive NDIS support. They're part of the more than 661,000 people who are receiving support from this vital scheme. I'm pleased to tell Australians listening to question time that there's been a marked increase in participation rates in community and social activities for those on the scheme, and there's been a 10 per cent increase from those who have been on the scheme more than six years. I'm also pleased to report that, for young participants between 15 and 24, there are more of them now in paid employment, and it's also great that over half of all families and carers, 52 per cent, are reporting an increase in paid employment. Also, where it once took up to 100 days in many parts of Australia for a person with a disability, who was on the NDIS and was fit for discharge, to actually be able to leave hospital, we've got it down, in the first six months of the year, to an average waiting time of 17 days. These are all genuinely good outcomes that we've accomplished the last 2½ years. I'm also pleased to advise that the process to register most service providers—long overdue—is now well underway. I'm pleased to advise that we've now strengthened the safeguards commission, from 367 staff to nearly 1,000, as they're dealing with a lot more complaints and issues. Half of the NDIS board are now people with lived experience, and we've got the first Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander director of the scheme. We're also doing a lot more co-design than has ever happened before, with a range of activities including engagements, workshops, surveys, discussions and research in partnership with disability organisations. Importantly, also, we're cracking down on fraud. The tip-off volumes—because we now properly resource the agency—have increased have increased by 250 per cent. When we came to office there were fewer than 1,000 tip-offs a month, and now they're up to about 2½ thousand on average per month, with $779 million of NDIS funding being investigated. Over 11,000 NDIS participants who have been potentially impacted by fraud and non-compliance cases are now getting the justice they deserve. I'm able to say that at the end of June this year there were 100 active operations across the agency, the commission and Services Australia, and 531 investigations underway. A lot is being done and a lot has been done to straighten up the scheme. I'm also pleased that we secured parliamentary support for the legislation. I want to finish on a little note from Mr Robert Chataway in the electorate of Wright. He says: 'I commend the government on what you're doing to reduce rorting and poorly targeted spending to make the scheme more sustainable. My wife and I care for an intellectually disabled young man. He receives support from the NDIS, which is very helpful, but we've seen the misuse of funds and the potential for serious fraud.' And he concludes on this, 'I'm a former long-term supporter and member of the Australian Greens, and I'm incredibly disappointed in their opportunistic conduct with NDIS reform.'
Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence | Statements on Significant Matters | House debates
These men are committing crimes, and women have reasons why they can't flee. We know it's a crisis. Successive governments have started to tackle it. We're investing $925 million over five years....
These men are committing crimes, and women have reasons why they can't flee. We know it's a crisis. Successive governments have started to tackle it. We're investing $925 million over five years. It builds on record measures of the current government to address violence against women: the 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave; the largest increase in rent assistance in 30 years; and investment in crisis accommodation and affordable housing for women. As the Minister for Government Services, I can't solve the gendered violence crisis, but I'm going to break down the silos within and across government so women who confront questions about whether to stay or go can find their decision easier. I've asked my public servants to work towards the idea of joined-up services, so if a woman is fleeing a violent partner she can have on her card a curated and ready-to-use system, her phone can prove who she is and immediately connect her with a dedicated social worker, she can commence a crisis payment and find suitable accommodation and, if she chooses to apply for an AVO, she can be connected to law enforcement to commence the process. We need to break down the plague of fiefdoms in our Public Service, because if we can have a simple identification which gives a woman the freedom to exercise choice then perhaps we'll save more lives. I really want to finish my contribution by saying that gendered violence is a man's issue. It is men who, by and large, are the problem. Men learn from the trauma of their own childhood, and some repeat it. It's interesting why men who had abuse in their own childhood turn out to be good fathers and husbands. I think that, if they don't repeat it, it's often because of the influence of strong mothers and other women in their lives. Young boys tonight will learn about violence. Young girls will learn. But if the young boys who learn about it don't have the right role models—the good men to guide them—then that violence will be intergenerational. We shouldn't kid ourselves. There will be beautiful 12-year-old kids tonight wondering if they will win or lose in their dad's mood lottery. They know their dad's not always a bad fella. He might have undiagnosed depression. He might have had trauma in his childhood. He could just be frustrated that life has turned out the way it has. He could love the drink too much. But that doesn't excuse the violence. There are kids tonight in Australia who will have too few good memories of their childhood. Perhaps there was one trip to the beach or one attempt to teach them how to ride a bike. Perhaps they'll have the embarrassment of their father falling asleep, drunk, at the school prize night. We know that alcohol is an accelerant of violence. Gambling can be. For goodness sake, sometimes some men even use the excuse of a losing football team. That is weak and pathetic. Aussie children shouldn't have to develop coping and survival strategies. They shouldn't have to turn up their AirPods louder or put headphones on. They shouldn't have to hope that Dad falls asleep quickly at the table. They shouldn't have to hear their mother fighting to protect them from their father. Children should not have to learn to dissociate the world they live in outside the house and the times that their aggressive father comes home. I know tonight there will be many Australian mothers who will be shields for their children. We have to educate our young boys to respect women, but we have to break the intergenerational trauma. We must encourage men to examine their own childhoods and deal with the trauma. We've got to also teach people that the toxic masculinity of the Tates, the Rogans and the Petersons of the online world is not the real world. It is alarming in the digital age that 25 per cent of teenage boys look up to social media personalities that perpetuate stupid, old-fashioned, violent attitudes. We're funding a three-year trial to see how we can change this. My colleague Amanda Rishworth has announced the healthy masculinities project trial. At the end of the day, I'm asking men in Australia to step up. I can't change what happened in your childhood, but you can be the father to your kids that you always deserved but perhaps never had.
I think a lot of Australians sometimes think that our political system is broken and that not very much happens in parliament. They get sick of the to-and-fro. We have an adversarial system in...
I think a lot of Australians sometimes think that our political system is broken and that not very much happens in parliament. They get sick of the to-and-fro. We have an adversarial system in our parliament. But I want to say to Australians listening to this debate that, on the issue of gendered violence, the whole parliament does think it is important. From listening to the excellent contributions so far, I think every member of parliament knows that we've got to do better. We wake too often to a story of another woman having been murdered by someone who said they loved them. Enough is enough is enough. We cannot become immune to this tragedy or shrug our shoulders and say, 'Well, this is the way things are.' Family violence, violence against women and children, does not distinguish between the suburb you live in, what school you went to, how much money you have in the bank account, what ethnicity you are or what part of Australia you live in. The data shows that 2.2 million Australians have experienced physical and/or sexual violence from their partners, and it says that 3.6 million Australians have experience emotional abuse from a partner—and, let's be honest, that's just the people who are willing to say they experienced emotional abuse. Then you've got the kids who have to live with the trauma of abuse. That's a little bit about what I'm going to talk about today. Men can experience violence like women can. Most blokes are simply not violent, but the research is clear that there's a gendered pattern. Women and their kids are disproportionately, hugely, the victims. Women are much more likely than men to experience sexual and emotional violence from an intimate partner. I'm afraid the numbers don't lie—although I want to move beyond the numbers. It is terrible that one in six of our sisters, mothers, daughters and fellow Australian women have experienced physical or sexual violence from an intimate partner since the age of 15. I think it's about one in 18 men. One in four women have reported experiencing emotional abuse by an intimate partner since the age of 15, and those are the ones who report it. Gendered violence is not new in this country. We're better at talking about it, and we're better at measuring some of it, but I know that for a lot of our colleagues in the parliament and also, perhaps, a lot of adults listening to parliament today—think back to your school days. There might have been a kid who turned up with bruises they didn't want to talk about. Perhaps there was the weird kid who no-one picked for the team, who would sit in the corner and who didn't seem to have much lunch. Perhaps there were the kids who you would talk to at school but who would make every excuse not to have their friends come to their house. I think the signs have been there for generations, but the awareness and the willingness to go hard against the issue hasn't. I know that tonight there'll be too many children living in dysfunctional homes. There will be kids tonight who might even come home from secondary school or uni, and their mum will have the light on or off on the porch, and that will be a signal to say if dad is in a good mood or not. Your home shouldn't be where you feel that you've got to walk on eggshells, as if you're negotiating a minefield. I know that tonight there'll be so many households where there'll be mitigation strategies in place to try and appease anger and aggro. I also understand that some of the men who do these heinous things can be great blokes in the workplace and can be friendly neighbours—street angel, home devil. I get that, for men who perpetrate violence against women, there could be reasons. They could be in the grip of alcoholism—or an alcoholism accelerant—drugs or gambling. Maybe their own childhood was terrible and they didn't have good role models, and that trauma of their childhood just replicates. These things may explain it but they cannot excuse it. They're committing crimes. What is so difficult, though, is there will be women with a desire to escape violence but overwhelmed by the need to stay. It could be financial. It could be the need to protect the kids. It could be the uncertainty of fear of the change, or it could be they are worried about angering the perpetrator even more.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024; Consideration of Senate Message | Bills | House debates
I'm going to briefly respond to the member for Ryan's intellectually dishonest submissions, which the Greens party has been perpetuating. She didn't actually go to any of the amendments that are...
I'm going to briefly respond to the member for Ryan's intellectually dishonest submissions, which the Greens party has been perpetuating. She didn't actually go to any of the amendments that are in front of us, but I'm going to call out the lies. The member, who clearly doesn't know too much about the NDIS—although she might have helped some constituents through contacting my office to help them—said that we are proposing lists and that this is a terrible new development. I have news for the member. There have been lists since day one in the scheme. If you read the act, you'll see that it spells out that there are things which are the responsibility of other services, and then it says there are things which money should be spent on and things that it shouldn't be spent on. All we are doing is converting from an operational guideline to a regulation. Furthermore, on the cowardly outrage fanning the flames of fear from the Greens, they neglected to say that the disability community, for the first time, is being consulted on the list. I note that neither you nor anyone in the Greens party in the last 10 years has ever complained about the list not being consulted on. But, all of a sudden, the member for Ryan has found her voice. What's worse about it is that the Greens political party put up several amendments, but they've been running behind those amendments—wisely, the member for Ryan didn't even bother—and accusing the government of getting rid of the concept of 'reasonable and necessary'. 'Reasonable and necessary' will be at the core of the scheme. I don't expect the Greens to have the honesty to withdraw the lie, but they're wrong; I've put it on the record. We will keep the concept of 'reasonable and necessary'. We're told by the Greens that there is no co-design. Under me, the NDIA has 23 co-design groups, and you're welcome to come and visit; I'm not holding my breath. So there have been lists. The real debate here is that there are three options for the future of the scheme. Unlike the member for Ryan, I was there at the start of the scheme. I was there before there was a scheme. You weren't. There are three options for the future of this scheme. The first is to do nothing—to just let it keep growing at 20 per cent. That would be very dangerous. Heaven help Australia if the Greens political party were ever actually in charge of the NDIS. You would be a train wreck for people with disability. They say that this is a cut. Lies, lies, lies! Every year that Labor has been in—and, to be fair, every year that the Liberals have been in—the investment in the NDIS has gone up, not down. We want a growth of eight per cent; 20 per cent is unsustainable. The Greens are lucky enough to live in a world where money doesn't matter, where it just grows on trees—all things to all people. I love the NDIS. There is another option to the Greens' neo-conservatism, to the 'do nothing' approach. There is slash and burn—cap it; we're not doing that. The third option is just to make it better for the participants. I haven't been stuck in a traffic jam of the Greens and their white political limos coming to see me about their constructive future. They are willing to drive past the rorts, the frauds and the overservicing. When I proposed new regulations to make it illegal for a service to provide a higher price to an NDIS participant than someone not on the scheme—the so-called wedding tax, where someone sees the NDIS badge and ups the price—do you know how much correspondence I got from the Greens on it? Zip, because they don't know what's happening. Every time Labor proposes a change, they look at it through the political calculus of 'How can we gain a few more votes?' Don't shake your head. The reality is that the Greens political party lied about the standardisation, they've lied about the lists and they've told lies about cuts. The reality is that we want this scheme to grow. Under Labor—and now with the support of the coalition, which I acknowledge—we're aiming at an eight per cent target. We do want to build supports outside the scheme. The Greens have very little to say about building inclusion outside. The NDIS is a great chapter in the history of disability in Australia, but it's not the book. We want to write a new chapter about foundational services working with the states. Heaven help us if the Greens were ever in charge of the NDIS, because they are dangerous. Question agreed to. I move: That Senate amendments (3), (49) and (68) be agreed to. These are amendments moved by Senator Thorpe. Senator Thorpe has proposed amendments that the government is willing to support. They amend section 127 of the NDIS Act to provide that the minister must ensure at least one board member is an Indigenous person. Fortunately, we've already done that, even without the requirement of legislation. We've got a great Larrakia man on the board with lived experience—Dr Richard Fejo, whom I appointed in March 2023. I'm pretty sure I never had a letter from the Greens on that. I accept a future minister may have other ideas of who would be best on the board, but this is an appropriate way to ensure that the board always has Indigenous representation. We are pleased to support the amendment, which, as a recommendation of the disability royal commission, is consistent with Closing the Gap priority 1 to establish formal partnerships and shared decision-making. I acknowledge Senator Thorpe's significant work and contribution on priority reforms, embedding Indigenous leadership in the government's NDIS and highlighting the importance of culture in the social and emotional wellbeing of participants of the NDIS. Question agreed to.
I'd like to indicate to the House that the government proposes that it may suit the convenience of the House to consider the amendments in the following two groups. The first group is amendments...
I'd like to indicate to the House that the government proposes that it may suit the convenience of the House to consider the amendments in the following two groups. The first group is amendments (1) and (2), (4) to (48), (50) to (67), (69) and (70). The other group is amendments (3), (49) and (68). I move: That Senate amendments (1) and (2), (4) to (48), (50) to (67), (69) and (70) be agreed to. I'll briefly talk about the amendments. This is landmark legislation, and I am grateful for the effort of the Senate in voting it through today. It's fulfilling a commitment by the Australian government to legislate important changes called for by the independent review of the NDIS and following much engagement with the disability community, stakeholders and state and territory governments. The government has made a number of amendments to strengthen this important legislation. They're in response to the feedback, and we'll continue to listen once the legislation is passed, if it's passed, as the reforms are co-designed. Specifically referring to a range of the amendments, in June the government took the bill to the Senate. We proposed 18 amendments to reflect the recommendations of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee. The amendments respond to recommendations made by the committee, including governance, whereby first ministers are also recognised as ministers for the purpose of category A rule making; consultation, whereby a consultation statement will be tabled accompanying the legislative instrument that sets out consultations undertaken on the instrument; and safeguards, whereby government will clarify the circumstances under which the additional powers granted to the NDIS CEO through the bill will be used. The final amendment headed off concerns about the ability of the assessment to deliver a whole-of-person budget deemed a benefit of the legislation for participants and government alike. In addition government introduced further amendments to the Senate last week. These amendments are a combination of strengthening scheme integrity and responding to feedback on the bill from the disability community. The integrity amendments are adding integrity as a statutory function of the NDIA. This gives the NDIA the focus and authority to support more fraud and payment integrity work in the future. They're setting minimum requirements for payment claims. Basically, this is a form to be completed for a claim to be valid and paid. This will help discourage fraud. They're also setting a maximum time for a payment claim. A claim needs to be made within two years of being provided. It stops a loophole that we have detected where claims are made from so long ago no-one can actually verify if the support was delivered or not. Also, we want to ensure that a debt can be waived if a participant unintentionally or unknowingly breaches the acts or the rules. At the moment in the current legislation your disability isn't a special circumstance to waive a debt, yet clearly in some cases we have seen where debts have been incurred the participant has, by virtue of their disability, erred and for no other reason. So this prevents debts being made in the circumstance where a person's disability triggered the mistake. The amendments that respond to feedback require participants to be notified which impairment or impairments they've met to access the NDIS for and be transparent about whether the participant has an intellectual, cognitive, neurological, sensory and/or physical impairment that meets the access requirements to the scheme. They will also allow it to be reviewed. I would like to acknowledge Senator David Pocock's contribution in developing these particular amendments to impairment notices and for engaging in good faith with the government and the community to deliver a good outcome for people with disability. We are also going to seek to create an exceptional circumstance clause to the list of banned supports. This would allow a participant to buy another otherwise banned support where it's just more appropriate and cost-effective than a disability support. As a brief example, a vision impaired participant could purchase a Samsung Galaxy watch for $500 to use voice assistance to read writing. It's cheaper than using a support worker for $73 an hour to walk around with a participant. However, not every person should be buying Samsung watches with NDIS funding. It's about looking at the person. There are further amendments following discussions with the states and territories this week to enhance co-governance arrangements of the scheme. These additional amendments were introduced into the Senate to contemporise the co-governance arrangements for the scheme. The arrangements that are being adopted reflect the significant number of forms required to the NDIS over the next two terms of parliament. These changes are overdue. Since co-governance arrangements have not been changed since the inception of the scheme, they modernise the approval process. The NDIS bill will implement a number of key changes that will need unanimous agreement as the majority of changes will be made through category A rules. The states will need to agree with these changes to enable implementation across the country. These amendments include a newly defined category A rule that's subject to a dispute resolution process which includes an escalation model to bring disagreements to the attention of the Prime Minister and first ministers for resolution. Once escalated, the approval can be achieved not from a veto requiring the acceptance of every state but from just a majority agreement by states. There are also strict timeframes introduced for the prompt consideration of category A rules under the new process. There is a conversion of ministerial legislative instrument-making powers in the bill to newly defined category A rules, with exceptions for instruments that are required from commencement, which will remain instruments until the rules are agreed. There is an abbreviated process for making changes to needs assessed in budget-setting tools where there are no substantial policy financial implications. The bill will also include scheme sustainability in the short to medium term and support the National Cabinet decision to achieve the eight per cent growth target. I acknowledge particularly the work of Premiers Rockliff and Malinauskas on this. The amendments mean the states will be required to develop a co-designed reform with participants, the disability community and the Commonwealth to give effect to NDIS reforms and foundational supports. I also wish to put on record the constructive negotiations I have had with the shadow minister, the member for Deakin, in trying to get a good outcome for people with a disability.
This morning I was contacted by a mother whose son is on the NDIS. I have her permission to read excerpts of her letter. It explains why this legislation should pass. It reads: 'Hi Mr Shorten. I...
This morning I was contacted by a mother whose son is on the NDIS. I have her permission to read excerpts of her letter. It explains why this legislation should pass. It reads: 'Hi Mr Shorten. I woke up this morning to an article in the newspaper reporting that you've won sufficient support for your proposed changes to the NDIS. I then went to find my 15-year-old son in the kitchen, where he was tearing the place up. It was 4.45 am. He has a diagnosis of level 3 autism and a moderate intellectual disability. He is non-verbal and incontinent, has severe sensory dysfunction and is a beautiful but huge six-foot, 100-kilogram boy. His behaviours are exhausting. They're difficult. At times, they're scary. He will punch, pinch or bite without notice. He defecates on the floor every day, and he smears and eats it. He can do very little for himself and depends on home care from me, my husband and our carers. He's been an NDIS participant for 10 years. We can't survive without care for him but feel unsupported and completely price-gouged and exploited. I wish you every success in your changes to the NDIS. Please help us families who really need support. We're so sick of hearing about funding being used for holidays, lawn mowing and so on when we can hardly survive, maybe because we're so busy and burnt out we can't make as much noise.' I can promise this amazing mum and her son hope in the new legislation. The first step is the new planning process. It'll be strength based needs assessment. It'll identify her son's strengths, goals, preferences and challenges. The assessment will be done by an accredited assessor who will meet with the family. The assessor will use various tools co-designed with people with disability, and it will respect her son's dignity and rights. The second step is an assessment report—a summary and assessment of the findings and recommendations for the types of supports needed—prepared by the assessor, who'll work with the family. It will be a clear, accurate, evidence based report reflecting her son's strengths, needs and preferences. The third step will be a flexible budget and stated supports—a funding package determined for her son on his report and NDIS rules. A flexible budget gives the money to spend on NDIS supports as participants choose, as long as they're reasonable and necessary. The fourth step will be to choose supports that he wants with this flexible budget—a chance for the son and the mother to plan and buy the supports that suit his needs and preferences by working with a dedicated navigator. The bill will ensure clarity as to what you can and can't spend your funding on. This bill—hopefully, passed in the next two hours here—will give her son more choice and control over supports to improve his quality of life. The new system will be co-designed with people with disability and their families. It will be based on the steps of assessment, report, budget and choosing supports. The new system will be personalised, transparent and consistent. It will respect her son's dignity, rights and aspirations. I thank the thousands of people who've contributed to the development of this legislation. This afternoon, this parliament will help all Australians and their families with disability.
Carter, Ms Sarah | Constituency Statements | House debates
Last Friday I attended the funeral of Sarah Carter at Flemington Racecourse. She was just 45 years old. I acknowledge the loss to her family and I acknowledge her mother, Gaynor, who's listening...
Last Friday I attended the funeral of Sarah Carter at Flemington Racecourse. She was just 45 years old. I acknowledge the loss to her family and I acknowledge her mother, Gaynor, who's listening to this as we speak. Sarah was the first woman to be elected Mayor of Maribyrnong three times and only the second mayor in the municipality's history to achieve emeritus status, the highest recognition for distinguished service in local government leadership. She received multiple awards for her contribution to the council since being first elected in 2008 and she was serving her fourth consecutive term. She was simply the most decorated female councillor in a city that was established in 1859. Sarah was passionate about Maribyrnong and the local community. She lived a life of service, with her work grounded in grassroots community engagement. There was an energy, an enthusiasm, creative thinking and a fearlessness to Sarah which was unmatched. Sarah was also a tireless international advocate. Those gathered at the service heard of Sarah's remarkable efforts with the charity organisation Save the Children. Mat Tinkler, CEO of the organisation, spoke beautifully of shared memories, and of offering Ms Carter the job of leading a program to visit aid and development programs overseas, which one friend described as her life's work. Mr Tinkler said that Sarah called it her 'dream job', but he said to her, 'I think you're the dream candidate.' She'll also be remembered for her fight to reinstate IVF treatments during COVID lockdowns. In the weeks that have passed since we learned of Sarah's death she's been remembered as a force of nature—in the words of her mother, an intelligent, vivacious, caring woman who set out singly to make a difference in many people's lives. She had the ability to make every individual feel like they were the most important person in the room. Her father, David, said that, despite the overwhelming loss of his daughter, he felt immense pride that her life had been marked by unwavering dedication and compassion and a fierce commitment to making the world a better place. It's now the job of all of us who knew Sarah to make sure that her legacy lives on, and I acknowledge the Australian Workers Union will have a memorial prize for their women members named after her. Victorian minister Natalie Hutchins spoke passionately. A long-time friend and mentor, she spoke at the funeral, remembering Sarah as a brilliant and captivating woman, and sorely missed. I think it's a fitting tribute to Sarah, who didn't just break but smashed the glass ceiling, that there will be an award. I'd also like to thank so many federal MPs, including coalition MPs Michael McCormack, Darren Chester and Dan Tehan, along with Sharon Claydon, who flew interstate, and the Victorian federal MPs, for being there. Who knows what Sarah could've accomplished next? We all regret her passing. She was a passionate children's champion. She was a community leader who represented the best of Labor. She will be missed. Sarah Carter was the best of us.
Public Service Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2024; Third Reading | Bills | House debates
by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time.
Public Service Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2024; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
The member for Sturt—that's it. Thank you. It's not retrospective; we're clarifying it. There has been a briefing for the opposition. The Australian Public Service Commissioner, Gordon de...
The member for Sturt—that's it. Thank you. It's not retrospective; we're clarifying it. There has been a briefing for the opposition. The Australian Public Service Commissioner, Gordon de Brouwer, attended that yesterday. I'm instructed that we were notified in July of the need for this, so we haven't been hatching this for two years. The APS Code of Conduct is a cornerstone of an efficient, effective and apolitical Australian Public Service which upholds APS values and acts with integrity in the national interest. Culture is set from the top down. Agency heads should not be able to escape accountability for breaching the code of conduct simply by leaving their role. Claims have been made in the context of current inquiries, including in relation to robodebt, that the absence of an express power means the commissioner cannot investigate agency heads. The government is not prepared to compromise the outcome of these important inquiries, and that's why the date of 7 July 2023 was picked, and we are acting swiftly to remove any ambiguity. This bill will clarify the commissioner's power to investigate and make findings against former agency heads. This will allow the commissioner to conclude current inquiries quickly and undertake further inquiries on a clear, level footing. This bill delivers on what the Australian community deserve and expect—clear powers to ensure that the most senior leaders of our Public Service are accountable for their conduct as agency heads. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time.
I thank all members for their constructive debate on the Public Service Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2024. I just want to clarify the member for Casey's imaginative ramble. This law is not...
I thank all members for their constructive debate on the Public Service Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2024. I just want to clarify the member for Casey's imaginative ramble. This law is not retrospective; it's clarifying what we believe to be the existing law. I'm sorry that he wasn't invited to the briefing, which Senator Jane Hume and the member for Bradfield attended yesterday, with the Public Service Commissioner. There has been a briefing for the opposition. I am sorry if the leadership of the opposition don't inform the troops about what they're doing. That's just not really good communication. The other thing is that the previous member—Mr Pyne's replacement, whatever—said, 'When were we notified about'—
I'd like to thank the saxophone-playing, Indonesian-speaking emergency doctor from Wyong, the member for Reid, for his very good question. Even though it was his birthday last Friday, he...
I'd like to thank the saxophone-playing, Indonesian-speaking emergency doctor from Wyong, the member for Reid, for his very good question. Even though it was his birthday last Friday, he understands that the NDIS is changing lives for the better. We are returning the scheme to its true purpose. We are making sure that support gets through to the people for whom it was designed and that it's sustainable for future generations. The legislation is currently in the final stages of consideration by the Senate, and I do acknowledge the constructive engagement with the opposition. If this legislation is passed, it's a significant step towards a stronger NDIS. The legislation does a few simple things: it'll stop the automatic top-up of participants' plans which are exhausted early; it'll create the architecture to implement the NDIS review's recommendations to put a total capped flexible budget in place for all of the participants; and it'll exclude supports that are supposed to be funded by other service systems or, indeed, supports which were never intended to be funded by the NDIS. If we're able to pass it this week, the necessary legislative framework to improve the participant experience will deliver fairer decisions which will be more transparent and more consistent. It will allow us to get on with the work of designing the finer practical elements of NDIS reform with participants, the people who love them, the people who work with them, and their advocates. There are a number of amendments in the Senate contributed by the disability community, and we will continue to listen to stakeholders, including the states, the opposition and, of course, people with disability and their representatives. This has been a huge body of consultation. The review, which we set up after promising it at the election, talked to 10,000 people, took 4,000 submissions and listened for literally 2,000 hours. I've personally attended 18 town hall meetings, where I've heard from over 10,000 attendees. Indeed the first of the Senate inquiries went for 12 weeks and heard from 200 stakeholders. This is very thorough. What I hope we can tell Australians who support the scheme by the end of this week is that we've got the foundation of a new budget-setting process, that we're also clamping down on fraud, that we've got clarity about what you can spend, and that we've also got the registration taskforce to make sure that we register providers so that we know who's actually providing the services. I commend the legislation when it comes back here, hopefully on Thursday.
I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Background This bill makes amendments to the Public Service Act 1999(Cth) to clarify the Australian Public Service Commissioner's powers with...
I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Background This bill makes amendments to the Public Service Act 1999(Cth) to clarify the Australian Public Service Commissioner's powers with respect to conducting inquiries into potential breaches of the code of conduct by former agency heads. The Public Service Act establishes a code of conduct that applies to APS employees and to agency heads. It includes requirements for APS employees and agency heads to, amongst other things, behave with honesty and integrity, to act with care and diligence, and to treat everyone with respect and courtesy. The APS Code of Conduct is a cornerstone of an efficient, effective and apolitical Australian Public Service that upholds APS values and acts with integrity, accountability, and in the national interest. The commissioner's powers under the Public Service Act are essential to safeguarding this standard and maintaining public confidence in the vital institution that is the Australian Public Service. The Public Service Act expressly allows for the APS Commissioner to inquire into and determine whether a current or former APS employee has breached the code of conduct. The act also expressly allows the APS Commissioner to inquire into whether a current agency head has breached the code of conduct. The act further gives the APS Commissioner the function of reviewing, and reporting on, any matter referred to the commissioner by the Public Service minister. This bill will amend the act to explicitly provide that the APS Commissioner has the power to inquire into and determine whether current and former agency heads have breached the code of conduct. This will mean that the commissioner has clear powers to hold current and former agency heads to account for breaches of the code of conduct while they are an agency head. Bill overview Section 14(1) of the Public Service Act makes it clear that agency heads are bound by the code of conduct in the same way as other Australian public servants. It is proper that a process is available to inquire into and determine whether a current or former agency head has complied with the code of conduct. These amendments, which will ensure the accountability of our most senior officials, are in line with the public's expectations. This bill makes it clear that the APS Commissioner's power to inquire into and determine whether an agency head has breached the code of conduct, for actions taken while they were an agency head, is not extinguished when an agency head leaves the Australian Public Service. The code of conduct already applies to agency heads. This bill makes no changes to the code of conduct and it does not amend the standards of behaviour required of current agency heads. The effect of the bill is to ensure current and former agency heads are accountable for their conduct while they are an agency head, assessed at the standard that applies to them in that role. These amendments will extend the same accountability to current and former agency heads as that which already applies to APS employees. The effect of these amendments is to enable the commissioner to inquire into and make determinations about the conduct of current and former agency heads. Noting former agency heads were bound by the code of conduct at the time they were in the agency head role, it is appropriate that these amendments empower the APS Commissioner to inquire into conduct that occurred at that time, including conduct that predates this bill. The bill also clarifies that the APS Commissioner has the power to make a determination on the outcome of a code of conduct inquiry into a current or former agency head. The catalyst for these amendments has been inquiries into potential breaches of the code of conduct by current and former public servants, including former agency heads, for their role in the design and delivery of the robodebt scheme. As the inquiries progressed, claims were made that alleged breaches of the code of conduct by former agency heads could not be investigated—and a determination of a breach could not be made—in the absence of express provisions in the Public Service Act. To ensure full accountability, the government is taking this step to put beyond doubt the Australian Public Service Commissioner's authority to investigate and make determinations with respect to former agency heads under the Public Service Act. The bill also ensures that the employment status of a current or former agency head when a code of conduct inquiry is underway has no impact on the powers of the commissioner to conduct and finalise an inquiry and make a determination. The amendments will ensure that an agency head who resigns or retires during an inquiry into their conduct, or whose term of appointment otherwise concludes before the inquiry has been completed, can be held accountable for their conduct while they were an agency head. The bill provides that matters referred to the commissioner under section 41(2)(k) on or after 7 July 2023, regarding a potential breach of the code of conduct by a current or former agency head, are matters under section 41(2)(m) of the act. The bill also provides that information and documents collected by the commissioner prior to the amendments continue to be available to enable these matters to be finalised as expeditiously as possible. Conclusion We expect the highest standards of conduct from those in whom we place the highest levels of public trust. These amendments ensure the commissioner has clear power to investigate breaches of the APS Code of Conduct by an agency head including where and after an agency head resigns from the Public Service. This legislation will ensure that senior public servants are clearly accountable for their actions as Public Service leaders, even after leaving their roles. The bill removes ambiguity about the commissioner's powers to investigate former agency heads and, with it, the prospect of individuals avoiding accountability through legal technicalities. These amendments underscore the Australian government's agenda to restore integrity, trust and faith in a stronger Public Service. Debate adjourned.
To be fair, I don't think cuddle therapy should be on the NDIS, but I think someone should give the Leader of the Opposition a cuddle after the week he's had! The fact of the matter is—and...
To be fair, I don't think cuddle therapy should be on the NDIS, but I think someone should give the Leader of the Opposition a cuddle after the week he's had! The fact of the matter is—and I'll just say this once—there's a billion dollars being wasted; 60,000 child participants could get a year's support. Why are you so oxygen-stealingly dumb to waste time on a billion dollars! Shame on all of you! (Time expired)
What we see is that the NDIS is growing but it's growing too fast. I know members of the opposition understand that. They just couldn't do anything about it. But they know that problem. Now, the...
What we see is that the NDIS is growing but it's growing too fast. I know members of the opposition understand that. They just couldn't do anything about it. But they know that problem. Now, the issue is it is growing too fast. So Labor has some propositions to help restrain the rate of growth. We've got a bill in the parliament. The Senate has had it for 12 weeks. They've had it for 12 weeks. The problem is that they want to now delay it for another eight weeks. This is the problem. Sometimes, you can delay things in the Senate and, really, the sun comes up the next day and the chicken still lays eggs. But sometimes things get delayed in the Senate which have a cost. This legislation, if it's delayed, is, according to the actuary, going to cost people on the scheme and it's going to cost taxpayers a billion dollars in waste—a billion dollars. The reason it's going to cost a billion dollars is that the Liberals need more time to ask questions. But I want to put this to the House and the backbench of the coalition, who don't always get to hear what's going on—these are the questions which your senators need eight weeks to answer, but I think even the group opposite could answer this quicker than in eight weeks: do you think it is right that people can claim tarot cards and clairvoyance on the scheme? You don't need eight weeks to work that out. Do you think that it should take eight weeks to work out if people should be able to get cuddle therapy? Of course you don't. But, for whatever reason, you are taking eight weeks and a billion dollars to answer obvious questions.
I thank the member for Bean for his question. There are five bits of good news for disability workers, the 400,000 people who work in the NDIS, and I'd like to acknowledge their great work. First...
I thank the member for Bean for his question. There are five bits of good news for disability workers, the 400,000 people who work in the NDIS, and I'd like to acknowledge their great work. First of all, all 400,000 are getting a tax cut—great! For all of those on the award, which is most of them, they've had a 15 per cent increase in wages since Labor was elected—that's good! They're going to access cheaper medicines. That has got to be a plus. Their superannuation has gone up—great! And, of course, they're getting energy relief. So that's five bits of good news for people who do a brilliant job. But there are problems. There are problems with the sustainability of the scheme which undermine all the good work all these good people do.