Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Could I pick up where we left off, Minister? You were trying to explain how the $60 billion that has come out of your last budget is actually not a cut. I have gone back to the budget papers. Just to see whether you're familiar with what your own budget papers say, I refer you to page 7 of Budget Paper No. 1. Under 'Responsible economic management', it says:

These reforms are expected to—

realise—

$14.4 billion over four years—

of savings—

based on the NDIS Actuary's revised projections without further action.

It would be great if this place and other people could actually see the NDIS actuary's projections, because they've disappeared from the AFSR.

Page 7 of the budget paper says that these are going to be savings just over the forward estimates. Then in Budget Paper No. 1—again—on pages 96 and 97 it talks about how these savings are going to be 'realised by the government in the National Disability Insurance Scheme—Getting the NDIS Back on Track measures', which is this bill here today.

For the absence of doubt that this is actually money coming out of the federal budget, we turn to Budget Paper No. 2 and to table 2, 'Payment measures', on page 35. Minister, if you don't know, in budget papers when it's positive it just has a number; when it's actually money added into the budget it is a number. However, when it is a cut to the budget it has got a negative on it. In table 2 on page 35 it clearly says over the next four years, in the forward estimates, there's going to be $15½ billion worth of savings, which the actuary has confirmed is $60 billion coming out of the budget.

Minister, please do not try and play these ridiculous games. There is no sealed section in this budget for Minister Shorten and his 'Shortenomics' and the Redbridge spin. It is a cut. And if you're cutting an insurance scheme, it has to come from one of two places, or both—the number of participants in the scheme and the average cost per participant. So, Minister, I take from your obfuscation, yet again, that you are not going to answer any of these actuarial questions about this legislation, on the numbers that underpin these savings—is that correct? I don't want to waste the Senate's time if you are going to go into a mouthful of Redbridge verbiage for the next five minutes rather than providing the numbers. I asked you the question before, and you didn't provide a number. Maybe you will if I ask it again. If we're not going to get numbers, I'll move on to a different line of questioning, because it's clear that you're not going to provide the data.

Minister, can you give us the number of people who are currently waiting for a review of their NDIS plan? The last number we had was that somewhere over 50,000 participants are waiting on an indefinite holding plan to get their budget reviewed. The vast majority of those, probably somewhere over 95 per cent, will be plan increases. Can you provide that number first. Then can you advise how many—and I know it's in the actuarial data—of the people who have been put on a holding plan and are waiting desperately to get an increase or a change to their plan will not get their request for a plan increase. You have the number there.