Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor will be supporting the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2016. It is a very important time for all of us as we look towards the future of the NDIS in our nation.

Naturally, when we are looking at the make-up of the board of the NDIS, it is timely that we acknowledge the work that has gone before, in terms of the board that was originally part of the NDIS program. I think it is important at this stage that we give acknowledgement of the strong and committed leadership of that board, as it put in place, I think, one of the most important pieces of legislation we have ever had in our parliament.

As Ms Macklin, in the other place, said of the chair of the board, Mr Bruce Bonyhady: 'For Bruce, the design and the delivery of the NDIS is more than a profession; it's a life mission.' In terms of the work that he and his other board members did, when we are talking about the future of the NDIS we need to acknowledge and respect the work of the original board.

The legislation in front of us this morning is simply a proposal to expand the size of the board of the National Disability Insurance Agency from nine to 12. We believe, as the government has put forward, that having a larger board will give the board more stability during the ongoing rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. In terms of the status of the NDIS currently in the country, we have gone through the first series of trials. Through those series of trials we have been able to see that the process, interaction and completion of the work of the NDIS has been completed in full and on time. We hear that phrase a lot in this place, 'in full and on time'.

Each of the reports that has come to this place, the updates of what has happened in the NDIS across the trial period, has shown that progress has been made and the budget has been in place. We have very clearly wanted to make sure that this scheme—which was so important to ensure that people with disabilities would be respected and that those people could be assured that they would be the leaders of their own destiny—its care programs and the support that it provides are there. We are talking about people who need significant support. The NDIS was introduced to ensure that it was completely people centred so that the supports that wrap around a person were determined in their best interests, which is what they wanted. That was the scheme. We talked about it when we had the debate in this place to introduce the scheme, where there was cross-party commitment to ensure that we would have an effective NDIS.

That is in place. We are now moving into the next stage of the rollout, which is the expansion of the original trial sites into a wider area of implementation across the nation. I am really pleased that part of the new expansion of the trial will be the original process in Queensland. Certainly from my perspective as a Queensland senator, the fact that we will now have a site in place in north Queensland, in Townsville, is a really important part of the expansion of the scheme across the nation. That will be occurring all around the country. In that case, the necessity of having an expanded board is obvious. To handle the new responsibilities, to handle the expansion, we must have the best possible expertise in place to make the important decisions will be made to ensure that the operations of the NDIS will be as effective as possible.

As part of the process we need to ensure that the consultation has been effective and that the work of bringing it forward—bringing into the process all states and territories with the Commonwealth—is done so that the interaction is solid. That is the way that the process must operate. We work with all of the states and territories, and the decision that the parliament is considering today is the result of extensive consultation with all the states and territories to bring forward a recommendation to this place. That is critical and it must occur for this process to be successful.

It is important to note that there have been concerns along the way about the way that the government had originally talked about the changes to the board process. I remember when the minister on duty today, who was the then Minister for Social Services, was at the last Senate estimates—as you would remember, Minister Fifield, through you, Mr Deputy President—and there was a lot of discussion around the process that at that stage we had had the unedifying process of seeing the advertisements for a proposed new board structure running across the nation. These advertisements were calling for applications for the NDIS board, while the current members of the board had not actually been given the courtesy of being advised that this process was going to happen. On record, we had the minister's response about the fact that it was an administrative process; it is all in Hansard from those Senate estimates. But in terms of the respect that should be shown when we are going through a transitioning process, a change process, that was not a good look. The ongoing nature of how we would expect that the interaction between the government and whoever the board members will be—we would not have such a situation where there would not be effective communication with people who are involved, who are committed, who have a proven record of dedication and effectiveness. That is something that should not happen in the future. I wanted to put that on the record while we are discussing the make-up of the new board to reinforce the kind of pain that that causes people who are involved in the process. I trust that is something that will not happen in the future.

It is also important to note that there have been, over the past few months, comments made by the government that have called into question the effect of budgeting that had been put in place by the previous government around the introduction of the NDIS. We reject totally some of the comments that have been made about the lack of financial planning for the future of the rollout of the NDIS. It is clear that Labor did make effective provision for the introduction of the NDIS. It was an important element of legislation, and we made a commitment to the community that we would effectively introduce a national disability insurance scheme to our nation. When we brought that forward, part of the commitment that the Labor government gave to this parliament was that there would be effective financial planning into the future. On record, it is clear that there was effective financial provision made into the future. We had savings processes put there that would match up so that, to the best of our knowledge, to the best of the knowledge of Treasury—and in Treasury documents that have been brought forward through the parliament—we had an effective provision for the future of the NDIS. This message must be consistently placed on record in this place, and in the community.

The introduction of the NDIS was a cross-party introduction. There was agreement together that we would introduce this scheme, and there was an agreement that it would be effectively resourced. If you remember, in the lead-up to the national disability insurance legislation that came to this place, there was considerable discussion and argument about how it would be resourced. We understood, as a parliament, that it would need a significant injection of funding because we acknowledged that across our nation effective disability services had been under-resourced. That was a given. The information that came to us—we had an extensive community affairs legislation committee inquiry as the legislation was being rolled out into this place for discussion—and the evidence that came forward from across the board was that at state and territory level, and at federal level, there was a lack of effective resourcing for people with disabilities in our nation. That led to a situation where people were not receiving the services that they deserved and, indeed, that they needed.

One of the elements in the whole production of this legislation was to make a commitment that the NDIS would be well resourced and well managed and that it would be based on effective communication and consultation across the board. That was part of the legislation that we brought forward. We need to reaffirm that because, in this place on a number of occasions, ministers have made comment about the ongoing economic viability of the NDIS. It is important that we reaffirm that that is a solid commitment because in the community an expectation was built up that, finally, people with disabilities would receive the services they deserved. But at the same time—because of years of lack of response and years of promises that were not able to be fulfilled for various reasons—there is a genuine vulnerability in the community in people with disabilities. They do not want to see this scheme—in which they have committed, in which they are engaged and which has been the result of promises from governments—fail. When questions are raised and when comments are made in this place and outside that effective economic provision had not been made, that causes real fear and great concern. It is really important that we understand that there has been an effective economic plan around the NDIS and that there is commitment across the board to ensuring that that continues.

Part of that process is to ensure that we have the most effective board in place, which is the focus of this legislation. We are happy to support the legislation as we know that the people who will be on this board will provide the commitment that is necessary to ensure that the process operates. We understand that the arrangements around which this board is developed include consultation with states and territories, and we understand that the financial expectations and the administrative expectations of these people are great. We also know that there is a commitment to ensuring that people with disabilities are part of the process and that among the current board we have a number of people who have experience with disability as family members and who themselves have identifiable disabilities. That is part of the ongoing process and, as you well know, there is a longstanding statement in the consumer movement which says: 'nothing about us without us' and, in the area of disability, this is certainly a very strong demand. In terms of the appointment of the board it is important that, when that process is in place, there is an understanding that the people who are on that board have knowledge of disability and, where appropriate, that people who themselves have identified disabilities can be part of the management of the scheme that has been developed to provide services.

This is an important piece of legislation because it is part of the ongoing commitment we have to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We know that there is an understanding of this process and that there is an ownership of this process. We expect that the board, as it will now be presented with the larger group, will be able to reflect the divergent needs that there are across the nation. One of the things that have been most clear in the trial sites is that, whilst there is the oversight and the basic expectation that services will be available and able to be accessed, the particular way this works varies enormously across the country. With the trial sites in Newcastle, the trial sites in Victoria, the specialist children's sites in South Australia, the young people's sites in Tasmania and also the remote site that was set up to look at the issues around introducing the NDIS to remote areas of Australia, the knowledge that has been built up through that process reaffirms the fact that one size never fits all. We need to understand that we have to ensure that services are tailored effectively and are available, no matter where you live.

One of the things with the NDIS is that we expect that, whether you live in the cities or you live in regional Australia, you will still get the best possible support that you can have. That is not only an element of the combined knowledge but also the way that we can have best possible practice in providing services to people with disabilities. I did acknowledge the work of the current board of NDIS, and I also think it is important to acknowledge the people who work within the system. The people who are working in the system have brought an enormous sense of commitment and skill to their jobs, and that will continue to occur. Another element that must always be taken into account is providing support for the workers in the system so that they have all the background, knowledge and resources they need to do the best possible job.

We support the legislation that is here today, which is to increase the board, and we also look forward to ensuring that the NDIS will have a strong, well resourced future and that this parliament will consistently have feedback as to what is going on in the system and will be able to ensure we have ongoing oversight so that the parliament continues its active role in the way the NDIS is rolled out across the country.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution to the second reading debate on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2016. We know that the scheme has now been in place for a number of years with trial launch sites, pilot sites and trial sites again. Given the size of the scheme, we always knew that there was going to be a need to look very closely at how the scheme was being rolled out, because it is such a fundamental change. It was so broadly supported. I do not say that support was bipartisan; I will say it was tripartisan, because I remember I was a very active participant in the debate and, in fact, managed to get some amendments made to the legislation when we were debating it in this place not so long ago. In actual fact, it was three years ago. At the time, it was acknowledged this was a fundamental change and that we were in a process of learning how this would roll out. We have seen that in some of the changes that are being made through this particular piece of legislation. I will come to the other piece of legislation that is before the chamber a bit later in terms of the savings fund, for which we will be taking a very different approach than that which I am taking to this particular piece of legislation.

It is very fair to say that, although there have been some bumps along the way, the participants I have spoken to who were on the NDIS and are now participants of this scheme are overwhelmingly supportive of the process. I acknowledge that there have been some concerns about plans, costs of services and supports, needing to change some of the plans and those sorts of things, but people talk to me about the fundamental difference that this scheme has made to their lives. It just reminds me yet again how this place makes some very important decisions that do fundamentally affect people's lives, and this was certainly one of them. The way this parliament ultimately came together to support this vital social change in our community was one of the good things that this place does. This scheme is one of the good things this country has done for people who need and should have support to live quality lives. That is why we have been so strongly supportive of this scheme. People talk to me about the fact that they can now get the sorts of supports and services that mean they can be included in the community, that they can participate in activities they were once denied access to.

That is not to say that this scheme is the be all and end all for people with disability, and it deeply concerns me that we have seen budget announcements yesterday that will take money off some people with disability to put into a fund to help other people with disability. That is not the way this country should be operating and it is not what we ever envisaged when we were supporting and campaigning for such a scheme. I will talk more of that if and when we get to that bill.

However, when it comes to the broad work of the NDIS, I would like to particularly congratulate the progress that the NDIA has made. Again, I do not always see eye to eye with the NDIA, but I do think that they have very genuinely worked to achieve this scheme against very many obstacles and issues that had been brought up along the way—and there are still many things that need to be addressed. So many things come to mind in terms of the availability of housing, availability of affordable housing, the way we seem to be moving in some of the planning processes, the costs that do not seem to be properly recognised in some instances, some of the numbers—particularly underestimates—for some cohorts, how we are dealing with intellectual disability, how we are dealing with mental illness, how my particular home state still seems to be struggling with the concept of a national scheme, and the provision of some of the supports and services rollout that occurred originally for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and which I am pleased to say seem to have been learned in the rollout of the scheme on Palm Island, which I visited as part of the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS. I was extremely pleased to see that some of the very vital lessons from some of the early issues with the rollout of the scheme in Tennant Creek have been addressed. It is good to see that we have a learning process here.

There are a number of other issues that still need to be addressed. There are very definitely issues around bringing some of the broader government agencies—what we call the mainstream agencies—to realise that a lot of what people expect the NDIS to deliver is actually the responsibility of other agencies. We still have to get that right. We still have concerns around issues of advocacy. We need to make sure there is funding of both individual and systemic advocacy. Those are still issues for which we cannot just pretend, 'Oh great, we've got an NDIS now; it is a fundamental reform, and we can now proceed and start looking at other things,' when we actually need to make sure we are addressing these particular issues.

When it comes to the issues around the board, it seems to us that the coalition has always had a problem with the current NDIS board. The Abbott government moved to replace the board of the national disability scheme by placing that ad for the board's jobs in the newspapers without informing the current directors. It was just poor judgement and at the time sent a really strong message to the community that the government was not actually prepared to talk to or consult with the sector. The qualifications that were listed for the positions at the time, despite the insistence of government that the current board will not be able to be reappointed, were a shock to people in the sector. I know I got many emails and phone calls about the way the ad appeared to position the government on this particular issue. I am pleased to see that there were changes subsequently made to that. If the process was a mistake, it was a bad mistake that they made at the time.

The government is also trying to argue that this scheme is not fully funded, and I will come back to that issue whenever the next bill comes back on. I want to go back to the issues of the board. While we are not going to oppose this legislation, we are concerned that not enough is done in the act as it stands and also in this particular amendment bill to require board members to make sure that we have proper representation. I know that people do not represent a particular sector on the board, but I have spoken with people with disability and in various peak organisations, and they are concerned that there is not enough done to make sure that people actually with disability or who could become participants in the scheme are members of the board. They feel very strongly that, with the best will in the world, people on the board, if they are not living with a disability, simply do not understand what the issues are—not fully. The current wording of the act talks about people with experience with disability. Sometimes you see people that are carers, for example, for somebody with a disability. Again, their involvement is absolutely critical, but it does not address the issue that people with disability need to be an active part of the disability decision-making process.

I appreciate that the issues need further discussion around the inclusion of people with disability who are participants or who could become participants in the NDIS. They should be members of the board. I understand that, if I were to try to make an amendment, in fact that would cause some problems because of the need to consult states and territories about such an amendment, because of the nature of the scheme. So I will not be moving amendments on that today, but be prepared: sometime in the future I will be. But I urge the government to commit. People are saying to me they want a commitment that a third of people on the board, particularly with the increase in numbers, will be people with a disability who are actual participants or who could be eligible to be participants in the scheme. I am asking the government—regardless of what this legislation says and the fact that we cannot amend it at this stage—to commit that at least a third of board members, or as many as possible, will be people with a disability.

The Greens will be supporting this bill, with some reservations, because we are concerned that there is not enough commitment to make sure people with disability are actually on the board of the scheme that is about delivering their supports and services, ultimately leading to their better quality of life and inclusion and participation in our community.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2016. This bill amends the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act to increase the number of board members of the National Disability Insurance Agency from nine to 12, including the chair. The bill also clarifies the quorum arrangements for board meetings to make it clear that meetings must have a majority of board members in attendance. Labor is pleased to support the bill and hopes that it ends the government's disgraceful attacks on the NDIS board and its members.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme, which was designed, funded and introduced by Labor, is already transforming the lives of thousands of Australians with disabilities, their families and their carers. The NDIS is being delivered on time, satisfaction amongst participants is very high, and the scheme is running on budget. We are incredibly proud of the NDIS. Just like Medicare, which was also created by Labor, the NDIS is one of Australia's biggest social reforms.

Once it is fully rolled out, the National Disability Insurance Scheme will support 460,000 people living with profound disabilities. That is 460,000 individuals, their families and their carers who are going to benefit from this scheme. This proposed legislation reflects an agreement reached by the Disability Reform Council earlier this year to increase the number of board members and extend existing board terms. This is a sensible decision and will give the board more stability during the full rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

Hopefully, this ends the government's disgraceful attacks on the NDIS board and its members. The board and the agency should be congratulated on the successful rollout of the scheme thus far. They do a difficult job and they do it well. The agency's staff and board deserve respect from the government, but unfortunately, on too many occasions, this has been in short supply. Imagine if you woke up one morning, opened the newspaper and saw an advertisement for your own job. This is what happened to the current members of the board. This is what they were subjected to by this government. The government put advertisements in newspapers asking for applications for board positions without even telling the current board members about it. There was no phone call from the minister, no consultation and no prior warning—just a none-too-subtle hint that this government considers them entirely expendable.

And we know that, if they had the chance, they would replace the board with people of like mind to the coalition government. They would appoint people from the big end of town. We know they like to look after their mates, and this board would not have been immune to that sort of appointment. They do not care about making sure their board members actually have lived experience of disabilities—which, as Senator Siewert has already said, is so integral to ensuring that this board represents the people that it is designed to serve. From the interactions that I and my colleagues Senator Urquhart, Senator Bilyk and Senator Brown have had with the disability sector, we know all too well the difference that it makes when there is an understanding of what people living with disabilities go through day by day. It is so essentially important to their families that the government of the day understand their roles in caring for their family members with disabilities and, of course, the roles of the carers who work in this field.

This is effectively what fired the starter's gun on a series of attacks on the governance of the NDIS, and it is just part of the mantra of the Liberal Party on anything that they do not like. Those that are most disadvantaged in this country have been the target over the three budgets that they have now brought down, and last night was no exception. But in March it was revealed that the Turnbull government were pressuring the states and territories into sweeping changes to the NDIS. These changes would have allowed the Turnbull government to decide who is eligible for the scheme and what support people would receive. It would have given the Turnbull government the power to ignore the needs of people with disabilities, sideline the states and territories, sack board members and put their own conservative cronies in charge for—just all part of their DNA. Thankfully this plan was rejected by the states and territories. The government have tried every trick in the book to mislead Australians about the NDIS and to undermine its future. They have constantly fibbed, saying that Labor did not fund the NDIS. Well, I could tell you, Labor most certainly did fund the rollout of the NDIS. The government must end their war on the NDIS and dump its plans for a federal takeover of the scheme.

Labor supports the legislation before the parliament today but we will continue to fiercely oppose any attempts by the government to undermine the future of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I cannot be more clear than that. The message back to the government is those on this side of the chamber will always fiercely oppose any attempts by the government to undermine the future of the NDIS. If anyone opposite in this place tries to cut, cap and delay the National Disability Insurance Scheme or attempts another federal takeover to make more baseless claims about funding, Labor will stand with the people with disabilities and defend the National Disability Insurance Scheme against any of these cynical attacks.

People with disabilities, their families and their carers have waited their whole lives for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I think sometimes, now that we are going through the process of rolling this out, some in the community and obviously those on the government benches have already forgotten that this was landmark. This was something that people had been waiting their entire lives for. And if you had been on any of the Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs inquiries over the decade that I have been in this place, you would know it was something that unified people within our communities and that ensured that the National Disability Insurance Scheme saw the light of day. As a government we ensured that that funding was there, that it was budgeted for and that it was going to be delivered because we know how important it is every single day for people with disabilities to know that their government is doing the utmost to support them to live as independent and fulfilled life as possible. It is actually unforgivable for the government to keep trying to mislead and frighten the Australian community about the future of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. People with disabilities, their families and carers will not accept being used as political playthings of the Turnbull government. Mr Turnbull and his Liberal government need to remember that people with disabilities are not political playthings. They are not there to play their political games. Australians will not accept more cruel cuts from this government under the guise of funding the NDIS.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme is already funded. We made sure of this when we were in government. Labor's 2013 budget set out a 10-year funding plan for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The coalition know that the National Disability Insurance Scheme is funded because they actually voted for most of the measures. Not only did they vote for all but one of them but some of the measures even passed the parliament after the election, when the Liberals were in government. Those opposite know that we did the plan, they know that it was budgeted for and they supported the majority of those measures so they are just playing political games and they are lying to the community. To now say, as the government do, that the National Disability Insurance Scheme is not funded amounts to an effective theft that of money that was always intended for people with disabilities. But we know this is not the only policy area where those opposite do that, where they bend and twist the budget figures for their own benefit.

We are entering a really crucial period for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and there are plenty of unanswered questions. The government needs to focus on the unanswered questions, not on trying to complete control of the scheme, picking fights with states and territories, fibbing about the funding or trying to sack the board—enough is enough, no more. People with disabilities know that Labor will always stand with them. Labor built the National Disability Insurance Scheme after much consultation with the sector and with individuals. We most certainly will not stand by and watch the Turnbull government tear it down.

I would like to talk about the NDIS workforce issues, which I have spoken about many times in this place—that is, the workforce for the disability sector as well as for aging and aged care in this country. Unlike the government, which just last night put the big end of town over older Australians, Labor is unashamedly pro-ageing. Mr Turnbull's budget offered nothing for older Australians and what was even more telling was what it did not say. True to form, for the third time in a row, this Liberal government and the Abbott government—the Abbott-Turnbull government as it is now—has ignored the crucial issues facing older Australians and the sector. There is no direction in the future for aged care reform.

Also introduced by Labor when we were last in government was the 'Living Longer. Living Better' rollout of major changes to the aged care sector. It was major reform, once again a 10-year plan, that was then going to be built upon. Even though that plan was there in black and white for them, those opposite have been unable to roll that scheme out.

I will give some credit to Senator Fifield, who is in the chamber today. At least when he was the assistant minister responsible for aged care he had an interest in the area. What we are seeing with the new minister is somebody who quite obviously—from all indications and then again last night in the budget—has no interest in aging or aged care in this country. There is no vision or leadership when it comes to the workforce in either the disability sector or the aged-care sector. It is in everything that they do, whether it is their desire to cut penalty rates or the cuts that they have made to the sector over the last three years. What is the figure that we now have? What have the cuts amounted to now under this government in just three years? Some $3 billion out of the aged-care responsibility that this government has in this country.

We all know—and various people from that side, around the chamber and the crossbenches always acknowledge this fact—that we have an enormous challenge before us with an ageing population. What have the government done over the previous two budgets and again last night? They have cut, cut and cut. Today they are trying to hose down the sector by saying: 'They are not really cuts. It is not really a cut. Things are blowing out.' The reality is the sector will not buy that argument because there is no justification for the lines that they are running. The people working in the sector and the people who have family members who are having care at home or are already in residential care know that they have been neglected and they have been a target of an unfair and callous government when it comes to aged care in this country.

Instead they should see aged care and ageing as a positive and an economic key for the future. The biggest growth area in jobs going forward in this country will be in the aged-care and disability sectors. No-one from the government has ever come into this chamber or the other place to dispute what I have said previously. We talk about the mining boom and tourism. We have seen the manufacturing industry go in this country. The growth areas are going to be in the service sector—in the disability sector and the aged-care sector. There has been no leadership shown by this government at any stage of the last 2½ years, or almost three years, in terms of having a vision or any policy. They have not demonstrated any leadership when it comes to resolving the workforce issues that we are confronted with.

Let us look at the last estimates. We may not have time on Friday, because there is always a threat that Mr Turnbull can go to the Governor-General on Friday and we may not even have estimates on Friday. Even if we do there will be so little time that we will not be able to drill down to find out exactly the real impacts that the $1.2 billion cuts announced last night will have on the aged-care sector. You cannot keep taking money out of the aged-care budget and expect to have the same care and services. It is absolutely impossible.

It is the mantra of this government to attack and cut services to those who need our help and support the most. It is those people who are ageing and want to stay at home while having home care support, which is a good thing. We all want to as we age be able to stay in our own homes as long as possible. Every government, including this government, needs to recognise that when people go into residential care it is going to be the most expensive time that any government has had to see. People will be going in with very complex health issues. They will still need to have the care that they are having today. People are in residential care now getting care, physio and the support that they need but under this government with the cuts that they have made they will not have that next year, the year after or the year after that. The Australian people will have a very clear choice when they go to the ballot box on 2 July. It is a very clear choice between electing a government that is basing it policies on what is fair or electing a government that continues to support the big end of town.

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

I know, Senator, you may never need to go into residential care. You are wealthy enough to be able to support yourself, but there are an awful lot of Australians who do not have that support. They do not have the financial backing to be able to do that. Once again—and it does not matter whether you are talking health generally, disabilities or aged care—your level of care in Australia should not depend on the size of your bank balance or your credit card. The type of care that you get really should not come down to what you can afford.

The government have failed on every front when it comes to rolling out the aged-care reforms. They have cut the funding now to a total of $3 billion—not $3 million. Some $3 billion has been taken out of an area of policy that affects so many Australians. It is right. I just came from a meeting. It is right. Most people do not think about aged care until they are confronted with somebody in their family who is ageing and will need that support. I say time and time again that we all—every Australian—need to consider as part of planning for our retirement and transitioning from work to retirement what support we will have and what options we will have as we age.

As I said, there will be a very clear choice at the election between a Labor government that developed the policy plans for the National Disability Scheme and rolled out the Living Longer Living Better aged-care reforms and a government that has tried to dismantle the NDIS and put its own mates in charge of it and that has cut $3 billion out of the aged-care budget.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank colleagues for their contributions. I want to make just a few quick points. It was never the government's intention, despite some of the coverage last year, that the board of the NDIS would be spilled. The government simply recognised that if nothing were done the terms of all board members would expire. Also, the government recognised that all positions expired at the same time and that, as good corporate governance practice, there should in fact be a staggering of the expiry dates of board members. Minister Porter has put forward a very good proposition to expand the size of the board so we can ensure that in the transition there is both continuity in the experience of board members and that there will be new board members as well as the scheme moves to the next phase of rollout.

I do need to respond to the issue of the funding of the NDIS. There are a range of sources of funding of the NDIS. There is existing state expenditure, which will be diverted to the scheme; there is existing Commonwealth expenditure, which will be diverted to the scheme; and there are also Medicare levy proceeds guaranteed for the scheme. When you put those funding sources aside, at full scheme there does remain about $5 billion a year for which funding was not carefully and particularly identified by our predecessors. Our predecessors did say that they had earmarked funding to cover that particular gap. I should point out that $2.4 billion of that supposed earmarked funding was in a table headed 'Other Long-Term Savings' in a previous Labor budget. Those other long-term savings were not identified and have never been identified.

Also, there were savings from private health insurance changes by the previous government, which the previous government actually counted for three different purposes. One was for the NDIS, one was to go towards what was then a budget surplus target, and one was to partially offset the cost of the dental health reform package. So, there were $2.7 billion of long-term savings which were never identified and other savings which were in fact counted three times, and Minister Porter has a proposition to address that funding gap.

With those few words, I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.