Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Senator Ruston. Recent media reports have revealed it takes an average of 127 days for a child to receive an NDIS plan from the day they are deemed eligible. In some instances, the wait can be as long as 202 days. Why are Australian children with a disability waiting so long for the care and support they need?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much to Senator Gallagher for her question. I explained yesterday on numerous occasions, and I explained earlier—and I think that the Leader of the Government in the Senate just added his contribution—about the extraordinary and exponential increase in delivery of the NDIS over recent times.

What I would actually like to draw to the attention of the chamber is what we inherited and what we have done since we inherited this—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order on direct relevance: the minister hasn't been asked about Labor's policies in government seven years ago. She's been asked about the average waiting time for children with a disability in this country. I'd have thought that she would have sufficient empathy to respond to that question.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) | Link to this | Hansard source

On that point of order: in order to answer that question in a way that is directly relevant and to explain where we are now and why, it is absolutely important and directly relevant to explain where we came from as we proceed to implement this very important scheme as quickly as possible, given the bad state of affairs that Labor left behind.

Scott Ryan (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order: I believe Senator Wong was anticipating where the minister was going with an answer. I don't believe that context is always not directly relevant. I am listening carefully to the minister's answer—she's only been speaking for 34 seconds—and I'll continue to do so.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was attempting to tell the chamber, this is an absolutely massive reform in this area—probably the most massive reform that we have seen since Medicare—and it's being transitioned through. We need to remember that this is a program that requires the investment of the states through that very complicated transition.

I would remind those opposite of the Productivity Commission's recommendation that they hold it back for another year to enable the NDIA to get the program up and running—

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order on relevance, Mr President: it was not a broad question about the NDIS, its historic origins and its transition to where it is now. It was about the wait for children with a disability. It was quite specific. We've allowed the minister to provide the context; could she please now come to the substance of the question?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order on direct relevance: I know the Labor Party don't want to hear this, but the starting position that we inherited is directly relevant to the reason why we're where we are. That's why, if Labor was interested in the truth, they would let the minister answer the question.

Scott Ryan (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order: the point on direct relevance you're raising, Senator Gallagher, goes to the part of the question, I believe, where you asked why there are—

Senator Wong interjecting—

Senator Cormann interjecting—

Wait! I'm not willing to rule out a question that asks why a minister explaining material that she believes to be directly relevant—and that, in my hearing from this chair, I am not willing to say that that is not directly relevant when the question commences with 'why'.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) | Link to this | Hansard source

The reason that the waits are so long, as you put it, and have been reduced significantly under this government is the fact that 115,000 people have gone on it in the last 12 months. I will go back to my point, and that is that we inherited a program that was half built when we got it. But the problem was, as was said by the NDIA review, that basically what we inherited from those opposite was an agency that is like a plane which took off before it had been fully built and is being completed whilst it's in the air. We've completed it while it's in the air. If you'd like to have a look at what you left us—and we are delivering on the plan.

Scott Ryan (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer to nine-year-old Angus, whose family were left to transport him around the family farm in a wheelbarrow because of the delays with the NDIS providing him with a wheelchair. Yesterday the minister said, 'We should make no apology about the fact we manage our budgets appropriately.' Why is the government propping up its budget position with a $4.6 billion underspend in the NDIS, a fact confirmed by the minister in the House in question time, when children like Angus are waiting for essential equipment like this? (Time expired)

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order on the question—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Scott Ryan (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! When I can hear Senator Birmingham's point of order, I'll call him to make it. Senator Birmingham.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) | Link to this | Hansard source

Standing orders state that:

questions shall not contain:

… statements of fact or names of persons unless they are strictly necessary to render the question intelligible and can be authenticated—

As has been made plain on previous instances by Senator Ruston, this government will always receive individual cases from any member of parliament and deal with them respectfully. In this case, though, it is very clear that this person, of course, cannot be authenticated unless the opposition is willing to bring the case to the government.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Scott Ryan (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong? I'll call you when there's silence. Senator Wong, on a point of order?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) | Link to this | Hansard source

As I understand the point of order, the point of order is that there is a name in the question. The second accusation, which I do not believe is a point of order, is a suggestion that this is somehow fabricated. I'll make it clear it is not. The name is included because it is a name of a person, and we are asking questions about his circumstances and why it is that the services in a so-called demand-driven system are not being provided to him.

Scott Ryan (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann, on the point of order?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) | Link to this | Hansard source

think on this point of order it is quite reckless and irresponsible for the opposition to breach the standing order in this fashion, because the Labor Party actually does know that there is a transition underway which will lead to a full rollout of the NDIS in 2020 and that 115,000 more people are getting it now—

Scott Ryan (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann! Senator Wong, on the point of order?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order: we are not going to disrespect Australians by calling this person a 'kid'. He has a name.

Scott Ryan (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I have granted both leaders at the table some discretion, more than I grant any other senator when it comes to raising points of order. I would ask that it not be stretched further for debate across the table.

Firstly, Senator Birmingham's point of order: he correctly read out the standing order. I think it would assist senators if they are asking questions if they provided a reference, as has been done in customer practice to a media report, which allows the claim to at least be verified. This did not do that. I'm not going to rule the question out of order, because it is consistent with past practice that I can ask the minister to answer part of the question. But I will ask senators, if they are going to use examples or case studies, to keep that standing order in mind. One of the ways to address that has been to refer to a report in a media piece so at least, if the minister wished to take it on notice, there would be details. In this case, it would be very hard because I didn't hear reference to an external reference. Senator Ruston.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) | Link to this | Hansard source

At last! As I commented earlier—I feel like I almost need to pull a point of order on myself for repetition here—it is not appropriate for us to be debating an individual case in full public view in this place. If you were genuinely interested in helping out this individual case, you would bring it either to me or to Minister Robert in the other place to deal with. We don't know who this person is, because you're not identifying who they are. So to come in here—

Senator Wong interjecting—

I'll take Senator Wong saying it's not my problem. I'm actually saying, 'Yes, it is my problem,' Senator Wong. Yes, it is my problem, and I'm prepared to do something about it. But I can only do something about it if you are prepared to go through the right channels, the respectful channels, and actually demonstrate that you care about this child. You could bring the case to me and allow us to deal with this individual issue.

Scott Ryan (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) | Link to this | Hansard source

Extraordinary! My supplementary question is: Australia has the slowest growth in a decade, stagnant wages, declining productivity, record household debt, high underemployement and declining living standards. When will the government realise that short-changing Australians with a disability is not an economic policy?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) | Link to this | Hansard source

First and foremost, I absolutely reject the premise of it because we are not short-changing anybody with a disability. But the thing that's actually causing me the greatest amount of concern here is: those opposite, who profess to be the alternative government, obviously don't understand what a demand-driven system is. If you understood what a demand-driven system is, you would understand why this particular program responds to the demand. As we've heard, the actual individual amounts of money per individual program are not reducing. The individuals who are on plans are receiving almost exactly what was expected. However, because we inherited your half-built plane and we've spent the last while fixing it, we knew we were going to end up with slightly lower numbers of people coming onto the scheme. A reflection on the facts shows the number of recipients entering the scheme has been lower, but what we can say—

Scott Ryan (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Ruston.