Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) | Link to this | Hansard source

The government continues to reiterate its view that it cannot agree with the assertions made in this motion. We do, however, acknowledge the interest in the chamber in reforming the NDIS to get it back on track and ensure its sustainability for future generations of Australians. I also acknowledge the recent commitment by the Leader of the Opposition to working together with the government to this end.

On 8 February 2024, the government tabled the final report of the Independent Review into the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which was publicly released in December 2023. In producing this report, the independent NDIS review panel travelled to every state and territory, including regional and remote communities. It heard directly from more than 10,000 Australians, worked with disability organisations to reach out and listen to more than 1,000 people with disability and their families, recorded more than 2,000 personal stories and received almost 4,000 submissions.

The review delivered 26 recommendations and 139 supporting actions to respond to its terms of reference. In delivering its recommendations, the review provided exhaustive analysis and proposals to improve the operation, effectiveness and sustainability of the NDIS. The independent NDIS review panel has said that its reforms can improve the scheme and meet National Cabinet's annual growth target of no more than eight per cent growth by 1 July 2026. Discussions have continued with senators across this chamber, as well as members in the other place, to address questions about the government's NDIS reform agenda that it is pursuing together with the disability community. We look forward to working with senators in this place to get the NDIS back on track and ensure its sustainability for future generations of Australians.

In relation to the order being discussed, the government has previously outlined that we have claimed public interest immunity over the requested documents, as disclosure would prejudice relations between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. The Minister representing the Treasurer has already tabled key documents for the benefit of the Senate in addition to the aforementioned review.

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

We've heard that response from the minister representing the government on this so many times that I think I could repeat it verbatim, and the same issues and absences of engagement persist this time, as they have done with every single statement. The government claims public interest immunity. However, it does not detail the way in which the relationship with the state and territory governments will be prejudiced by the release of this information. The government claims to have released key documents in relation to the request of the Senate. The documents they've released are irrelevant to the questions that we are seeking to get answers to, and I believe the government knows that. The government's response references the NDIS review, a review to which they have not formally responded. The government references their commitment to the NDIS and to collaboration and consultation despite progressing the largest legislative changes to the scheme through the parliament with the barest minimum of consultation through closed-door processes and with the aid of non-disclosure agreements. At this point, the statement from the government is little more than a joke.

The reality is that the National Disability Insurance Scheme matters to the lives of the 660,000 participants who rely upon it for vital support. It exists as a national embodiment of our collective community's commitment to doing right by disabled people and their families. There are many people in this chamber with whom I have deep political disagreements and who have deep political disagreements with me. Yet we are able to find common cause in the idea that, when changes are made to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, they should be thoroughly and properly scrutinised by the parliament on behalf of the Australian people, particularly those who are disabled and their families, allies and organisations.

The way in which the government has engaged with the NDIS since coming to office has been so much less than the collaboration and co-design that they promised at the election. Because of the vast gap between what was promised and what has been delivered, you see a rising fury in the disability community. The government should know the power that exists in the community and in the alliance between disabled people, their parents, their allies, their organisations and the allied health professionals who provide them with services, equipment and supports, because it is that alliance that successfully prevented the previous government from advancing its own set of so-called reform proposals that would have done great harm to the disability community.

Basic pieces of information about the government's intention in relation to this scheme, the government's intention in relation to the current bill before the Senate and the positions of the states and territories are not known to this Senate. The basic financial assumptions committed to by state and territory ministers when they came together and agreed to the framework are not known to the Senate or to the community. The impact of the amendments offered by the government to the legislation is not known to the community or to the Senate, because the government continually dropped them at the last minute, providing no ability or time to thoroughly scrutinise them. And the position of the states and territories, in detail and individually, in relation to the bill is not known to the community or to the Senate, because they were not called as witnesses during the 2½ days of hearings into the bill that we were able to extract from the government.

So there is an extension to the inquiry to enable us to get to the bottom of that information and to scrutinise, because that is our job as a senate. If that inconveniences individual members of the government, then, tough. Our job is not to represent the views of the government, nor to rubber stamp their legislation; it is to scrutinise on behalf of community affected by legislation. (Time expired)

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, here we are again. I have to commend Senator Steele-John, because this is an area where he does want to see some scrutiny. Unfortunately, we've just seen another guillotine hours motion from the government because they can't manage the chamber, once again supported by the Greens to cut scrutiny, but at least in one area the Greens are keen on a bit of scrutiny: the NDIS. They are not so keen on scrutiny relating to sheep or farmers in WA: 'See you later. We can get rid of your work conditions, your jobs and your industry.' But, when it comes to the NDIS, at least the Greens will stand up for a bit of scrutiny when we're ignored by this government.

And why are we ignored by this government? Why are we here? For the benefit of those in the gallery, the reason we're here is that the government has said it's going to cap growth of the NDIS but we don't know how. We don't know how they're going to cap the growth. Apparently, the states are going to come to the party and roll out these foundational supports—all the supports that they stopped delivering when the NDIS came into play, because the NDIS was basically like a plane built once it had taken off. The Labor government under Bill Shorten, now Minister for the NDIS, and former Prime Minister Julia Gillard were so keen to get this NDIS up and running. They had bipartisan support and could have taken the opportunity to actually map it out, but no. They had to get it up in the air—a plane that was not built yet. One of the factors with that was that the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, said to the states: 'Don't worry. It doesn't matter how much the scheme grows. The Commonwealth is going to pick up the tab outside of what you contribute.' So the states went: 'You beauty! Let's get rid of all the community health services that we delivered—no more community OTs or community speech therapists.' Any of those supports are gone. As for local psychologists, we don't have them anymore under the community health system, because the states vacated the field.

But then it got worse, because all of a sudden in education, on supports that are the responsibility of the state government to make sure that kids can go to school and are supported appropriately, the NDIS comes in and the education departments go: 'Ripper! We don't have to fund those anymore, because we're just going to tell parents, "Get more NDIS funding, and you can do it all after school."' So we're seeing continually rising rates of school refusal. We know that in the classrooms there are kids who need supports and are actually disrupting classrooms, not being supported and not being able to access the appropriate education. Don't worry about that, though, because the Gillard NDIS was going to pick up the tab for everything!

So we've now got to this point. When we were in government, we said: 'There are sustainability issues here. This thing is getting too big, too quickly, with too many people and services, and we cannot keep paying for this at the rate that it's going.' 'No, no, no,' said then shadow minister Bill Shorten. He said that we were pearl-clutching kabuki theatre players: 'There's no problem with the sustainability. It's all good. ' So then Minister Shorten comes in, finally has a look at the books of the NDIS, and says, 'Oops, this is getting bigger than Ben Hur, and there are sustainability issues.' So Minister Shorten's now decided that he's going to cap the growth of the NDIS. How do you cap a demand-driven scheme? You cap it with the number of participants or you cap it with what the costs of their plans are. We don't know, because this government will not provide the financial modelling that allowed it to make the claim of an eight per cent growth cap.

But what's even worse is that we're currently looking at a bill. The only reason we're still looking at the bill is that we managed to get through the Senate an extension of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill, which had previously had 2½ days of hearings. We have very kindly been granted another two days of hearings, so there will be 4½ days of hearings in total for some of the biggest reforms to the NDIS, which is life-changing for 660,000 Australians and their families. But we are being denied the financial modelling, because it will somehow upset the relationship with the states. Well, let me tell you: we're going to hear from the states during those two days, because we're going to find out what foundational supports they think they've been signed up to—because they don't know. You've only got to listen to every education minister, premier and health minister at a state level—even the justice ministers at a state level. They don't know. A lot of these states have just had budgets, and guess how much money went into NDIS foundational supports: zero. So to every single NDIS participant and their family I say: we will keep coming back until we get some answers. (Time expired)

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the Senate take note of the minister's explanation.

A division having been called and the b e lls being rung—

There has been a request to cancel the vote. We will cease ringing the bells, and we will cancel the vote.

Question agreed to.