Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Specialist disability accommodation, SDA, delivers specialised housing support for Australians with very high needs and is designed to attract private market investment. Under the scheme, the government asks private investors to build small-scale, customised houses and will pay investors about $110,000 per year for each eligible person who moves in. But, as we learned from ABC's Four Corners program last night, the scheme is being rorted by dodgy developers ripping off mum and dad investors. These Australians thought they were doing the right thing, the ethical thing, and they ended up losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in the process while many disabled people still don't have suitable houses to live in. Minister, how many SDA houses have been built, and how many of these houses are unoccupied at this point in time?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks for the question, Senator Lambie. It's an important subject. I'll address the first part of your question. My heart really does go out to those investors who have had a tough time here. These were people, as you indicated, who thought they were making an ethical investment and who, in some cases, have seen their life savings disappear. There are unfortunately some people active in this market and in other investment markets that come to mum and dad investors and give them information that simply is not true. And, in all cases, whether it's in this market or others, investors should contact ASIC if they're concerned that an investment scheme has engaged in misleading behaviour or misappropriated investor funds.

My message to mum and dad investors out there looking to invest in specialist disability accommodation is that, if someone says something that sounds like it's too good to be true, it probably is. Specialist disability accommodation investments are not government backed. Occupancy is not guaranteed. The NDIS seeks to give participants choice and control. That includes choice and control over their living arrangements. So, when the NDIS funds SDA for eligible participants, those participants can choose the accommodation that works for them in a location they want to live. Unsurprisingly, NDIS participants, like most other Australians, want to choose the housing and the service options that work for them—close to community, close to services, close to supports. So the Four Corners program is really important. I want to thank them and acknowledge the work they've done that has focused on specific providers and practices, because that's what good public interest journalism looks like.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lambie, first supplementary?

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The NDA had oversight of the SDA rollout, but over a thousand empty homes, according to the ABC, are being built in new suburbs far from services. I noticed that you just said, 'close to community' and 'supports'. That's not what's happening. So what consultation protocols are actually in place to make sure that these homes are appropriate for disabled Australians and that they are built in locations close to the services that they require?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

():  Thanks, Senator Lambie. It's very important to be clear about this. The NDIA doesn't build or own or commission specialist disability accommodation. The upfront investment of buying or building an SDA dwelling is borne by the owner or the investor, and investment in this market, like in any other market, carries risk. Prospective investors should seek independent legal and financial advice and carefully assess the information being provided to them by the proponents of these investment schemes. The NDIA's role is to create a market that is sustainable and that provides genuine options and choice for participants and ensures continuity of supports for eligible participants.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lambie, second supplementary?

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I see. I hope the minister accepts now that giving the market free reign isn't working. Will she commit to properly regulating the SDA scheme to keep the dodgy developers out and protect the mum and dad investors, who, by way of doing this and not doing it properly, she has probably lost along the way? We have a problem here. We're certainly not going to just sit here and talk gabble. Are we going to take some action and do something about it? What action are we taking?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Responsibility for managing investments and making sure that investors get accurate information about prospective investments for them lies with ASIC. ASIC has been taking action in relation to some of the cases that are before them and that you saw on the program last night. The NDIA, of course, wants people in this market to have good information, and so earlier this year, in July, updated information was provided about SDA investment considerations for investors. That advice directs investments to government agencies that can give advice or support to resolve issues that may come about for people who've invested in SDA. That's work that has been undertaken in consultation with the commission; with ASIC, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission; and the ACCC. We want all of our markets—this one and a whole range of other investment markets—to work well, to be transparent and to be conducted honestly in the interests of investors.