

- Title
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
National Disability Insurance Scheme
- Database
Senate Hansard
- Date
01-11-2012
- Source
Senate
- Parl No.
43
- Electorate
- Interjector
- Page
8808
- Party
LP
- Presenter
- Status
Final
- Question No.
- Questioner
- Responder
- Speaker
Fifield, Sen Mitch
- Stage
National Disability Insurance Scheme
- Type
- Context
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
- System Id
chamber/hansards/199fb3af-7aad-4b05-9b94-c20c82cab1ce/0164
Previous Fragment Next Fragment
-
Hansard
- Start of Business
- BILLS
- PETITIONS
- NOTICES
- COMMITTEES
- BUSINESS
- COMMITTEES
- BUSINESS
- NOTICES
-
COMMITTEES
- Finance and Public Administration References Committee
- Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee
- Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee
- Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee
- Community Affairs Legislation Committee
- Community Affairs References Committee
- Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee
- MOTIONS
- BUSINESS
- MOTIONS
- DOCUMENTS
- MOTIONS
- DOCUMENTS
- MOTIONS
- BILLS
- MOTIONS
- BUDGET
- COMMITTEES
-
BILLS
- Higher Education Support Amendment (Maximum Payment Amounts and Other Measures) Bill 2012
- Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2012 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2012
- Commonwealth Government Securities Legislation Amendment (Retail Trading) Bill 2012
- Migration Legislation Amendment (Student Visas) Bill 2012
- COMMITTEES
-
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
-
Mining
(Cormann, Sen Mathias, Wong, Sen Penny) -
Health
(Marshall, Sen Gavin, Ludwig, Sen Joe) -
National Disability Insurance Scheme
(Fifield, Sen Mitch, Wong, Sen Penny) -
Environment
(Waters, Sen Larissa, Evans, Sen Christopher) -
Gambling
(Fierravanti-Wells, Sen Concetta, Evans, Sen Christopher) -
Asian Century
(Bishop, Sen Mark, Carr, Sen Bob) -
Defence Equipment
(Nash, Sen Fiona, Carr, Sen Bob) -
Renewable Energy
(Xenophon, Sen Nick, Lundy, Sen Kate) -
Broadband
(Birmingham, Sen Simon, Conroy, Sen Stephen) -
Drug Testing in Sport
(Thistlethwaite, Sen Matt, Lundy, Sen Kate)
-
Mining
- QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
- COMMITTEES
- DOCUMENTS
- AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
- BILLS
- DOCUMENTS
- COMMITTEES
- BILLS
- MOTIONS
- BILLS
-
DOCUMENTS
- Australian War Memorial
- AusAID
- NBN Co. Limited
- Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
- Australia Post
- Australian Institute of Family Studies
- Repatriation Commission, Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, Department of Veterans' Affairs
- Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities
- DOCUMENTS
- PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
- COMMITTEES
- BILLS
-
COMMITTEES
- Constitutional Recognition of Local Government Joint Select Committee
- Constitutional Recognition of Local Government Committee
- Electricity Prices Committee
- Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee
- Gambling Reform Committee
- Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee
- COMMITTEES
- AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
- ADJOURNMENT
- DOCUMENTS
-
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
-
Fair Work Act (Question No. 1990)
(Abetz, Sen Eric, Wong, Sen Penny) -
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (Question No. 2131)
(Siewert, Sen Rachel, Conroy, Sen Stephen) -
Budget Estimates: Question No. EW0292_13 (Question No. 2160)
(Abetz, Sen Eric, Wong, Sen Penny) -
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (Question No. 2164)
(Waters, Sen Larissa, Conroy, Sen Stephen) -
Medical Services Advisory Committee (Question Nos 2167 and 2168)
(Abetz, Sen Eric, Ludwig, Sen Joe) -
Employment Participation and Child Care (Question No. 2227)
(Siewert, Sen Rachel, Wong, Sen Penny) -
Medicare (Question No. 2381)
(Cash, Sen Michaelia, Ludwig, Sen Joe)
-
Fair Work Act (Question No. 1990)
Page: 8808
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (15:04): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senator Fifield today relating to a National Disability Insurance Scheme.
For me, this was a particularly disappointing question time. As you know, Mr Deputy President, the National Disability Insurance Scheme is something that I have championed and something that this side of the chamber is extremely supportive of. We have entered a strange period when a question seeking factual information in relation to the NDIS cannot be asked without getting a partisan barrage in return. This is extremely disappointing because most senators would have hoped that the issue of the National Disability Insurance Scheme is one that could have been elevated beyond partisan politics. In fact, to that end, I have previously submitted a motion to the Senate seeking to establish a joint parliamentary committee, to be chaired by both sides of politics, to oversee the implementation of the NDIS. The purpose of that joint parliamentary committee would be to have an oversight mechanism that would span several parliaments, because the implementation of a full NDIS would indeed span several parliaments. It would be a forum where questions in relation to design, eligibility and funding of the NDIS could be asked, and could be asked in a way and in a forum that was not seen to be partisan.
That is one of the problems at the moment. Any time a factual, straightforward question seeking information is asked, whether it be in this chamber or in Senate estimates, all that comes back is the accusation that the opposition is being partisan. We get the accusation that the opposition is being petty, the accusation that the opposition is seeking to treat the NDIS as a political issue—and nothing could be further from the truth.
Australians with disability and their families and the organisations that support them and advocate for them have many questions in relation to the NDIS. They expect those questions to be put in the Australian parliament and I am putting those questions on behalf of them. The question which they ask time and again is: how does the government reconcile the funding profile outlined in the Productivity Commission's landmark report? How do they reconcile that with the $1 billion in the last budget, which is a quarter of what the Productivity Commission said was necessary to establish the first phase of the NDIS? The budget is also silent about funding beyond the launch sites, silent about how the NDIS will be given effect through to 2018-19 and beyond.
This is a reasonable question to ask. In asking it, I should make clear that the opposition fully and warmly supports the $1 billion in the last budget. We fully and warmly support the five launch sites which have been announced. We hope that they are a success. We want the NDIS to be a success and we want it to happen. What we do not want to see are launch sites that are stranded because of lack of funding. What we do not want to see are hopes raised only to have them not fulfilled because of a lack of provision in the budget.
It is my earnest hope that full provision is made by the current government for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. That is what my questions were directed to. We know that that funding was not there, the full funding of it in the budget. We know it was not there in the MYEFO. My question to the minister was quite genuine. It was: at the time when Minister Macklin introduces into the parliament the legislation to give effect to the national disability insurance transition agency, will the minister announce the full funding for the National Disability Insurance Scheme? It would make sense that when you are introducing legislation to give effect to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, at the same time there would be a commitment and certainty about funding. That has not yet been outlined. I would expect and hope, and I call on the government to provide funding certainty at the time that that legislation is introduced into the parliament.
Australians with a disability and their families are looking for that funding certainty. The opposition want to see that funding certainty, and we hope that our hand at bipartisanship is not rejected again. (Time expired)