Michael Sukkar MP

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2023-24 – Consideration in Detail – National Disability Insurance Scheme

In October the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme announced a review of the NDIS to improve the wellbeing of Australians with disability and the scheme’s sustainability, as we now find out. The independent review, we’re told, was established to look at the design, operations and sustainability of the NDIS, even though the then shadow minister never claimed that there were any issues with sustainability and indeed criticised the government of the day for talking about the sustainability of the NDIS. NDIS participants and taxpayers eagerly want to hear how the government will specifically tackle the worsening challenges for the NDIS and sadly have been left none the wiser following the minister’s address to the Press Club in April.

In Senate estimates we learned that the NDIS was not consulted—a stunning admission in the Senate estimates—regarding the imposition of the arbitrary annual NDIS growth cap of eight per cent. The government came to the conclusion that the annual growth cap on the total cost would be no more than eight per cent by 1 July 2026, without any explanation of how these cuts to the growth of the scheme would be achieved and indeed who would lose out as a result of those cuts. The independent review panel is to deliver a final report to disability reform ministers by no later than the end of October 2023, yet 12 months down the track the Labor government has shown no signs of progress or findings, sadly leaving hundreds of thousands of participants in limbo and in fear of losing access to their funding under the scheme, particularly families with a child with an autism diagnosis.

Since coming into government, Labor has made a serious habit of outsourcing problems, and, in this case, it seems that the independent review is doing all the heavy lifting. Since the announcement of the review, the government and minister have repeatedly used the review as cover for inaction. All we’ve heard is the minister making his usual motherhood statements, identifying issues and never offering any solutions. It was announced that the head of NDIS review secretariat, Mr James Kelly, a highly respected and regarded Treasury public servant, would lead the review secretariat. My questions for the minister in relation to the PM&C are as follows: please outline the selection process that led to Mr Kelly’s appointment to the NDIS secretariat. Mr Kelly is no longer leading the secretariat, leaving very unexpectedly and surprisingly in March this year. What are the events that led to Mr Kelly’s departure from the secretariat after only eight months? Who decided that Mr Kelly would be leaving his role within the NDIS review secretariat? Did the review co-chairs have any involvement in Mr Kelly’s departure, and, if so, please outline that involvement? Was Mr Kelly given the opportunity to remain in his role within the secretariat? Please outline the process which led to the selection of Mr Kelly’s replacement, Mr David Hazlehurst. How many public servants are working with the review, and what are their APS band levels? What appropriation has been provided for the review? Please also provide a breakdown of the costs associated with the review.

We are told the review is due to report in October 2023. Is it still on target to report in that time frame? As of 1 June, how many submissions have been received by the secretariat? Please provide a breakdown of the submission types between written, audio and video. As of 1 June, how many direct consultations have been held, and how many are still to be held before the review is set to conclude? For each of the consultations, please also provide details of where the venue was and the number of attendees that were involved. As of 1 June, how many NDIS webinars have taken place, and how many participants have taken part in each of the webinars? Mr Deputy Speaker, as you can see from all of these questions, precious little is known at this stage about staffing of the review and indeed the circumstances of Mr James Kelly’s departure from the review.

We want answers, and we want confirmation that the review, so much of which is being relied upon by the government, is set to deliver its findings by October this year, as promised.