ABC Tasmania Mornings with Sarah Gillman
GILLMAN:
Senator Mitch Fifield is the Assistant Minister for Social Services, and he joins us now. Good morning.
FIFIELD:
Good morning Sarah.
GILLMAN:
You’ve accused the Premier of playing politics with the NDIS. And you say that the Federal Government, the Abbott Government, has full support for the NDIS.
FIFIELD:
Absolutely. The Federal Coalition, when in opposition, supported each milestone along the road to the NDIS. Our commitment has been unequivocal. And I, as the Minister responsible for the NDIS, am determined to see it fully implemented.
But, I’ve got to say, I’ve been very disappointed that Lara Giddings has followed Bill Shorten’s lead in trying to make the NDIS an issue of partisanship, and trying to unnecessarily cause concern to people with disabilities and their families. It’s not fair. This should be an area that is above partisan politics.
GILLMAN:
Is it just the politicians, though, who have raised concerns? My understanding is even people within the sector have raised some concerns about the future of the NDIS.
FIFIELD:
There have been people in the sector who’ve raised concerns, but they’ve primarily been responding to comments by the Opposition and by the current Tasmanian Labor Government.
I think one of the good features out of the last Federal Parliament – and it wasn’t a particularly elegant parliament – but one of the good things out of it was that all parties came together to support the NDIS. No one saw it as an opportunity to seek to gain political advantage. And I think all parties should come together and say we’re committed to the NDIS, we want it to work, we want to deliver it and we’re going to set this aside from the day to day political ruck.
GILLMAN:
Tasmania became involved as a launch site for the NDIS, particularly in regards to young Tasmanians with a disability. I noticed that, and this is something that the Premier has raised, that the wording around ‘launch site’ has changed. It’s now become a ‘trial site’, and she’s raised concerns about the significance of that.
FIFIELD:
I think it’s a bit of a semantic game that she’s playing. It’s important to recognise that it was at the last COAG meeting – which is made up of the Heads of all Australian governments, State and Federal, Liberal and Labor -that that the decision was actually taken to use the phrase ‘trial’ rather than ‘launch’.
And the reason for that is simple: the Productivity Commission – when they recommended that the NDIS be launched in a series of geographic locations – they said that the purpose is to seek to learn lessons from these sites before moving to full national roll-out. And so the Heads of Government thought it was important to reemphasise the need to learn from these sites before going to full roll-out. And that’s why the Premiers – Labor and Liberal – and the Prime Minister said, ‘let’s refer to them as trial sites’, because we want to make sure that we’re making adjustments that are needed from these sites before going to full roll-out. And that’s the whole intention of these sites.
GILLMAN:
Some of the information that you have been getting back from the sites is that the average package costs are about 30 per cent higher than anticipated. Are those high costs sustainable?
FIFIELD:
Well, it’s important to recognise that it’s the early days of the Scheme. We’ve only had one quarter, the first quarter, of results from the launch sites, the trial sites. And what that shows is that package costs are higher than what was anticipated. But it’s early days.
But that’s not a reason not to ask the questions as to why that is the case. That’s just being a good manager of the Scheme. And that’s a body of work that the Board of the NDIS Agency is undertaking. And it’s also work that the Council of Australian Governments – again, all governments, Liberal and Labor – asked the NDIS to undertake.
GILLMAN:
Do you have any understanding of why those costs might be higher than anticipated? Is it due to the bureaucracy, the administration or maybe the setting up costs? Or is it just the actual delivery of the services?
FIFIELD:
Look, it could be some unique factors in the launch sites. It could be some unique characteristics of those people who are coming into the Scheme early. But that’s something that we’ll get advice on and that will be broken down.
GILLMAN:
Once you have that advice, how will that sit within the context of the broader Government review of spending? We know that Joe Hockey as the Treasurer is looking at ways to cut Government spending in order to bring the Budget back into surplus. How will higher, or blowouts in something like the NDIS, how will that fit within that bigger review?
FIFIELD:
Well, we’re determined, as a Government – as are all shareholder governments in the NDIS – to see that the Scheme is as efficient as it possibly can be. And what that means is making sure that the dollars get through to the people who need the support. And we’re also determined to make sure that the Scheme operates within the announced funding envelope, which again, all governments have committed to. And at full roll-out, that funding envelope is about $22 billion. So I think with all governments working together, we can deliver the Scheme within the funding envelope. And that’s the objective.
GILLMAN:
As you say, the total roll-out cost is $22 billion. I think I saw somewhere that that’s up into the leagues of defence spending. Has there been any discussion at all about possibly down the track, privatising the NDIS? Or going the way — as the Howard Government did in terms of employment services — of breaking them down, and rather than having them under one big bureaucracy, putting them out to private providers?
FIFIELD:
The NDIS in its design is all about contestability. And where the contestability happens is the individual participant in the NDIS Scheme gets their entitlement, and they can then take that to the service provider of their choice, be it a not-for-profit provider, or be it a private provider. So that is the current design of the Scheme. We want to have maximum power in the hands of the individual.
So when Labor talks about fears of privatising the Scheme, it’s a moot point. Because the essence of the Scheme is in the hands of the individual choosing the provider of their choice. And in fact, there are some different models in place in different sites around Australia. In Tasmania, you have not-for-profit providers who are in fact acting as the gateway for the Scheme. So Labor are seeking to run a scare campaign, but it’s a moot point. The power is going to be in the hands of the individual and they’re going to have the choice.
GILLMAN:
So, essentially, at the end of the day, while you are saying that you are asking for reasons why the costs might be high, you are still committed to the funding and the roll-out by 2019.
FIFIELD:
There are a series of agreements which are in place between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories and we are honouring those.
GILLMAN:
Good to talk to you, thanks for your time this morning.
FIFIELD:
Thanks Sarah.