11 August, 2011
ABC News 24
With Lyndal Curtis
10 August 2011
5:15pm
E & OE
Subject: Release of the Productivity Commission’s Final Report into disability care and support
LYNDAL CURTIS:
Senator Mitch Fifield, welcome to ABC 24.
MITCH FIFIELD:
Thanks Lyndal.
CURTIS:
Are you supportive of the Productivity Commission’s recommendations for a National Disability Insurance Scheme?
FIFIELD:
There’s no doubt that Australia’s system of support for people with a disability is broken. The status quo isn’t an option. We’ve been strongly supportive of the work of the Productivity Commission, and they’ve put forward some good models. They’ve given us a glimpse as to what a better future for Australians with a disability might look like.
CURTIS:
Their preferred model is to have the Commonwealth as the sole funder of the scheme, effectively taking over some funding responsibilities from the states. They say a system where the responsibility is shared between the Commonwealth and the states would not be as good an option. Do you favour the single funder model?
FIFIELD:
It’s an attractive model that the Productivity Commission have put forward. But ultimately this needs the agreement of the states and territories, so it’s important for the Commonwealth to sit down with the states and territories. This is really where the hard work starts. Up until now it’s just been theory. Now the Commonwealth does need to sit down and nut through a model and find an agreement that the states and territories can sign up to.
CURTIS:
What should be the priority for the states; getting the best scheme in place for those people with disability and their families, or protecting some of their own patch?
FIFIELD:
I don’t think states are going to be particularly proprietorial. Some of the states are understandably concerned that this current Commonwealth Government has a pretty lousy track record when it comes to taking over new areas of responsibility, and that they’ve also got a pretty ordinary track record when it comes to significant reform. So I think the states are quite sensible to be a little wary as they approach this. But that shouldn’t be confused with a lack of good will on the part of state governments. Andrew Constance and Mary Wooldridge have been champions for a new and better deal and I think they appreciate that there’s a need for a role for the Commonwealth here. But still I think they’re understandably a little weary about this Government’s capacity.
CURTIS:
This is a very long-term reform. The Productivity Commission says it will take seven years to put it in place. Do you think it’s best that the Government gets bipartisan support for a scheme so whatever government is in place in two elections’ time, they will continue the reform rather than reinventing the wheel?
FIFIELD:
We’ve sought to bring a non-partisan approach to the area of disabilities, because people with disability and their families have a very low threshold, understandably, when it comes to political point-scoring in this area. So we’re looking to be constructive, we’re looking to find a way through. There is quite a lag before any proposed national arrangement would be fully operational.
I think it’s fair to observe that this Government has more haste and desire to introduce a carbon tax they seem to be able to get that up pretty quick smart but this sort of reform that we’re talking about here for Australians with a disability seems to take a little longer. Now, I readily concede that this is a very complex area, that the need is great and that the detail has to be worked through. But the Government does seem a little keener for some so-called reform than for others.
CURTIS:
But wasn’t it in fact a recommendation of the Productivity Commission for it to take this long? To in fact hasten slowly with it?
FIFIELD:
Sure, that’s the time frame of the Productivity Commission. I’m just making the observation that the Government does seem keener to push the envelope in some areas than others.
CURTIS:
And finally, the Government hasn’t yet signed up to the pilot schemes the Commission has recommended be in place in 2014. Do you think that they should?
FIFIELD:
I think it’s important with reform of this magnitude that there are some test-beds, that there are some launch sites I think that’s a pretty sensible recommendation by the Productivity Commission. It’s one that I know New South Wales and Victoria are quite keen about. But I also think it’s worth observing in this area that the sort of figures that we’re talking about – $6.5 billion of unmet need -that’s about what the current Government spends on their annual Commonwealth Government debt interest bill. If this Government hadn’t wasted money on school halls or pink batts or the green loans schemes, there would actually be enough money there today to fix this once and for all. So we’re going to be watching closely. We want to see this area fixed but we will still be bringing appropriate scrutiny to bear, and to make sure also that the Government doesn’t use the prospect of a new national arrangement as an excuse not to improve disability services in the meantime.
CURTIS:
Mitch Fifield, thank you very much for your time.
FIFIELD:
Thanks Lyndal.
ENDS