Transcript – 5RPH Radio Adelaide – 30 November 2011

5RPH Radio Adelaide

Phillip Beddall and Trevor Harrison

30 November 2011

7:30pm

E & OE

PHILLIP BEDDALL:

Joining me now on the line we have Senator Mitch Fifield to talk about the Government’s mini-budget. Senator Mitch Fifield is the shadow minister for disability and carers. Senator, good to speak to you again. From the federal opposition’s point of view, there’s obviously not enough for people with disabilities in this mini-budget. What would you have liked to seen? More for the NDIS?

MITCH FIFIELD:

What I was calling for was for the Government to commit money to an NDIS in their mini-budget yesterday. One of the good features of federal politics over the last few years has been that both the Opposition and the Government have been jointly pushing for the idea of a National Disability Insurance Scheme. The disabilities portfolio is, I think, the one portfolio where partisanship is pretty readily put aside, which is as it should be. But what I was really hoping for is that the Government would actually put money to match their fine words, and that support for an NDIS would shift from being just in-principle to something more concrete.

BEDDALL:

In their mini-budget statement, they did say that they’ve put $9.7 million towards some technical work for the NDIS. Are these figures rubbery, or are these figures legitimate from where you sit?

FIFIELD:

The $9.7 million figure for technical work which you refer to – that was announced at the time that the Productivity Commission’s Final Report was released. I welcome the technical work, but even that $9.7 million isn’t new money. It’s money that’s being redirected from elsewhere in the disabilities portfolio. So the reality is that there is not one dollar that’s been committed to an NDIS. So I think people with disability and their families are entitled to start being a little cynical about whether the Government really is committed to an NDIS.

TREVOR HARRISON:

Senator, it’s a bit scary – because this is exactly what I’ve been saying. People with disability have been promised change for so long, given the very little they’ve got right now. And our major concern has been that the states will see it as a way out – and now your last suggestion suggests that other services may be cut to start to implement the NDIS. That’s pretty scary.

FIFIELD:

It is a bit scary, Trevor. I think one thing that we’ve got to guard against is that the prospect of an NDIS on the horizon isn’t used as an excuse by state governments to stop investing in disability services. I guess the thing that I find frustrating is that the Government can find $16 billion for school halls, and billions of dollars for home insulation, but when it comes to disability, it always seems to be a little bit too hard. For me, the great irony is that the amount the Government is currently spending on its annual interest bill on its debt is going to be over $6.8 billion in the next financial year. I say that’s ironic, because that’s roughly the amount of money that the Productivity Commission says needs to be found to meet unmet need for Australians with disability. So I think the Government has a problem with its priorities. It can find money for a lot of unnecessary spending. I think it’s time that they found the money for disabilities.

BEDDALL:

What about the rollout of the NDIS and the transitional process? It seems to be a long time until the NDIS gets put on the ground. There’ll be some pilot programs, but it is a long time between drinks and it’s a long time to wait if you’re in crisis and needing a service at the moment. Does there need to be more done, from you sit, around the transitional arrangements, trying to get it rolled out sooner rather than later?

FIFIELD:

Everyone wants to see an NDIS sooner rather than later. I’m the first to concede that it’s a big venture. It’s a massive organisational venture to give effect to better services for people with disability. And that takes time. So I can understand that we’re talking about a matter of years to get an NDIS up and running. But I think all of us want to see it happen sooner rather than later, and the first step should have been for the Government to commit real money to it in their mini-budget.

BEDDALL:

One of the pressures that governments of all persuasions face is to bring their budgets into surplus. Would you as the opposition’s spokesperson support the delaying of coming into surplus to meet these disability requirements? Is that something the Government should look at?

FIFIELD:

I think that the budget should come back into surplus. The opposition is committed, if we form government, to getting the budget back into surplus. The reason for that is when you continue to borrow money – and this government’s last four budget deficits have accumulated to $167 billion – when you borrow money, you’ve got to pay that money back and you’ve got to pay it back with interest. Every dollar that is spent on interest is a dollar that’s spent on nothing. So you’re actually reducing the things that you can spend money on in the long-term and the medium-term when you borrow massive amounts of money. I think that the real issue here is that the Government have their priorities wrong. They can find money for schools halls, as I said, but to date they haven’t been able to find real money for disability. So I think they’ve got to change their priorities.

Just moving on quickly to another topic. Today a report was released looking into the OECD countries – and we’re 21^st out of 27 when it comes to disability – not a very good report card. What needs to be done to rectify this situation or improve this situation.

FIFIELD:

You’re right, it was a concerning report by PWC. And again, some good work done by John Walsh, who’s done such a terrific job in the Productivity Commission and pushing for a better deal for people with disabilities. It was a concerning report – that in Australia, you’re far more likely if you have a disability to be in poverty than you are in almost any other developed country. And we’re in the bottom third of developed countries when it comes to disability employment. So I think what that tells us is that the NDIS, although an important part of the puzzle, isn’t the solution for everything. We still need to put a big effort in to change community attitudes when it comes to jobs for people with disability. We also need to make sure that we provide good support for people with disability when they are in the jobs market. When people with disability do find themselves in positions of poverty, often that’s because they have to put their hand in the pocket for all sorts of things which other members of the community don’t, and that’s really where an NDIS will come into play. It will provide people with some of the basic support that they need to participate in the community. So it’s part of the answer but not the complete answer.

BEDDALL:

The cost of disability can be enormous, as someone with very high needs.

FIFIELD:

Absolutely. If people are on income support, that income support isn’t designed to provide people with aids and equipment or other assistance they might need. That’s something which is extra, and that’s something that needs to be provided through an NDIS.

BEDDALL:

What should be the Federal Government’s top priority at the moment in terms of disabilities and carers, Mitch?

FIFIELD:

The top priority should be putting real money towards an NDIS. It’s good that there’s a commitment to it in-principle. It’s good that technical work is being done. It’s good that there’s a bureaucratic process in place to reach agreement with the states and territories and to nut out the fine detail of an NDIS. But what’s lacking is the real dollars, and that’s what I would have hoped to see in the mini-budget.

BEDDALL:

Mitch Fifield, thanks very much for your time tonight.

FIFIELD:

Thanks very much guys.

That was Senator Mitch Fifield, the Shadow Minister federally for disabilities and carers.

ENDS