Transcript – Joint Press Conference with Kevin Andrews MP – 14 May 2012

THE HON KEVIN ANDREWS MP
Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services

SENATOR MITCH FIFIELD
Shadow Minister for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector
Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate

JOINT PRESS CONFERENCE
Melbourne
14 May 2012
10:15am

 

E&OE

Kevin Andrews

Ladies and gentlemen: Thank you for coming out this morning.

Senator Fifield and I wish to address two related matters. The first is the concessions of the Gillard government over the weekend that the long term funding providing for the National Disability Insurance Scheme is simply not in place and not there. This raises real questions about the government in terms of the spin rather than the substance which is required to put what is a very worthy initiative into place.

I’ll ask Senator Fifield to say a few more things about that in a moment, but the second and related concession is the reality that the government’s revenue in this year because of the revenue from the mining tax may not be what has been forecast. This of course places the whole budget situation in a very precarious situation. What we have is within a week the total untangling of this government’s budget. The revenue is not there, they’re not aiming at the NDIS but a whole range of other measures which this government is announcing in this budget that are in danger of not being delivered. This, in addition, shows why that just splashing cash around, rather than using it on worthy initiatives like the NDIS, is something which is quite irresponsible on the part of the government, but I’ll hand over to Senator Fifield to say a few more words about the NDIS.

Mitch Fifield

Thanks Kevin.

Penny Wong confirmed at the weekend that the government is flying in the dark when it comes to the introduction of a National Disability Insurance Scheme. The government have allocated only a quarter of the funds over the next four years of which the Productivity Commission said were necessary to introduce an NDIS, and the government have given no indication as to where the additional funds will come from. Penny Wong has essentially also declared war against the States in relation to an NDIS, seeking to make them the scapegoat. The States have, for the best part of a year, sought to have discussions with the Federal government about the governance arrangements and funding arrangements for an NDIS, both at COAG and at ministerial councils. The federal government has consistently refused to talk to the States about funding. The States, given that they have the bulk of responsibility for disability services at the moment, they should not be the last people the Commonwealth talks to. They should be the first person the Commonwealth talks to.

The Opposition has sought to put an NDIS above partisan politics. Tony Abbott and myself, before the budget, called upon the Prime Minister to institute a cross party parliamentary committee to be chaired by the frontbenchers of both sides of politics. The purpose of that committee would be to provide a non-partisan oversight for the implementation of the NDIS, to put it above partisan politics. An NDIS will span many parliaments in terms of its introduction. We wait for the Prime Minister to accept that offer. To date she hasn’t, Mr Abbott has written to the Prime Minister a second time and still that offer hasn’t been accepted. The government do need to sit down and talk to the States, and they do need to make clear how they seek to meet the Productivity Commission’s timeline for the introduction of an NDIS.

Question

Will the Coalition in government be including the entire tranche of funding for the forward estimates when it submits its costings?

Mitch Fifield

Tony Abbott said before the budget that we expected that there would be money in the budget for an NDIS and that if there was we would support it. In terms of the Commonwealth contribution to an NDIS as a whole, the starting point has got to be discussion with the States. You can’t know what the required Commonwealth contribution will be until such time as there is discussion with the States and agreement about the apportionment between the Commonwealth and the other jurisdictions.

Question

Do you agree with the Productivity Commission recommendation that the funding should be provided entirely by the Commonwealth?

Mitch Fifield

Well the Productivity Commission indicated that the States do have some difficulty with their revenue and funding significant projects. The Productivity Commission wasn’t unequivocal as to what the funding share and allocation should be. They canvassed a number of options. The important thing is for the Commonwealth to sit down and have those discussions with the States so that the funding shares between the Commonwealth and the States can be determined.

Question

From memory though they didn’t suggest that the most efficient way of funding was out of federal revenues rather than State revenues?

Mitch Fifield

The Productivity Commission did indicate that they had a disposition, but they did canvass a number of options. The Productivity Commission also made it clear that they think that funding should be from core government revenue, that there shouldn’t be the need for any additional levy and I note that Penny Wong didn’t rule out the possibility of a levy. The issue isn’t that the Commonwealth doesn’t tax enough. The issue is that the Commonwealth don’t have their priorities right. There should be sufficient revenue from the Government’s core consolidated revenue. That was one of the main recommendations of the Productivity Commission.

Kevin Andrews

Can I add to that? If Wayne Swan’s budget is unravelling, as it appears to be, then that’s going to have a flow on effect for the States as well. It’s not just the Commonwealth that’s going to be affected, because we know that much of the money which is raised by the Commonwealth actually goes to the States.

If there is a serious unravelling of this budget, which appears to be the case within a week of it being delivered, then that’s going to have a flow on consequence not just for the Commonwealth but for the States as well. It’s why we took a decision, for example, that we would be opposed to simply splashing cash around to anybody in terms of the education payment, when there was an education payment in place which we supported, one which all it required that there was a targeting of that expenditure to those people who showed, through the collection of receipts, that they’d actually spent the money on education.

Instead of that the government has just said we’ll splash all this money. Our view is that if there are limited funds, then those limited funds have to be prioritised in a way that they meet the real objectives of the community. Surely, something like the NDIS or something like providing for the huge demand in aged care in our community, is a much more worthy objective than the sort of ways in the past of splashing money on, effectively plasma televisions, that this government has been engaged in, or pink batts and those sort of cash for clunker schemes and the like. What this shows is that the government hasn’t learnt at all. The incompetent administration which has been a feature of the Rudd-Gillard government is still there for everybody to see.

Question

Joe Hockey has said that the NDIS might be too expensive. Is every member of the Coalition on board with the scheme?

Mitch Fifield

Absolutely, it is Coalition policy to support the introduction of an NDIS. The Federal Council of the Liberal Party has passed a motion calling for an NDIS, the Federal Council of the National Party have passed a motion calling for the introduction of an NDIS. It’s something I’m committed to. It’s something Tony Abbott is committed to. It’s something the Coalition is committed to.

Question

Is the Coalition committed to the policy though in the short term, in the sense that it will provide money? Will the Coalition provide the funding if it is elected?

Mitch Fifield

We’ve made it clear that we support the funding which was announced in the budget. We need to sit down with the States, whoever the government of the day is needs to sit down with the States, to negotiate what the appropriate funding share will be. We-

Question

[inaudible…what about state funding?]

Mitch Fifield

The States currently have money which they put toward disability services, about $4.7 billion. So that’s the starting point as to whether the States would commit that money which they currently spend. Those discussions need to happen. The other thing which has to be borne in mind is that we don’t know when we may form government, we don’t know how far progressed the current government will be with the introduction of the NDIS. Will they meet the timetable that they laid out in the budget? We don’t know. We also don’t know what the starting point will be in terms of the budget finances when we win office, so all of those things have to be considered.

Question

Will you be expecting a contribution from the States?

Mitch Fifield

You would at least be expecting a contribution from the States of the money that they currently spend on disability services, that’s the starting point. As to whether there’s any additional funds beyond that, those discussions haven’t yet taken place, and they need to.

Question

Do you think that this rollout has been addressed too hastily?

Mitch Fifield

The Productivity Commission have outlined a timeframe which would see a full NDIS in place by 2018-19. The Productivity Commission envisaged regional rollouts in the middle of 2014. The government have brought those regional rollouts forward by a year. Now that may be possible, the truth is that I don’t know. The government haven’t sat down with us, they haven’t sat down with the States. That’s one of the reasons why we need a cross party committee; so that we can actually find out whether it’s possible to bring forward the implementation of an NDIS. My concern though, is that the government might be seeking an election timetable for milestones in an NDIS, rather than a timetable which will actually deliver a proper and effective NDIS. It would be a great shame if the government was more focussed on striking a pose than they were on actually getting the NDIS right. So that’s the main thing, that we’ve got to get it right. And the Productivity Commission’s timeline is probably the best thing we can go on at the moment.

Question

But isn’t it important enough that it should be addressed as urgently and quickly as possible?

Mitch Fifield

Urgently and quickly if you can get it right. The government is proposing that regional roll outs will happen in about 14 months time. There’s a heck of a lot of work to do in the next 14 months, particularly since some of the most basic discussions haven’t taken place with the States who currently deliver the bulk of disability services. The important thing is to get it right, and if the government accepted our proposal for a cross party parliamentary committee, to be chaired by the frontbenchers of both sides of politics, we would have a mechanism where these sorts of questions could be asked in a way that they wouldn’t be seen to be partisan. There are appropriate questions to ask. We want to ask them. The government should answer them and they should take up our proposal for this joint committee, chaired by both sides of politics. So that we can put an NDIS above politics, so that rather than have one side of politics seek to own the NDIS, it becomes the property of the parliament as a whole, and the nation as a whole.

Kevin Andrews

This is historic social reform, and there’s a bipartisan commitment to it. That’s something which doesn’t happen every day in Australian politics, but given the bipartisan commitment to what we believe is necessary historic reform, then we would expect that the government would treat it in a bipartisan manner. It would be a cruel hoax on the very people for whom this is designed, if they’ve been led to believe that this is all going to be rolled out in a way which we find because the government hasn’t engaged in a discussion, they’re not prepared to engage with us, that it doesn’t happen in the time or it doesn’t happen in the way people expect. That’s what we’re saying.

Question

[inaudible…question relating to comments by Tony Abbott relating to the Coalition’s commitment to the NDIS]

Mitch Fifield

I think what Tony said was a little lost in translation. He said that an NDIS couldn’t be fully implemented until the budget was in strong surplus. He didn’t say that you shouldn’t commence an NDIS before then, or that work shouldn’t take place on the implementation of an NDIS before then. The point he was making was that, even with the best will in the world, you can’t fully complete a major project like this unless you’ve got the budget repaired. That was the point that he was making.

Question

[inaudible…further question relating to comments by Tony Abbott relating to the Coalition’s commitment to the NDIS]

Mitch Fifield

Tony did refer in that speech to the NDIS as a priority for a Coalition government, and he said that it was an important and necessary reform. And he says, and I say, and Kevin says, that the NDIS is an idea whose time has come.

Question

On another topic, there are rumours that you were behind the move against Helen Kroger last week. Do you have anything to say on that?

Mitch Fifield

Look I don’t focus on internal Liberal Party affairs, what I’m focussed on is holding the government to account on their failure to adequately articulate how an NDIS will be fully funded and implemented.

Question

You did have an involvement?

Mitch Fifield

The public are very tired of politicians talking about themselves and each other. They want us to focus on their business. The NDIS is what should be core government business. That’s what I’m focussing on.

Question

[inaudible…question relating to Michael Kroger and Peter Costello comments from last week]

Mitch Fifield

Look I think there’s been enough that’s been said on the subject of last week’s events. I issued a statement on Friday, saying that I thought that the attack was very unfortunate and that as a party we should make sure that we honour our icons and that we defend their legacy.

Question

Is the navel gazing damaging the opposition?

Mitch Fifield

I’m not doing any navel gazing. What I’m focussed on is the NDIS.

Kevin Andrews

Can I add to that? Both Peter and Michael have made an enormous contribution to the Liberal party, everybody accepts that. In Peter’s case he’s made one of the most significant contributions to the government of this country over a long period of time as Treasurer. But neither of them are now engaged intimately in the way they were in the past. As Mitch said, the whole team under Tony Abbott  are focussed on one thing, and that is to remove an incompetent government, and that is what we will continue to focus on and anything else is simply something which may be happening out there but it’s not what our focus is.

Question

[inaudible…question relating to whether the Coalition’s concerns regarding an MPs’ code of conduct are related to its own members being found in breach]

Kevin Andrews

We’ve got a situation here where Julia Gillard has been sitting on the Craig Thomson matter for close to four years now. If there was some action to take, particularly on the back of the HSU report, the Fair Work report into the HSU, then action should be taken. But it seems to many of us that what she’s doing is to in some way defer or to avoid having to take some direct action herself, and saying “Oh well, let’s have a code of conduct”. Frankly I think this is a national disgrace. Most Australians I listen to these days, wherever I go around the country, are sick and tired of what’s going on. They believe that there is enough evidence there for some action to be taken, codes of conduct don’t change this, what it requires is some leadership from the Prime Minister.

Question

[inaudible…question relating to an MPs’ code of conduct]

Kevin Andrews

I don’t think anybody has suggested at this stage kicking Mr Thomson out of parliament, there’s been a motion to suspend him. There’s been suspension of members of parliament in the past. It’s not something which is new. But why is this continuing on, why are we still having this discussion years and years later after this first occurred? There’s no decision that has been made, no leadership which has been shown by the Prime Minister who now is simply trying, it seems to me, to avoid the issue by talking now about a code of conduct or the Independents facing up to what was going to be the new paradigm, which they suggested this parliament should be. This is hardly a new paradigm.

Question

[inaudible…question relating to an MPs’ code of conduct]

Kevin Andrews

There are two issues here. Supporting a code of conduct is one issue, but why has this arisen? This has arisen because there’s been a failure of leadership at the national level on the part of the Prime Minister.

Question

[inaudible…question relating to an MPs’ code of conduct]

Kevin Andrews

As I said, that’s an issue that can be looked at if there’s some code of conduct put forward, but if this is just a mechanism to avoid having to deal with what is, as I described it, a national disgrace, and that’s what I hear people all around Australia saying to me. If this is a mechanism to avoid doing that, well then that simply doesn’t wash so far as what should be done.

Question

[inaudible…question relating to National Disability Insurance Scheme and State funding]

Mitch Fifield

Our view is that the Commonwealth taxes plenty. The issue isn’t a lack of revenue for the Commonwealth, the issue is with the Commonwealth government having the wrong priorities. Just to give you an example, the current government is forecast to be spending $8 billion a year on its annual debt interest bill. So if there hadn’t been spending on the school halls and the pink batts, there would be enough money now to fully fund an NDIS.

Question

Would the Coalition support a levy for the NDIS? If not, then what makes it different from the Paid Parental Leave Scheme?

Mitch Fifield

They’re two separate things. And Tony has indicated with the Paid Parental Leave Scheme that the levy, spoken about there, would be in place until such time as the budget was in good nick. The NDIS is something that the Productivity Commission says should be core government business and should be coming from core government revenues.

Question

[inaudible…further question relating to a NDIS levy]

Mitch Fifield

Look I think they’re two separate issues. As I say, I think government taxes plenty and an NDIS should come from core government revenue.

Kevin Andrews

Any other questions?

Question

[inaudible…question relating to NDIS trial in Victoria and whether any discussions have occurred with State colleagues]

Mitch Fifield

My Victorian colleagues are frustrated that despite continued requests to the Commonwealth to sit down and talk about funding options and funding sources, the Commonwealth to date still has not done so. The Commonwealth haven’t sat down and spoken with the States about where the launch sites might happen. The Commonwealth haven’t sat down and spoken to the States about the governance arrangements. There is a frustration among the States, not just Victoria, that the Commonwealth is seeking to make them the scapegoats when the Commonwealth haven’t sat down to talk about the most basic features of an NDIS.

Question

Why do you say the Commonwealth is scapegoating the states?

Mitch Fifield

It’s clear from comments that the Prime Minister has made, that Penny Wong has made, and Wayne Swan has made, that they are seeking to blame the States for there not being certainty about NDIS funding. It’s not the fault of the states when the States haven’t been engaged in that conversation.

Thank you very much.

[ends]