Senator The Hon Mitch Fifield
ASSISTANT MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES
MANAGER OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS IN THE SENATE
Senator for Victoria
Transcript
PVO News Hour with Peter Van Onselen
Sky News
2 September 2014
7:20pm
E & OE
Subjects: Senate negotiations, mining tax, Party Room, GST, NDIS, Dementia and Severe Behaviours Supplement
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
Joining me now from Parliament House Senator Mitch Fifield, thanks for your company.
MITCH FIFIELD:
Good to be with you Peter.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
Alright, let me just get straight into it. You guys must be a little bit smug, you’re getting things through the Senate that some of us in the commentariat are saying isn’t possible. We’re seeing the mining tax repeal today. We’ve seen FOFA being managed through when commentator after commentator was lining up to say you couldn’t get it done. You guys are getting the business done, compromise sure, but that’s the way the Senate has always been. Are some of us in the commentariat too pessimistic?
MITCH FIFIELD:
Well Peter, where there is a will there is sometimes a way. We’ve always said that we would work purposefully and methodically, and I know some commentators would smile when we said that, but that’s the approach that we’ve taken. And for me, having worked for Peter Costello in 1996, I know that it is situation normal for a government to have to negotiate and work carefully through the processes of the Senate to get an outcome. We have. Full credit to Joe Hockey and Mathias Cormann. They don’t see obstacles. They just see opportunity. But really the big winners are the Australian people. They voted for the abolition of the MRRT at the ballot box. Labor and the Greens thwarted us. They put their all into it. But in the end we were, able, today to give effect to the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
It’s interesting what you say about the role of the Senate, the compromise and the process that it goes through. We sought of forget that, because over the previous three years it was all about the lower house. The Senate in a sense became the rubber stamp because of the alliance between Labor and the Greens. It was in the lower house where there was massaging of numbers courtesy of the cross benches via the various independents. What we’re seeing now, like what we’re seeing today with the mining tax is your message as Manager of Government Business in the Senate that more of this will be following? Your optimistic about it, when we look at some of the measures in the budget?
MITCH FIFIELD:
Well Peter, you’re right. The House of Representatives very rudely took attention away from the Senate over the previous three years. But it’s a case of regular transmission being resumed. But we have been quite successful. We’ve had the abolition of the carbon tax. We’ve now had the abolition of the minerals resource rent tax. We’ve got the appropriation bills through the Senate. So we are being pretty successful in getting important parts of our legislative program through the Senate. But look, its hard work. You have to sit down. You have to deal with people on the basis of good faith. We’ve done that and we’ve been able to get a good result for the Australian people.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
Despite the importance of the Senate through the Prime Minister didn’t attend your Senate dinner last Monday night. Instead he chose to go to a fundraiser, and even hung around to make sure he could get the entitlements which was reported out of the Party Room. Was that disappointing?
MITCH FIFIELD:
The Prime Minister has a lot of demands on his time. He endeavours to support good causes like Peter McCallum. He needs to engage himself throughout the country. So look the Prime Minister makes the calls as he sees as appropriate and obviously I fully support those.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
I raised that matter in the Party Room from last week but the news of the day of course was a breakout of discontent amongst sections of the WA team in the Federal Parliament. Christian Porter, former WA Treasurer, raised concerns about the GST. He was slapped down by Joe Hockey. Reportedly Joe Hockey was then slapped down, depends on who you want to pick, the Prime Minister, for the Deputy Liberal Leader, West Australian herself, Julie Bishop. Who’s side Are you on? Do you think that Joe Hockey’s right? That Collin Barnett isn’t the best fiscal manager? Or do you think that Collin Barnett’s right when he defends himself?
MITCH FIFIELD:
Peter, I don’t comment on what happens in the Party Room. But suffice to say, unlike what happens in the Australian Labor Party, we have a robust Party Room where colleagues put their views. But look, Collin Barnett is a great Premier of Western Australia. He’s doing a great job as is the Premier of my own state Denis Napthine, who, fingers crossed, will be re-elected at the next election.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
Alright let’s get onto the topic. The reason I’ve got you here now. Craig Wallace has tweeted in during the show, you’d know him well. He’s the President of People with Disability Australia.
MITCH FIFIELD:
Very well.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
He’s very complimentary. He makes the point that Senator Fifield deserves more credit for delivering on the Abbott Government promise to implement NDIS in the toughest of budgets. Was it tough? I mean, give us a window into it? I mean there were cuts at various points around the place. Did you have to really fight for your turf as the Minister seeking to hang onto this NDIS?
MITCH FIFIELD:
Peter, Tony Abbott is a big supporter of the NDIS. Joe Hockey, Mathias Cormann are big supporters of the NDIS. And the reason they are is because they recognise that the core business of government is providing extra support for people who face some challenges for reasons beyond their control. That’s one of the reasons why we’ve made difficult decisions across a range of portfolio areas, so that we can fund the core business of government. Things like the NDIS.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
And can you fund it Senator? Because there has been some reports of cost blowouts already. There were early reports before the Coalition was even fully on board which obviously you absolute are now with the NDIS. There were early reports I think even from the Treasurer when he was the Shadow Treasurer concerned about the significance of this scheme and how widely it might be applied. How is it looking within the fiscal envelope? Is it staying there.
MITCH FIFIELD:
So far so good. In the first quarter of the NDIS average package costs were getting close to $46,000. The budgeted package costs should have been about $35,000. We’ve now got those in a bit over $34,000. So in terms of the budget its tracking pretty well. There are now over 7,000 Australians with disability who are getting the better deal that they deserve, courtesy of the NDIS. But look, it’s early days. What we’ve got to make sure is that we learn the lessons from the trial sites before we move to nation-wide rollout.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
What are the big lessons at this stage?
MITCH FIFIELD:
I think one of the critical lessons early in the piece was that the NDIS Agency was, in effect, presenting people with a menu of funded supports and saying look, which of these would you like? They’ve now turned that around so that the starting point of a conversation with someone who’s looking to join the NDIS is, what are the natural supports in your life. How can we help reinforce those natural supports. What are the mainstream services that you should be accessing but aren’t. What’s the plan that you would like to see for your life. Now how can we help fill in the gaps? Now that’s a much more positive and constructive approach. I think that’s been one of the key things that the Agency has learnt.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
And what about managing expectations? I know from you a while back now, were critical of Labor for in a sense over cooking the expectations of some people with a disability. Whether its whose eligible or whether it was the speed of any potential rollout because a lot of it has been trials obviously to date. Where is that at? Are you finding that there are people suffering from a disability who are disappointed with the, albeit necessary time it takes to roll it out. Are you finding that there are people who perhaps aren’t even eligible who thought that whatever their disability was that they would be eligible?
MITCH FIFIELD:
I think there is understandable frustration in a system that’s been characterised by rationing and people taking a number and taking a place in the queue and waiting for their number to be called. There is an understandable frustration that it takes time to rollout the NDIS. It will take until about 2018-19, and obviously people, would prefer that it was there today. But you can’t flick a switch and have something as complex as this nation-wide on one day. But the previous government didn’t help the situation, they spent about $20 million just before the last election. Public money on glossy TV ads, which left the impression that the NDIS was here and that everyone could access it. I think that was irresponsible. When you’re talking about Australians, in this case, who have significant disabilities, you want to present information in a factual and an unadorned fashion. And that’s what I’ve been endeavouring to do since I’ve been Minister. To be factual. To be straight with people.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
Alright before I let you go we’ve got to talk a little bit about this announced cut to dementia funding for people with severe dementia within the system. Now it was you that I think announced it within the Senate. Labor’s been critical of it, they used in yesterday in Question Time in the lower house. I’m guessing in the Senate as well I didn’t see it. Let me ask you this. This was a question that I was trying to ask yesterday and neither Craig Laundy nor Nick Champion were able to answer it for me, I’m hoping you can. How did Labor, and this isn’t a Dorothy dixer because I want to move on from it. How did Labor find out or come to a conclusion that it was only 2,000 people at $10 million when its blown out to 20,000 people and $100 million. Was there some calculation distinction on who classifies as severely demented?
MITCH FIFIELD:
Peter, the previous Government as we know just weren’t very good at planning programs and they were even worse at their implementation. Fundamental design flaw, there was no validation as to the applicability of the scheme…
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
Sorry to interrupt but what does that mean, no validation? Does that just mean that the provider just says we’ve got x number who have severe dementia and there was no regulatory process to oversee that?
MITCH FIFIELD:
Correct. And you’re right, they planned for 2,000 people at a cost of about $11.7 million over the last financial year. It came in at 29,000 people at $110 million.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
Senator you must have data on how many people are in facilities with severe dementia is it closer to 2,000 or closer to 20,000?
MITCH FIFIELD:
I think it’s closer to a single digit. What’s important to recognise is that this was not the core funding for people with dementia in aged care. The Commonwealth spends about $15 billion a year on aged care. About $10 billion of that is on residential care. And about half of the 180,000 people in aged care have dementia of some form. And the prime funding mechanism for those people is a thing called the Aged Care Funding Instrument. Which looks at what the care needs are of each individual regardless of their situation, whether they have dementia or other needs. Labor have tried to leave the impression that the Dementia and Severe Behaviours Supplement was the core funding for people with dementia. It wasn’t. They also have tried to leave the impression that it went direct to people with severe behaviour. It didn’t. It went to aged care providers. So what we want to do is sit down with the sector and craft something that is better targeted and that can be within a budget.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
And that’s exactly my next question I mean putting aside criticism about the way that this was announced, for which I have some sympathy I have to say. That said, when, how long will it take? How far reaching could it be? Is this next step? Because I heard yesterday flooding the airwaves there was criticisms from aged care providers that they can’t afford the lost revenue. Whether they’re overcooking who’s eligible or not. No doubt that timeframe of when to get this extra money for people with severe dementia, that, that is no doubt important. What are we looking at, are we talking 3 Months? 6 Months? What’s the timeframe?
MITCH FIFIELD:
I’ll be sitting down with aged care providers, consumers and carers within the next fortnight to look at what is a practical way of providing assistance to providers, to people with severe behaviour in residential aged care settings. Look this is something I want to move on quickly. But obviously when something was budgeted at $11.7 million and it comes in at $110 million, all is not well in the Duchy of Lancaster. And I thought the most responsible thing to do is to say, look we can’t redeem this current arrangement, so let’s conclude it and let’s look for a better arrangement. And Peter, this is something that was only in place for a year. It came into effect in August of last year. So this has not been core or base funding for aged care providers. But I want to work with them to come up with a better solution.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
Alright, we’ll see how that goes Mitch Fifield, as always appreciate your time, thanks for your company.
MITCH FIFIELD:
Thanks Peter.
Media contact:
Evan Mulholland | 0405 140 780 | evan.mulholland@dss.gov.au