DAVID CROWE, CHAIR: Thank you very much, Mr. Shorten, for those remarks. And also, I'd like to back you up on thanking the families of those Robodebt victims for joining us here today, putting a human face on the issue of government services. So, thank you for being here. Look, the first question I've got before we go to questions from the other journalists here is, is about your mention of the European standard here. There is this very, very strong European regulation, the data protection regulation, that is basically mandatory. It has privacy protections on how all this kind of information is stored and used. So, my question for you about your approach here is, are you looking at a legislative, or changing the law basically, to help set up the system that you've got in mind? Will there be privacy protections? Because that's a source of great concern in the community generally now about where data is stored and why not make it compulsory?

BILL SHORTEN, MINISTER FOR THE NDIS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES: Mark Dreyfus, the Attorney General, has been leading the work in terms of our privacy legal framework. So, we've had an inquiry. I know that AG's department and the attorney general are considering their options, so I won't pre-empt what he does there. What I want to put to you, though, is that and the GDPR is important, and I think Australian business is dealing with Europe, it's impossible to avoid the standards there anyway. What I like about talking about the exchange is, I want us to recognise we can do government services better and the government can be at the centre of innovation. People just want stuff that's useful and eases them with time. But just, people want stuff that works and doesn't stress them out. So, you know the privacy approach. Important issue. The AG is looking at that. I think, though, that one of the tests we are applying to what we do is, can it be trusted? Can people have control? Can people have consent? And so, I think we're taking the values of the GDPR, but we're not necessarily rolling out the full legal framework of that. And to the extent we can have verifiable ID that business can rely on and business to consumer, I think our approach is pretty neat.

CROWE: Okay. The next question is from Sarah Ison

SARAH ISON, THE AUSTRALIAN: Sarah Ison from the Australian. Thank you, Minister, for your address. Just to move to other portfolio of the NDIS. The states are saying that they don't have any clarity or transparency when it comes to what's going on, particularly regarding foundational supports. Rockliff has obviously said there are too many risks in terms of the cost to the state. Premier Malinauskas has said there's a decided lack of detail about all of this. Can you end this criticism now and tell us what you think the states are going to be up for, and is the work with the states on the NDIS and the separate foundational support system, is that beginning to fall apart?

SHORTEN: When you say, can I end the criticism? I'm not running for Premier, so I can't end what they say. But I don't think they're right. I don't think they're entirely right. But I can say we are having fruitful negotiations. It was very good of Premier Malinauskas and Premier Rockliff to come and visit me in Moonee Ponds. They got great coffee. And we discussed through the issues. So, I congratulate both of them for their willingness on behalf of the all the Premiers to engage meaningfully. There are negotiations underway as we speak. And, you know, I'm a cup quarter full, half full, three quarter full, overflowing sort of guy. So, until the legislation is passed, I will do everything I can to make the states feel they can support it, which they don't at this point. So, I'll give it my best shot. So, it's a work in progress. In terms of foundational supports, the NDIS was never intended to be the only lifeboat in the ocean. The reality is that too often – and it's not just the states, by the way, and the states do good things for people with disabilities. But a hospital might say in an outpatient’s ward, if you're on the NDIS, go and see them. They might say, Medicare might say, if you want a CPAP machine, go to the NDIS. If you're on the NDIS, we have a situation in our schools where kids on the NDIS, their parents bring in the private OT or occupational therapists or speech pathologist into classes, like, what's the school's role here to help look after kids and include them? So, that's why I don't quite agree with the states. Bruce Bonyhady, Lisa Paul, everyone did a great review. They said we need to build an ecosystem of disability supports outside the NDIS, so it's not the NDIS or nothing. We will keep working on that. Amanda Rishworth is doing a great job with the states starting to flesh out design. We put hundreds of millions of dollars into the design process. We're talking to the sector. So, the state's fundamental fear is that somehow, they're going to get lumped with everyone on the NDIS, or many people. It's not right. We'll try and negotiate with the states on our leg, because our legislation is necessary. Our legislation will, I think, decrease the cost curve, which is great, and I think it will tighten up things which need tightening up.

CROWE: Just to follow up on that issue, you've got changes to the NDIS, which are before Parliament at the moment, and the caucus appears to have been briefed today on the fact that there are some changes to that bill, including, I think, clarifying the rules around sexual services, for instance, that can be funded. Does that mean that you're close to an agreement with the Coalition on getting that NDIS bill through?

SHORTEN: Yeah listen, it would be fair to say I was a bit grumpy with them taking an extra eight weeks of their senators to look at matters, because they'd had 12 weeks. But what is done is done. Marielle Smith, the South Australian Labor senator, chairs the Community Affairs Committee. They came back with a very good report. It had one recommendation after eight weeks. It said, please pass the bill. Thank you. I'm having constructive discussions with the Coalition. They've made suggested amendments. We're considering them carefully. I think some of them, even if we don't particularly like them, you know, politics is the art of the possible. And so, we're working constructively with the Coalition. The vote hasn't happened yet, so I don't want to jinx myself. But the short answer to both of your questions is we are talking pretty animatedly with the states at the moment, and we're talking very constructively with our not just the Coalition, but with crossbenchers, the Greens. I don't know where they are.

CROWE: The next question is from -

ISON: Sorry, if I could just clarify just one part of the question, I'm so sorry. You said that the states don't feel they support it at this point. You will do everything you can to make the states feel they can support it. They don't support it at this point. Is that all the states don't support this, sorry, or is that just the couple of states that visited you?

SHORTEN: I don't want to show too much of the kimono and our state federal negotiations. I won't lift that up too much yet, but I congratulate Premier Malinauskas and Premier Rockliff for coming to Moonee Ponds to talk to me about the best interests of Australians with disability.

CROWE: The next question is from Dana Daniel.

SHORTEN: I've never worn a kimono, by the way, just in case that was the next question, sorry.

DANA DANIEL, CANBERRA TIMES: Dana Daniel from The Canberra Times, thank you for your speech. Minister, I have another question about negotiations with the states and territories. Is it a situation where you just need to rip the band aid off to sort of force the jurisdictions into filling those gaps? And is the Government prepared to increase funding to hospitals, PHN’s and schools in exchange for them providing support that will no longer be available on the NDIS?

SHORTEN: Jason Clare, the Minister for Education, is in negotiation with the schools, so it’s Jason's prerogative to update you on, but I know he is working very hard. I know that both the Northern Territory and another jurisdiction have embraced what the feds are offering. I'm confident that Mark Butler and the health ministers will work through a system which is to the benefit of the state hospital system. I'm confident that Jason Clare as Education Minister, will work through with the education ministers to tackle improvements in funding. When you say rip off the band aid, your Chief Minister Andrew Barr, and your Disability Minister Rachel, they're doing a great job. I actually think the ACT - when the NDIS was formed, the ACT still kept its hand in disability in a way perhaps not every jurisdiction did. So, you know if I can try and meet them halfway, I will. We are determined to reform the Scheme. We get one chance at this. This is a sliding door moment of politics. The Liberals couldn't convince people to do it. The disability sector is anxious about any talk of change. They have muscle memory. Whatever the imperfections of the NDIS. And, you know, I read your paper, so I get to find out. Sometimes you ring me first to tell me about them, but whatever the imperfections, it's changing the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.

You know, I'm going to be this bold. When I had the opportunity to go to the United Nations, leading the Australian delegation to update, as every country does who is signatory to the convention on the rights of people with disability, no country makes the level of per capita investment in disability that we do. And that's a good thing. But I want this Scheme to be here in the future. So going to this issue of ripping off the band aid, I will do just about everything to try and convince the states to like what we're doing, and I'll compromise and see - they want to make sure that they still are co-governors of the Scheme. So, I'll, you know, walk a long way to try and bring them on board. But at the end of the day, people with disability are more important than any particular level of government. So, if we have to rip the band aid off, we will. But you know, I haven't given up on working with the ACT, and they've got a good jurisdiction here for disability, comparatively.

CROWE: The next question is from Anthony Galloway.

ANTHONY GALLOWAY, CAPITAL BRIEF: Thank you. Anthony Galloway from Capital Brief. You mentioned before that the Liberals couldn't convince anyone to do it. In her second reading speech on the NDIS reform legislation, Linda Reynolds put the blame squarely on you for their inability to convince anyone to do it. She said “he cruelly promised everyone on the NDIS and their families that there would be no cuts. He perpetuated the fraud and the fiction that this was a Scheme that did not need reform.” Does she not have a point? In opposition, didn't you massively understate the issue of the spiralling cost of the Scheme?

SHORTEN: Let's work back from the end of that. I had no idea how crap the Liberals were at running the NDIS. Sorry, you could have - you know, I thought - they had, what, seven Ministers in nine years? The Liberals view the NDIS as the punishment battalion portfolio or the departure lounge. And the problem is that, yes, they built the Scheme up and I acknowledge that. And I think a lot of individual Ministers personally have a commitment to people with disability. So, Lynda Reynolds is not a bad person per se. But they allowed a payment system, which was the Wild West. When the Libs were in charge, and I didn't know this until we got in, if you put in an invoice into the Scheme between 5 and 6:30 on a weekday, it would never be checked. You'd just get paid. Mind you, if you put it in between 9 and 5, only 20 of them would get checked. But there wasn't a scheme. They allowed a sector to grow of unregistered providers, to the extent that 90% of all providers are unregistered, we don't even know who we're paying. Like, if Lynda thinks that's a record to be proud of… wowser.

Yeah, her approach was just to use a functional impairment assessment category, which takes no account of people's needs. I mean, you use their functional independent assessment, a half an hour tick and flick interview, a one-hour interview with a person that doesn't get to the bottom of who they are. That was her reform. And the other thing is you can do a functional assessment of a person, but the care that they need personally might vary if their ageing parent carers no longer can look after them. So, they had blunt force trauma to deal with it. It wasn't a very good idea. And I think also Lynda is like - I don't want her to sue me, but I just, she got a lot of legacy issues she's trying to sort out at the moment. So that contribution in that second reading speech was about standard for what I've come to expect from her.

CROWE: Would the cost of the NDIS be lower now if independent assessments had been brought in at that time under the Coalition?

SHORTEN: Oh, you mean if we'd gone from the motorcar back to the horse, what would be emissions? Whatever. It's not going to happen. Let's see, their proposal was ill formed. It would just lead to turmoil and conflict. Like driving a car, replacing - it was the wrong reform, and they didn't convince people. And we will convince people and whatever some Liberals unhappily might say about how life has treated them unfairly, get over it and move on. We've got a good set of reforms here, which I think are better framed with more consultation with people with disability. We did a 12-month review. On registration, we've done another six-month review. You know, some of you will say we're taking too long to do it, and others are saying we're going too fast, and the Liberals are saying it should have been them. You know, whatever. I just care about people with disability.

CROWE: Next question is from Claudia Long.

CLAUDIA LONG, ABC: Minister, thank you very much for your address. When the Government responded to the Disability Royal Commission a few weeks ago, Marika Jonkers from People with Disability Australia said that she was devastated and disappointed. Elle Gibbs from Disability Advocacy Network Australia said pretty much the same thing and that the response from the Government is nowhere near the scale needed to deal with the widespread mistreatment of disabled people. Skye Kakoschke-Moore from Children and Young People with Disabilities Australia called the Government's response a betrayal of young people with disability. Given that that devastation comes from 13 recommendations being accepted in full and 117 in principle, what is the timeline for actually following these things through? This is a community that you work with very closely. When can people actually have some certainty about whether any of this is actually going to happen?

SHORTEN: Well, first of all, it was Labor who called for the Disability Royal Commission. I remember because I was leader and Jenny Macklin, and I called it in a reservoir backyard of a person with disability and their advocate. So, I know exactly when it was first called for. The Libs initially, Malcolm said we don't need this Royal Commission. Instead, he set up the Quality and Safeguards Commission, which then was underfunded. It was great that we got Michael Phelan here. Doing great work, and we've doubled his funding. And thanks to being the temporary head of that body, Michael. So, they set up a safeguards mechanism at the beginning of 2018, which was underfunded you know, to a ridiculous extent. We fixed that, but eventually Scott Morrison decided that they didn't want to be beaten up about this Royal Commission after their amazingly stupid defence of the banks for three years. So, their muscle memory is, let's have a Disability Royal Commission. But the Disability Royal Commission is incredibly important. It went for four years, cost $600 million. A lot of stories told, a lot of trauma. There were 15 volumes. My colleague Amanda Rishworth was given the very difficult task of coordinating across 16 federal agencies and then our friends at the states. So, yeah, I understand that people wanted everything answered straight away. So, I can understand that frustration. On the other hand, in my areas of the NDIS, there were about 60 odd recommendations. Maybe 45 plus were to do with the Quality and Safeguards Commission and maybe 15 or 16 were the NDIA.

We're implementing most of those recommendations now. So, the timetable is not quite as dire as I think some of the advocates say, but they're entitled to their opinion. The Royal Commission also, let me remind you, did split on some fundamental issues, like there were six Royal Commissioners and they split. And each side had a point of view. They split on three big issues. And I think this is where some in the sector wanted us to go harder one way than we have. The three issues they split on were employment, group homes and education.

There is a very legitimate debate where some people say that, and advocates say, that having special schools is educational segregation, and they want to end the segregation. But when that recommendation came out, there were thousands of special needs educators and tens of thousands of families for whom mainstream education is not currently a choice because their kids get bullied and picked on. I know families, friends of mine, where their son gets beaten up at school because he has autism. No one wants that. They're trying the mainstream path. So, I think that where the sector, the government, the states, and families can go is ultimately, you know, they gave 25 years for that to be resolved. Group homes, I think 11, I can't quite remember all the numbers, separate workplaces, a different time period. I think where we go on all of that is identify what we agree on. We agree that we should have more inclusive education in our mainstream schools. Let's get that right so parents have a choice. We agree that we want to lift the wages of people on supported employment, but let's get companies employing more people with disabilities in open employment. We agree we don't want our large group homes, but we've got to make sure that our supported independent living packages are working.

So yeah, I get the disappointment. On the other hand, no government in the history of federation has invested as much as we do, but also tried to consult as much as we do. We have 23 different design groups, co-design groups, in the NDIA. Half of the board of the NDIA is now people with lived experience of disability. The chair is Kurt Fearnley. Two of the seven top reports in the NDIS are people with disabilities. We'll have more exciting announcements to make about the work we're doing and the Quality and Safeguards Commission. 17% of the people who work at the NDIA now are people who self-report with disabilities. Service Australia has 6%, approximately of its staff, people with disability. So, I understand the advocates should be pushing for as much as they can get as quickly as they can get. The part I don't quite accept, this is not a disinterested government with its shoes up on the desk saying not my problem. You know how passionate we are. And I think one of the early down payments on Royal Commission reform will be the improvements we make to the NDIS.

LONG: Just on the wages though, because you mentioned that the government supports those, given that they're currently set at a minimum of $6 an hour, why not just ask the Fair Work Commission to put them up?

SHORTEN: Well, we've had business – okay, there's about 20,000 people who get supported employment – again, it's some other Minister's portfolio, so I don't want to stray too much into it, we have seen moves to improve the wages by successive governments, to be fair. Also, everyone on a supported wage does receive the DSP. That's not means tested, self-evidently. A lot of the supported employment workplaces, some of them have now moved to open employment and providing that pathway. Some were set up by families decades ago when there was just nothing. So, I want to be sure that before we move to closing supported workplaces, that we've got somewhere for people to go. I don't want to send them back to daycare or to sit at home. We'll work on this collaboratively and we should lift the rates. But we're going to work with people. We're not just going to drop stuff on people. Thanks, Claudia.

CROWE: Next question is from Brandon Howe.

BRANDON HOWE, INNOVATION AUS: Thanks, Minister, for your speech. Brandon Howe from innovationaus.com. First of all, just wanted to ask a question about a digital platform on the NDIA. There's the Salesforce platform that's being billing system that's being rolled out at the moment. The estimated cost of that was initially about 25 million, and that's gone up to the hundreds of millions. I was just wondering, that contract is due to end in the middle of next year. Has the government given view to the future of that system? Or perhaps is there a need to test the market there? And similarly on the trusted exchange, is that expected to be fully developed in-house, or would someone like Google or Telstra be looking to develop that work?

SHORTEN: On the Salesforce contract, that'll be up to the NDIA. The last thing this minister wants to do is get involved in procurement. That hasn't been such a happy experience. But, you know, I'm sure the NDA will be talking to providers, talking to consumers, seeing how that all works. But that is definitely, appropriately, an agency decision. In terms of our pilots. We'd like to do as much as we can in-house. We're not afraid to use contractors. But, you know, Service Australia has the biggest tech workforce across government, and there's a lot of skills within there too. So, we'll obviously talk to external experts. But I want TEx to be a government proposition, which everyone can use.

HOWE: And just to clarify, the $11 million figure is that just for the pilot stage right now?

SHORTEN: Well, that's just for the proof-of-concept stage. And then we'll have to put more money in for the pilot stages. I guess pilots could be done in three months. I'd love to see them done in six months. And then we can get to a product which we can then talk. And in the pilot stage we improve the concept. We've got to talk to the private sector, say, well, what are the uses you see and need, and we'll have to - one thing we will not be doing is charging individuals for the use of our for the use of TExs.

CROWE: Next question is from Tess Ikonomou.

TESS IKONOMOU, AAP: Thank you very much for your time today. I just wanted to touch on your response before in relation to the government's response to the Disability Royal Commission. Two of the commissioners who live with a disability backed phasing out special schools, and they said that segregated education was incompatible with inclusive education. Many advocates have said that segregation leads to the exploitation and to the neglect of disabled people. Do you accept that view?

SHORTEN: One of the Commissioners that you refer to, her name is Rhonda Galbally, I've been lucky enough to know her for 17 years. She's been a consistent advocate for not having separate education. But I don't necessarily accept that everyone in special schools is doing it bad. What I would say is we need to convince the states and the federal government to fund more inclusive education. But if you were just to take everyone at a special school now and take them to their local high school or primary school, you're just kidding yourself. It's not going to happen. And I think some of the debate and some of the rhetoric does underestimate the contribution of kids, but also their parents, to special needs ed and the teachers who work in those systems. So yeah, I accept Rhonda has got a very strong view, but I cannot see us. I see special needs education reflecting a choice for parents who just can't get their kids catered for in the mainstream system. And the challenge, the question I'd love you to ask the states and education providers is, what can you do more to look after kids in the mainstream system before we just tell everyone that they're just going to turn up one day? Thanks, Tess.

CROWE: Thank you. Thank you. The next question is from Melissa Coade.

MELISSA COADE, THE MANDARIN: Thanks, Minister for your talk. Melissa Coade from The Mandarin. You mentioned that trust exchange was at the proof-of-concept stage, and a recent investigation by the Commonwealth Ombudsman looking at the myGov security and the risk of so-called unauthorised linking, examined why there was a lack of coordination among agencies such as Centrelink and Medicare to assist people impacted by identity theft, fraud and data breaches. Is it your expectation that by the time trust exchange is a fully realised product, this issue of agency coordination will be resolved when it comes to responding to and managing risks?

SHORTEN: Yeah, we're grateful to the Ombudsman for their report and we've said that we'll implement their recommendations. So hopefully, but I can't put a timetable without going to check with my agency heads. I've done that in the past. And that said, Minister, that can't be done in that timetable. But, no, we accept, we think the ombudsman report is useful, and we think that it can provide us some direction to further upgrade our systems.

COADE: One of the responses in Services Australia's official response to the Ombuds report said it was looking at legislation that may limit its capacity to coordinate responses in this way, and it indicated that the end of December 2024 was when that research might be resolved. Is that an acceptable timeline for you?

SHORTEN: Oh listen, I probably - I think some of my public servants have a view that there's real time and Shorten time. They're the ones laughing at me now. Yes, I've heard. Listen, I want everything done yesterday, but when my highly professional senior public servants say we'll try and bring it forward, but we can't do it by then. You know, I guess sometimes reality intrudes on the best of my aspirations. I would like it to be done as soon as possible, let me reassure you. But, you know, they're always telling me things take longer than I realise.

CROWE: Thank you. And the next question is from Sarah Basford Canales.

SARAH BASFORD CANALES, THE GUARDIAN: Thank you, Minister, for the speech. On the issue of trust, obviously, one of the biggest deficits of trust in government in recent decades is the Robodebt scheme. You've previously said the sealed section of the Robodebt royal commission can't stay sealed forever, and that after the appropriate investigations are finalised, that could potentially be unsealed. We've obviously seen the National Anti-Corruption Commission discontinue five investigations into five of its referrals. One of them isn't being investigated by the Public Service Commission. We've also seen the AFP discontinue one of its known investigations. If the public can't get Robojustice, as you've put it before, do you think the public and especially the victims of the illegal scheme, should get Robotransparency by unsealing that chapter?

SHORTEN: I don't buy that we haven't had Robojustice, Sarah. We helped organize the class action, which saw the payments. I mean, that doesn't compensate people for what they've gone through, but it's $1.8 billion better than it was before. I think it's a permanent entry on the Wikipedia's of all of those Ministers who are involved. They'll carry that with them for all time. I think that we've learned new processes as a result, and we've been responding to the Royal Commission's recommendations. You can never get true justice, because it should never have happened. It was unlawful. Having said that, also, Minister Gallagher in the Senate and myself in the House of Reps. I mean, I'll be moving this tomorrow, a public service amendment bill. One of the flaws that's been emerged out of following up from the Robodebt Royal Commission and accountability is that the Australian Public Service Commissioner doesn't have an express power to investigate former agency heads for alleged breaches of the code.

The APS Commissioner was close to finalising investigations into former agency heads. It's become clear in our Robodebt inquiries that it's been claimed by others that we don't have the power to look at former agency heads, so we're responding swiftly. We will, there'll be legislation in the House tomorrow. It's been endorsed by our caucus today at 10:30, that we will put legislation in, which will make it clear that the APSC, the Australian Public Service Commissioner, has the express power to investigate the activities of former agency heads. So that will be another step towards accountability.

BASFORD CANALES: Just on the specific question of the sealed chapter, do you agree it should stay sealed?

SHORTEN: I haven't won that argument yet.

BASFORD CANALES: You will continue to?

SHORTEN: Pardon?

BASFORD CANALES: You'll continue to work for it in government?

SHORTEN: I'm an optimist, but listen, I think the Royal Commissioner did a great job. She sealed it.

CROWE: Sorry, you want to unseal it, so I.

SHORTEN: Yeah, I don't have that power. So anyway, I'll just try and use whatever powers of persuasion. But I think this legislation that we've got, proposed by Minister Gallagher and the Public Service Commissioner, that's a pretty interesting development. And it's a new development.

CROWE: Thank you. The next question is from Ewa from SBS. I'm sorry, Ewa, we haven't met, and I can't pronounce your last name, so I'll leave that to you.

EWA STASZEWSKA, SBS NEWS: That's alright. Thank you, Minister, for the talk. It's Ewa Staszewska from SBS news. Minister, you had a big vision for the NDIS. Given the budget blowouts, pressure on the system, the cuts that you've had to make, What part of your initial ambition will never become a reality?

SHORTEN: Oh, I think the NDIS is remarkable. We do need to curb its growth, but we're not cutting the Scheme per se. We're a country who's running a personalised budget support system, an individualised personal budget system, for 661,000 people with profound and severe disabilities. I cannot believe how far we've come. Yes, I think some money is being wasted. Yes, I think there are some service providers having a lend of it. Yes, we do need to be clear about what you can spend money on. Yes, we do need to build up a system outside the Scheme, but I'm quite amazed by the NDIS nonetheless, and I know the difference it's making in the lives of so many different people.

The NDIS to me is an example, in a time when we think life's too hard and that the policy system and the parliamentary process is broken, we didn't have an NDIS 11 years ago. Some might say it's too big or it's this or that. I just say it's universal. If any of us or someone we love has a profound or severe disability, this country has become smart enough to provide a personal budget of support so they can have a fulfilling life. So, to be honest, my vision for the NDIS is that it's there for the future. And that's what's motivating me because I know how much good it's actually doing.

CROWE: Next question from Nick Stewart.

NICK STEWART, ABILITY NEWS: You talked about the great record of Services Australia and employing people with disability. How about other government departments? What are you doing to actually encourage them or agitate to get them doing the same thing? And on the budget issues, we've had the great result for payment for aged care workers, but a lot of disability organisations are beginning to think, well, how long will it be before this flows on to disability support workers who are also wanting more money?

SHORTEN: I'll be brief, but I'll be to the point. I'm an industrial relations tragic. I'm interested in how work is organised and how people get remunerated, how businesses are productive. In 2012, when I was IR Minister, the award which covers disability workers, was the first award to have a gender equity pay rise. It was 22%, and it was phased in over eight years. Remarkable. So aged care is catching up to where a disability already was, that's my point. Secondly, since Labor's come in, the wages for disability carers support workers has moved about 15%. I think people are worth it. We do have a challenge for providers in that the price guide for the NDIS almost pays on a commodity of labour, so it pays $73 for a disability support worker 3 roughly, and you could be fresh out of uni and just call yourself a disability worker. Or you could run a long standing not for profit where you've got overheads. So, what we need to do is pay for quality. And that's something which the current board of the NDIS is looking at because I do get that there's some service providers under a fair bit of pressure at the moment, and we need to nuance our payment system to reward quality, and outcomes as opposed to just inputs of labour.

STEWART: And other government departments?

SHORTEN: Oh, listen, the APSC has a committee. You know, I'm the Minister for my area. All I can do is lead by example. But I know other departments are working on this, but yeah, I think it's a conversation which is for the APSC, the Australian Public Service Commission. I know they are thinking about it, and I know that secretaries are talking about this and are champions of it. I guess diligent reporting of outcomes will also help keep accountability, won't it?

CROWE: Thanks. And we've been running pretty well on time. And our last question now is from Alex Brooks.

ALEX BROOKS, JOURNALIST: I'm your 13th and lucky last questioner. Thank you for your address, Minister. Thank you. Why should people adopt this trust exchange ID solution when successive Australian governments have allowed Australian banks to steal hard working Australians money through myGov, Australian Tax Office and other cyber fraud hacks and scams at the rate of $5,200 a minute during 2023?

SHORTEN: Without knowing all the sources upon which you rely to make that question, I think your question answers itself. Because we need a TEx, don't we? Yes, this would help improve. What did we say? Trust and choice and would improve consent. So, in fact without being able to go to every number you quoted. I think TEx is a good idea and you've just given another good reason to do it.

BROOKS: So, the numbers are from ScamWatch, and just in June this year, there were 2058 myGov and ATO impersonation scam victims who made a report. So, what safeguards will be in place to stop these IDs becoming super mule accounts that escalate Australia's fraud crime losses beyond the 312,000 that's been lost during the last hour of this broadcast?

SHORTEN: Well, first of all, we need to go through - I mean, when myGov was established, it was possible for multiple accounts to be opened. We've eventually got to get back to one account per person. And I know that we're putting our resources into weeding out multiple accounts, but that just takes time and resources. As you know, myGov has multi-factor identification, but I think our passkey development will improve that. I mean, the reality is that some people are already with data which is on the dark web, some people will go and try and create false myGov identities. We're trying to strengthen all of the issues against that. We do tell people constantly, don't give your bank account details to a link you receive by text, I mean you're right. Scamming is a giant issue across the whole economy, but I'm confident that myGov and Services Australia are prioritising our cyber security in that regard. Thank you.

CROWE: Now, before I ask you to thank Bill Shorten for his address today, I want to present you, Minister, with a National Press Club membership. You said that you've spoken here 19 times. I think we have too many wallflowers up in Parliament House. 19 addresses here would be 19 too many for some of them. So, thank you very much for speaking here and we look forward to the 20th. Please join me in thanking Bill Shorten.