E&OE TRANSCRIPT
TELEVISION INTERVIEW
SKY NEWS AM AGENDA
TUESDAY, 27 OCTOBER 2020

SUBJECTS: Melbourne lockdown lifted; COVIDSafe app failures; ‘Hands Off The NDIS’ campaign on independent assessments.

TOM CONNELL, HOST: Returning to our top story, Victoria's recorded no COVID cases or deaths for the second consecutive day. Melbourne's rolling average down to 2.8, and this has all meant, of course, the easing of restrictions. Joining me live now is the Shadow Government Services Minister, Bill Shorten. And we'll get to a bit of portfolio stuff.

BILL SHORTEN, MEMBER FOR MARIBYRNONG: No worries, Tom.

CONNELL: But, good news in Melbourne.

SHORTEN: It really is good news.

CONNELL: What are you looking forward to doing first, when you get back?

SHORTEN: Having friends over. Listen, my kids are back at school, which is good, but just social contact. My suburb was one of the first which was locked down on July the 1st. And I'm also really pleased for not just contact with other people socially, but I'm pleased for the small businesses. They really need to be able to open their doors and get on with it.

CONNELL: Some of the concerns are around small businesses still, for example, a limit of 10 per room, each room, inside of a small business. We know there are lots of really successful small businesses in Melbourne that rely on these cosy sort of setups. What do you make of that? Is there any disappointment at sort of the way restrictions are being eased now?

SHORTEN: No, I think on balance, everyone’s just happy to be able to get on with it. A lot of the small businesses in the strip shopping centres don't have a giant footprint. So I think a lot of them would be happy just to have 10 customers through the doors.

CONNELL: The interesting aspect of this is, you know, you're seeing people praise the government, saying no other jurisdiction has gone from a caseload where we're getting, at the peak, 725 cases a day down to this suppression. I guess the question is was it worth it, the toll it's no doubt taken on people, on business as well?

SHORTEN: Well, I think on balance, the Victorian government's response has been really good. I mean, if you look at the United Kingdom, France, the United States, they were having days in July where they were recording the same number of cases as Melbourne, but now they're up to 15, 16,000 cases a day, we’re down to zero. So I think that the tough approach has at least delivered certainty around COVID. Now the hard work begins again, which is economic recovery.

CONNELL: Because you did express during times, you know, perhaps it was a bit of a frustration at the go slow, are you saying now we are at the point, took a bit longer than would have been ideal, but on balance, and compared to those other jurisdictions, the government has made the right decisions to get out of Phase 2?

SHORTEN: I think everyone in Melbourne was frustrated; including Dan Andrews, but it had to be done. And I think now the fact that we're down to two days with no cases at all and you look at other jurisdictions in the world, this is not like a political theory. This is a reality, that in other jurisdictions who haven't taken the tough steps and behaved in the way that Melburnians have behaved, they've now got a much worse COVID situation than we do in Melbourne.

CONNELL: Polling suggests there is a still relative level of popularity for Daniel Andrews. What are you hearing? Because there's the response and how this is played out, but also the fact the government in a broad sense, has been responsible for the second wave.

SHORTEN: I think some people are bitter and feel it very strongly, and have got very strong views. As a member of parliament, I hear their views and receive them. But I think the majority of Victorians just did what they had to do. The majority of Melburnians just did what they had to do. I mean, on a day like today where, you know, kids are back at school, the pubs are going to open, the small businesses; the non-food retail is also opening. I think this is good news. It's not bad news.

CONNELL: Well, certainly good news and we hope it goes well. And I'm ready for some free babysitting from the grandparents if they want to get up here. The COVIDSafe App, in the headlines again. So, the total number of times that's been used in the entire pandemic revealed at Senate Estimates.

SHORTEN: Hopeless, 17. I mean, they've spent 70 million dollars, rough back of the envelope maths will show you that each detection which has relied upon the COVIDSafe app has cost four million dollars. So, I mean, this is a bit of an example. I think the Federal Government's been very quick to blame the states. They've been hunting Annastacia Palaszczuk over keeping Queensland safe. They've had a lot to say about Dan Andrews. What I've said is, well, what's the Federal Government doing? I mean, there's no question that JobKeeper is a good program. But what I don't know is why aren't they keeping it longer than they are?

CONNELL: So on the issue in terms of the app, though, what would Labor actually have done differently? Because my understanding, there has been a bit of an issue with how much data you can store, privacy issues which Labor didn't disagree with. Is there anything you would have actually done differently about the app?

SHORTEN: Well, I think the government's going to need to do an examination of how the app process was rolled out; I don't think we have all the facts. But the truth of the matter is that there's a 70 million dollar spend, and it's detected about one person for every four million dollars. Now, whether or not they could have bought off the shelf technology from overseas, I mean, everyone's got a view. I mean, the app is a good idea in principle. But, Tom, do you think that's good value for money?

CONNELL: But are you able to sit here right now and say, here's what we would have done differently on the app?

SHORTEN: I suspect Labor could have gotten better value, but we don't know all of the decisions and all the hoops, and all of the processes the government’s had. I think the government should come clean on the accounting. Was this value for money or not?

CONNELL: Well, not so much whether the app was too expensive, but how effective it's been. So, again, the question has to go to what would Labor have done differently, maybe compromised on privacy to make sure more hits were achieved?

SHORTEN: The government's got facts that we don't have. We just look at the raw numbers, 17 detections? Doesn't sound very good to me.

CONNELL: Can I ask one thing about the NDIS? You've got a campaign called ‘Hands Off the NDIS’. You're concerned about the independent assessment process that’s happening. This is where someone's needs are assessed. What's the issue? Because you do need this assessment and presumably you need an independent process as well?

SHORTEN: Well, first of all, there's about 400,000 people now receiving packages of support. But what's happened is that the government has said that they want to create consistency and equity, and so they want to independently assess every participant, to see if they're eligible to be in the scheme. Now, the problem with this is not having assessment. You do need to have an assessment. The question is who does it? The government wants to bring a panel, a large multinational company, and bring in a panel of assessors who work for the government.

CONNELL: They’ll still be doctors though.

SHORTEN: Well, let's use real life examples. If you've got a child with autism who's been getting support from allied health professionals, why would a stranger, you know, going to an audition with a panel of strangers for an hour or two, why would they know more than your own treating doctors? We want to have assessment. But what's disturbing people and creating a lot of anxiety, is ‘is this just a cost cutting measure’? Because if you want to actually make an assessment, why wouldn't you get the people who see the child every day rather than a stranger who sees them for an hour?

CONNELL: Do you maybe need a combination, though? I'm not saying, you know, this is an area of people with need, but every scheme is possible to be rorted if you like, so don’t you need some element of independence?

SHORTEN: Then, you know what you do? Make sure that you hunt out the rorts, but you don't create barriers to entry. I can tell you now, Tom, there's a lot of people who are worried that sending their family member or the person with a disability, going and being interviewed or auditioning in front of a stranger for an hour to see whether or not they should be in, that’s just not the real world. Because not every disability is the same. Not everyone’s circumstance is the same. We are saying to the government, if you think this is a good idea, put a hold on the tender process, go and co-design it with people with disability, get out and consult with people and also, show us your modelling. In other words, have they modelled how many people will get kicked off the scheme, have they modelled who’s going to be a winner, who's going to be a loser? There's a lack of fact here.

CONNELL: We'll put it to the Minister. Bill Shorten, thanks for your time today.

SHORTEN: Yeah super, Tom.