Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (14:47): I thank the senator for his question and his ongoing interest in the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and I wish him well in his work inside his party room to get the opposition to take a more mature and bipartisan approach to this issue rather than playing politics with it. Senator Abetz: You are the ones who suggested the committee! Senator WONG: I will take the interjection from Senator Abetz. The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Wong, ignore the interjections and address the question. Senator WONG: Senator Abetz is insisting on interjecting that his gold standard for bipartisanship is a committee and that what people with a disability in this country need is a committee that makes Senator Abetz feel good because he can say he is talking about it. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator Fifield: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Wong is misleading the Senate. The opposition does not have a policy for a committee, full stop. The policy is for a committee to oversight the implementation of an NDIS on a bipartisan basis. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: That is not a point of order. Order! If you wish to debate the issue, the time to debate it is after three o'clock. Order on both sides! Senator WONG: This is a Labor government that is getting on with the job of building a National Disability Insurance Scheme. We understand how long people with a disability in Australia have been waiting for change and we understand the importance of delivering this for them. That is why this government, in a budget where we saw more revenue downgrades and more savings, delivered $1 billion in new funding for the first stage of a disability scheme. This is why the government has established the transition agency and agreed launch sites in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and the ACT. That is also why this government is introducing the legislation to which the senator referred in the question. We have made clear our commitment to this issue. I note that those opposite, despite the fact that they said it is not real unless we can show costings now, are nevertheless going out and campaigning on a National Disability Insurance Scheme, notwithstanding they have never shown how they can get anywhere near their $70 billion of savings or cuts that they need nor how they would fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We have said very clearly that we understand the importance of this policy. We understand the importance of ensuring that it is fiscally sustainable and we will have more to say about this before the next budget. (Time expired)