Phillip Thompson
Herbert · Liberal National Party · Australia
“The schedule ensures that a former partner is not excluded from support services simply because their relationship with the serving member has ended. Facilitating access to assistance for safe separation and improving the safety of victims-survivors are objectives the coalition strongly supports.”
“The general public around the country expects members of our ADF to be at the highest standard, and so do I, because when the time comes—and history shows it will—we will ask our brave men and women to travel to a foreign land, to stand side-by-side with our allies with the Australian flag on their shoulder and their will to win.”
“There is a word that used to mean something in this country—trust. Trust was the commitment a government made to the Australian people. This Labor prime minister said from this dispatch box whilst in opposition: … you can only lie to people once. Well, it's clear that this prime minister doesn't take his own advice.”
“Effective oversight will be the key to ensuring that lessons of the royal commission are translated into lasting and systematic improvements. The coalition supports the objectives of this bill. We are mindful of the history of reform in this area. For too many, the system has been the source of frustration rather than support.”
“We approach this debate in a spirit of constructive engagement, acknowledging the valuable work of ex-service organisations, advocates and families who have fought for these changes. However, our support is cautious.”
“These are the metrics by which the parliament and further governments will be judged. The coalition supports the referral of this legislation to a committee inquiry in the Senate. This process is not about delay; it's about diligence.”
The complete record
Every one of 308 lines we hold for Phillip Thompson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 7.
“Australians deserve honesty from those that are elected to represent them—not confected outrage, not talking about the opposition. We expect the government to stand up, to be counted and to do what's right for the Australian people—lower their power bills, make sure they're not crippled by insurance, support small business and support aspiration. Yet, what we've seen from this treasurer and this born-to-rule prime minister is taxes going up. You don't own those government benches; you don't even own your seats. They're rented, and rent is due today.”
“There is a word that used to mean something in this country—trust. Trust was the commitment a government made to the Australian people. This Labor prime minister said from this dispatch box whilst in opposition: … you can only lie to people once. Well, it's clear that this prime minister doesn't take his own advice. This prime minister stood in front of the media, aggressively stated, for the 50th time, that he won't make any changes to the CGT or negative gearing. This prime minister has completely undermined the trust of all Australians. Further trust was eroded from this prime minister as he claimed 97 times that his government would reduce energy bills. This Labor government claimed that they would respect veterans and their families, yet they announced a cap on veterans' access to allied health. This is a dishonest government.”
“The coalition remains committed to that goal to support the health and wellbeing of those who serve, those who have served in the past and their families. We'll do this for you. Debate adjourned.”
“We in this place, on Anzac Day and every day, look at our veterans and say, 'Thank you for your service.' This is about ensuring that that thank you is not hollow, that that thank you has meaning and that they get that support. This bill, I believe, is a step in the right direction. I really do. The Senate inquiry will examine, look through, poke holes and will fix some holes hopefully, and we'll be able to work together to consider feedback we've received from the ex-service organisations, from the veterans, from their families, from still serving people and from people that love the ADF that read legislation and want to add some free feedback as well. I think that that's a good thing. This is about getting it right the first time so we don't have to come back here and do it a second time.”
“The general public around the country expects members of our ADF to be at the highest standard, and so do I, because when the time comes—and history shows it will—we will ask our brave men and women to travel to a foreign land, to stand side-by-side with our allies with the Australian flag on their shoulder and their will to win. They know there is no second best on the battlefield. Failure means death. They expect their government to have their back, support them, look after them and create legislation that reflects their needs. That's what I think about when we bring legislation before the parliament for our brave men and women. If something happens through their service, whether it be in combat or training or humanitarian, they should get the support that they need and their families get the support they need because they deserve it.”
“We will not stand in the way of this bill's progression in the House today. We owe a debt of gratitude to our ADF members and our veterans and their families. We must ensure the systems of support are worthy of their sacrifice. I think, throughout these schedules, the expectation of what is needed is quite clear, but one of these schedules also places an expectation on our members of the ADF about what's acceptable behaviour and what's not. I think that's a good thing because we cannot have issues, violent outbursts, convictions or sexual offences be not spoken about or create a backdoor for those who have committed these crimes to get back into the ADF.”
“These are the metrics by which the parliament and further governments will be judged. The coalition supports the referral of this legislation to a committee inquiry in the Senate. This process is not about delay; it's about diligence. It provides the opportunity for defence personnel, veterans, families and ex-service organisations to contribute their expertise and ensure that we get the details right. We owe it to our service community to ensure that the legislative framework reflects and supports the purpose it is intended to achieve. We look forward to engaging constructively throughout this process to ensure the legislation is fit for purpose. The coalition recognises that the Defence Legislation Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 2) Bill is a significant step in the right direction.”
“Effective oversight will be the key to ensuring that lessons of the royal commission are translated into lasting and systematic improvements. The coalition supports the objectives of this bill. We are mindful of the history of reform in this area. For too many, the system has been the source of frustration rather than support. We must be vigilant to ensure that these reforms do not simply result in further delays or layers of administration. The true measure of this legislation will not be the number of new frameworks created or the breadth of the provisions; it'll be in the lived experience of ADF personnel, veterans and their families. Will they experience faster claims processing? Will access to services and supports be improved? Will we see earlier and more effective information and intervention for those who are at risk?”
“Importantly, the reforms ensure that decisions regarding entry into service, ongoing suitability and separation are grounded in clear principles, fairness and appropriate oversight. In doing so, they enhance confidence and defence personnel's management processes and ensure decisions align with contemporary expectations of integrity, accountability and sound governance. Schedule 5 is the importance of independent oversight. Finally, schedule 5 contains amendments to support the independence and effectiveness of the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner. Independent oversight is not just an administrative hurdle; it is essential for driving lasting change and ensuring that governments remain accountable for delivering meaningful reform.”
“We must maintain the highest standard of the ADF and never have loopholes or backdoors for those that have been convicted and imprisoned for violent offences or sexual offences to be able to continue to serve or get back into service. These reforms create a more coherent and consistent framework for defence personnel and decision-makers, offering greater clarity and certainty around the processes and standards that apply across the member's service. By more clearly defining legislative requirements and decision-making criteria, they reduce the likelihood of inconsistent, subjective or ad hoc outcomes and support more transparent and accountable approach throughout Defence.”
“Schedule 4, on integrity and service requirements, focuses on the standards of those who serve, establishing a more structured framework for service eligibility and separation. The coalition firmly believes that those entrusted with our national security must uphold the highest standards of conduct. Public confidence in the Australian Defence Force depends on maintaining a professional, disciplined and trusted military force. We strongly support the principle that individuals convicted and imprisoned for serious, violent or sexual offences should be automatically removed from the ADF and ineligible to return. I know that sounds like something that should just be a norm, but it hasn't been.”
“The schedule ensures that a former partner is not excluded from support services simply because their relationship with the serving member has ended. Facilitating access to assistance for safe separation and improving the safety of victims-survivors are objectives the coalition strongly supports. No-one, regardless of service, has the right to commit heinous crimes and domestic violence, and the former spouse should not find themselves left without supports. This is a good part and a good measure, and I thank the minister for it. In the sensitive context of relationship breakdown, the need for stringent privacy protections and support is paramount. Families must have the confidence that their information will be handled appropriately, and we will be looking closely at the safeguards governing these specific information-sharing provisions.”
“Our members of the ADF could, with a moment's notice, be anywhere around the world, but we need to make sure that Defence has the supports in place for the families because the families are not just the backbone but also the driving force of many people's service. There's an old saying: 'A distracted soldier is a dead soldier.' It's quite a blunt saying, but, when you're on operations, the last thing you want to be thinking about is: Are my family getting the support they need? Are we relocating? Is there a GP in location? How is the schooling? Is the family unit going well? So we do support better supports for the family. I also want to highlight that, most importantly, the schedule addresses the harrowing reality of family and domestic violence.”
“We know that there is a profound connection between family circumstances, relationship breakdown and an elevated risk of suicide and self-harm. Behind every serving member is often a family sharing the burdens of service: the frequent relocations, the prolonged absences and the immense pressure of operational deployments. We must support measures that improve communication between Defence and families, ensuring families are better informed about the supports available to them. I will note that this has developed over many years and has gotten better, but we can always strive to be better. The operational deployment tempo, the training tempo, the humanitarian tempo—they're all at high.”
“Providing legal protections for practitioners participating in quality assurance, similar to those in civilian systems, is also a sensible and necessary step. But, once again, a balance must be struck. While Defence has a legitimate need to access health information to support readiness and safety, we must ensure that the privacy rights of personnel are not unnecessarily eroded. The success of these health reforms will be measured not by the creation of a new statutory framework but by whether they result in earlier intervention, improved continuity of care and better mental health outcomes. Schedule 3 is about supporting families. Schedule 3 is a critical component of this bill as it recognises that families are the backbone of the defence community.”
“The royal commission found that existing legislative frameworks have not evolved in step with modern clinical practice in relation to mental health care, clinical governance and the management of health information. The coalition supports the establishment of a clearer statutory framework that clarifies the roles within the system and provides authority for the collection of health information for monitoring and quality assurance. We welcome the alignment of Defence health governance with nationally recognised clinical governance standards. This has the potential to improve transparency and ensure that our personnel have access to high-quality care that meets contemporary expectations.”
“The coalition will closely scrutinise the ministerial guidelines that will help protect this information and will work constructively, because it's our responsibility to make sure that our Defence Force personnel and veterans have that scrutiny and support but that, also, if it doesn't go in the direction it's supposed to, we can review it and change it. Schedule 2 is about the Defence health system, seeking to modernise its legislative framework. The Defence health system occupies a unique and often difficult position. Unlike civilian services, it must provide individual care while simultaneously supporting operational readiness and assessing an individual's fitness for service.”
“We must ensure that any expansion of information-sharing powers is accompanied by robust protections, clear limitations on use and strong accountability mechanisms. While better data can drive better outcomes, that must not be achieved by placing sensitive information at risk of misuse, exposure or unauthorised access. This has happened before with the department; I received texts from a third party wanting to talk about my health concerns and my injuries and illnesses. This particular part does create some angst and anxiety, but we have had a clear assurance from the government, the minister and his department—and I thank him for that—that that will not be the case. Nevertheless, we just need to keep an eye on these things.”
“In particular, the coalition supports the goal of enabling the earlier transfer of information from Defence to DVA. If this leads to reduced delays in claims processing and ensures veterans receive assistance at the earliest possible opportunity, then it is a significant step forward. However, we must always remain vigilant. The collection and sharing of sensitive personal information—data relating to health, service history and personal circumstances—is a matter of the highest gravity. Defence personnel and their families rightly expect that this information will be handled with the highest degree of care and security. While the bill includes requirements for ministerial guidelines and de-identification of information where practical, these safeguards require ongoing and rigorous scrutiny.”
“It expands the functions of the Repatriation Commission to include wellbeing and transition support, and it creates a framework allowing Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs and other entities to share information for defined purposes. The intent here is understandable and, in principle, supported by the coalition. We acknowledge the value of reducing administrative barriers between agencies to allow for earlier intervention for vulnerable individuals and better integrated service delivery. The bill's support for a veteran and family wellbeing agency and the National Veterans' Data Asset is particularly important as these will enhance our research capabilities and further deepen our understanding of suicide risk factors.”
“The royal commission was clear that, for too long, the systems designed to support our people have been fragmented. This has resulted in fragmented information systems, resulting in administrative delays, delays in support and, most tragically, missed opportunities to identify and assist those at high risk of suicide and self-harm. By improving coordination between agencies and strengthening access to support services, this bill aims to ensure that the wellbeing of defence members, veterans and their families remains central to the service delivery. Schedule 1 is about addressing fragmented information systems. It establishes a new legislative framework to support health and safety by breaking down fragmented information systems.”
“We approach this debate in a spirit of constructive engagement, acknowledging the valuable work of ex-service organisations, advocates and families who have fought for these changes. However, our support is cautious. It is support predicated on the requirement that these reforms deliver genuine, tangible improvements rather than simply adding more layers of administrative complexity to a system that many serving personnel and veterans already find difficult to navigate. We must ensure that this legislation is effective, proportionate and capable of delivering the improvements that are needed, recommended and promised. The measures contained in this bill are intended to place a greater emphasis on the support of our defence personnel and veterans across both the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs.”
“Every member of the House of Representatives carries a heavy responsibility to ensure that those who wear the uniform and those who have worn the uniform receive support, care and respect for their service. We also carry a duty to the families who stand beside them, sharing the unique burdens of service life. The coalition recognises the profound importance of these reforms. The bill directly implements 15 recommendations of the royal commission, with a further 20 recommendations supported through its provisions. Its objectives to strengthen the health, wellbeing and safety of our personnel are objectives that this side of the House wholeheartedly shares. For these reasons, the coalition will not oppose this bill in the House today.”
“I rise today to speak on the Defence Legislation Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 2) Bill. I start by acknowledging all those that continue to wear the uniform in service to this nation, our veterans and your families, and note that the freedoms that we enjoy today are on the back of hard fought battles, wars and sacrifices that you have made. This legislation is not merely a collection of administrative adjustments or technical tweaks. It represents a significant legislative response to the findings of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, a royal commission established by the former, coalition government.”
“When supply tightens, it drives up rents and makes it harder for local families to find a place to live. This isn't something we just see in the cities. We see it around the country. If you're doing it tough in a capital city, times it by 100—that's what it feels like in the regions. There are real consequences for poor policy on people and livelihoods. Livelihoods get put in the bin. People can't operate. It really crushes the community. Instead of easing cost-of-living pressures, many businesses feel like these government policies are adding to them. Instead of encouraging investment, it's creating uncertainty, and that's the risk we're facing today. Small businesses need confidence, they need action and they need a government that stands up for them, not stands in the way of them.”
“How can the parliament—how can the government—better do its job?' It was abundantly clear that the insurance side, the cost of living, the overheads, the margins—everything—is getting tighter and tighter, and people are wondering why they continue to work in small business. They do it because they love it, they do it because they want to leave a legacy, but they also expect the government to listen to them when they have concerns. We heard about housing and investment. I heard directly from Ben Kingsberry about the sharp drop in investors entering the Townsville market at a time when vacancy rates are already at record lows. It's a serious concern that still, during question time today, hasn't been addressed. When investment declines, supply tightens.”
“You hear all the time in this place that small and medium businesses are the backbone of this nation. Yet, this Labor government's policies keep punching down and turning these small businesses to insolvency or to face creditors. Their livelihoods and their opportunities have been snatched away because of bad policy. Instead of just getting up and giving a speech about good business, I thought I'd convene a roundtable in Townsville, led by the Townsville Chamber of Commerce as the experts on small and medium businesses. I thought I'd get people together, those that represent these groups and these businesses, from all walks of life. I could sit there and not talk, not tell them how great politics is or how great I am, but listen. I could ask: 'How can we better support you?”
“I don't want to be a burden on my family.' That is terrifying, and it's terrifying because the government isn't giving answers to the questions that veterans have. No speaker has said, 'This is how the $5,000 cap will work.' No speaker from the government has stood up in parliament, and the minister really should—it's his responsibility—stand up and outline it all. But, once again, veterans are left to try and decipher it, to try and understand it. Most fear it because it hasn't been clearly communicated. The tens of thousands of those that reach out to me and to other offices have been asking questions. No-one has told them how it will work. I did expect better from the member for Solomon. A veteran himself, he once again just gets up and gaslights the world. He should be asking these hard questions.”
“It is not good enough that this Labor government has this cap that is going to make veterans worse off. It's simply mind boggling how you can somehow quantify this as the right thing to do. I would challenge any member in this place that says they haven't received messages on their social media about this cap. I got one just the other day, and it reads: 'I spend $336 on psychology every two to three weeks. Sometimes it's a double session, which is $672, for EMDR treatment for PTSD, as one hour isn't enough for those sessions. I've got physio twice a week at $110 per session—so that's $220 a week. I see a chiropractor once a week at $75 a session. The $5,000 cap will last me three months.' Another person said that they have psychology treatment, they have physio, they have chiropractic—'What happens when this runs out?”
“They may not be in the frame of mind to be able to navigate the hours and hours of wait times when calling the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Then what do you do? Well, right now, if you call DVA, you would wait for about 52 minutes. The member for Solomon is rightly concerned about this, and I take his concerns, but the problem here is this is going to cause more harm. A $5,000 cap is not what the royal commission said. It is not what veterans want. There is nowhere that I have been or spoken where a veteran has organisation has said, 'We're extremely happy about this.' I was at the Cameron Baird Foundation launch today, and all the veterans there were rightly concerned. To gaslight them, to stand up in the chamber and say, 'Everything's fine. It's everyone else's fault. Everyone's just whipping up concern'—it's just simply not true.”
“Do you have to wait till you're in a very dark place and then somehow find the magic number to call to get it extended? There is no detail here. Veterans around the country are rightly questioning this Labor government about what the cap is, how to do it and what happens if it runs out. What happens if you're in a dark place? You're going through something tough and you've fallen over—it's happening. You've hit your $5,000 target, and the only light at the end of the tunnel was the services that you were getting to get yourself back together. What happens when you get the letter or the phone call to say the appointment's cancelled because you've reached the limit? What happens then? How does this person get the support and services that they need? What do they do?”
“I still, after all the Labor members' speeches, haven't heard them talk in detail about the $5,000 cap. The member for Solomon spoke about the royal commission—and rightly so, as he was here through the whole process—but he didn't talk about the substance of this motion, which is the $5,000 cap. The member for Petrie said that the facts around this are about service fees, which were in the recommendations of the royal commission, but none of the recommendations of the royal commission spoke about a $5,000 cap—nowhere, nothing. Having a cap is not going to give you ease of access. I'll give the former speaker some credit for saying that, if someone's going to exceed it, or if they regularly exceed it, then they should get the support that they deserve. I agree. But how? Do you have to go to your GP and pre-empt an injury or illness?”
“Today his family set up the foundation that allowed Doug Baird, his father, to travel around to at schools and with veterans—with Australians—and talk about the significance of the Victoria Cross, about the significance of military service and about his son. Today here I've got my mates ScoJo and Matty Morris, veterans who've served in battle and combat, honouring Corporal Baird.”
“8231781. Corporal Cameron Baird VC MG was Australia's 100th Victoria Cross recipient. He was born on 7 June 1981 and killed in battle 22 June 2013, on this very day. Today his family launched the Cameron Baird Foundation honouring a national hero, someone who laid down his life in service of this nation. On three separate occasions during the battle where Cameron lost his life, he charged an enemy held behind a building who had prepared in a compound. On the first occasion, he charged the door to the building, followed by another team member. Despite being totally exposed and immediately engaged by enemy fire, Corporal Baird pushed forward while firing into the building. This is the bravery of one of ours. This is the bravery of Cameron Baird.”
“We shouldn't have to see a system failing these people. People are assessed at a higher level; they deserve the supports they need. Older Australians deserve the dignity that they always should have.”
“They were talking about what days Merv could have a shower. That's just un-Australian. That is a basic human right. When the family had to step in and help him with the daily living activities, they contacted my office and told me about the extreme emotional burden that they were carrying. This shouldn't have happened. It's not about luxuries; it was about where Merv was assessed. It should never take political intervention to secure the care for someone that has already been assessed as needed. And, as for Merv, whose case is now resolved thanks to the advocacy of Senator Anne Ruston and me, it shouldn't have to happen like that. People are struggling. Older Australians need the support and shouldn't be falling through the cracks. What happens if the family don't or don't know how to reach out to their federal representative?”
“We've seen families overwhelmed by red tape, we've seen elderly Australians waiting months—sometimes longer—for care they're already been assessed as needing, and we've seen decisions being made by process, not by people. I recently asked the shadow minister for aged care, Senator Anne Ruston, to come to Townsville because we needed to advocate together for a Townsville man called Merv. Merv's case highlights just how serious the failures are. Here is a man assessed as needing a high level of care. Support included help with daily tasks like showering, personal hygiene, mobility and the clinical care required as a safety net to safely remain in the home. Merv's family, when he was assessed at a higher level, were given a lower level package. They were finding it hard to get the support to help Merv with showering.”
“I rise today to speak about an issue that goes to the heart of who we are as a nation—how we care for older Australians and whether the system is designed to support them and whether it's doing its job. Right now, too many vulnerable elderly Australians are being left to navigate a system that is complex, confusing and, in many cases, failing them. Older Australians built this nation, and they deserve to have the care and dignity that was promised to them. My Aged Care is meant to be a safety net, a gateway to essential services that allow older Australians to live with dignity in their own homes, but, what we're seeing on the ground tells a very different story.”
“How can you justify telling veterans that they can't get services that they need? We thank them for their service. Labor Party members run to the closest veteran on Anzac Day and get a photo with a veteran or a still-serving member with medals on their chest, and they post about it, but then they cut their services. Paul Warren, missing his leg due to his service in Afghanistan, told me that in two months he'd run out of that $5,000. How is he supposed to get the support that he deserves and needs? He fought for this country. We should fight for him.”
“'No. How hard is it?' For the 50th time, that's what the Prime Minister said when he was asked if he was going to be bringing in any more taxes on homes. He also said, 'My word is my bond.' We now know that's another Labor mistruth. This Labor government is obsessed with taxing everyday Australians. This Labor government is obsessed with punching down. We're going to see $80 billion in extra taxes under this Labor government. But is the money being spent where it should be? Everything's going up. Prices are going up everywhere—at the shopping centre and in your power bills. But there's one group who continually gets punished by this Labor government, and that is the veteran community. A $5,000 cap on allied health services has been placed by this Labor government.”
“But, if the minister can't be bothered rocking up, the opposition will stand here and ask him and it'll just go off into the ether. I am disgusted by how this government is behaving when it comes to defence. The minister should be in here talking about what they're doing, what's been in their budget, so we can ask the questions and get the answers on behalf of the Australian Defence Force. Shame on this Labor government. You're not fit to lead.”
“Somehow veterans' welfare and services are wrapped up into the defence budget that says that this is now exceeding the 2.8 per cent of GDP, which is clearly not true. There is no decision about what's happening for the east coast submarine base for AUKUS. Just $30 million has been allocated to kickstart a $12 billion project. It doesn't match the scale. This government needs to answer questions. We need to back private capital to deliver defence projects. What happens if the investments don't come through from the government? The government is banking on private capital to deliver key defence projects. What happens if they don't come to the table? Does the government step up or does Defence take another hit? This government has a lot of answers, but the ministers can't even be bothered to rock up. I've got pages and pages of questions.”
“At the same time, the government claims they are spending 2.8 per cent of GDP on defence, but it's buried in the fine print, in a single line, that that is not true. This Labor government is eroding the Defence Force capability and the trust that the Australian people should have in them. We get told by experts and by this government. They say that the threat is urgent and is at our doorstep, but this Labor government and its funding is acting like it isn't. It's not just future capability at risk. It's our sustainment. It's our personnel. People are getting out at a higher rate because of the lack of certainty. We're not fit to fight. We can't fight today because, every time there is funding allocated, it is stripped away or hidden in the fine print.”
“On top of the cuts and on top of the deferrals, we've already seen the fourth squadron of the F-35s, the infantry fighting vehicles that should be rolled out now, cut from 450 to 129. The self-propelled howitzers, the Hunter class frigates, military satellites, integrated air and missile defence—that's not trimming around the edges. That's hollowing out the capability. This minister needs to be honest with the Australian people and with the parliament and provide certainty of our defence industry and of our brave men and women who serve this nation and tell the parliament what defence capabilities will be cut, because lost capability, lost time and a defence force being stretched thinner is a more dangerous world.”
“We hear all the time that we face the most challenging, strategic, dynamic and dangerous time that we've ever faced, yet we can't get a minister to show up to consideration in detail. This is the worst I've ever seen it, and this Labor government should absolutely be ashamed of themselves. We've heard the minister, when in opposition, want to talk about 'name all these projects that aren't running through' or 'name this stuff that you're not going to continue with', but, under this defence minister and this Labor defence team, all we've heard is: 'Well, that's commercial in confidence. We can't talk about the cuts or the chaos. We're happy to go get a photo op.' What we haven't seen is any follow-up, and that is not good enough when we're talking about the defence of our nation.”
“I was very fortunate, when I was elected, to come in when the coalition was in government, and I want to say that, when we did consideration in detail, the ministers showed up every time. When the member for Durack was the minister for defence industry, she came in here, sat down, took notes and would stand up and answer the questions. The member for the Riverina has also, as a minister, come in here and taken notes, because this is important. This is the time, during the consideration in detail, when the opposition gets to ask the minister questions. I'm extremely saddened to see not any of the defence portfolio or the Minister for Veterans' Affairs show up for this important time. It is disrespectful for the brave men and women who wear the uniform to have this contempt by this Labor government.”
“My daughter, when she was young, got diagnosed with autism. There's more that happens then. It's not just the diagnosis—she has autism—and getting treatment. She had a sequela illness called pica. Pica is low iron. She would eat dirt, and I'd never seen this before. I'd never heard of it before. We went around in circles to try and get—”
“When it comes to getting a wheelchair, accessories or anything you need to be able to live your life that also shouldn't be a paperwork burden or anything like that. If you have limb loss, you will probably need a wheelchair at some stage. You don't have to get a report to say that; we know that. This is a commonsense approach. I also think there should be some parliamentary scrutiny when we're talking about anything that's automated. If your plan gets put forward and it says what's happening in your life and what you need from the NDIS, then it somehow does an algorithm and says it's similar to someone else's, so the computer says you don't need it, and then you've got to go through the fight, there must be some sort of human oversight. I think that's probably a good part because you don't want things to take so long.”
“We're talking thousands of dollars here. This is one person in Townsville. Let's say that there are four people in Townsville. Let's say that there's a person with a spinal injury who is in a chair, and they have to be in a chair full-time. Do they have to do it? I would say that maybe some would have to go down a similar route. They're not going to wake up in the morning and stand just like my friend's not going to wake up in the morning and see a foot has grown back. It doesn't happen. So these are places where we can streamline and make sure that those cost savings are on the red tape that we can cut. Let's get rid of it; we don't need that. You've got one leg; guess what? You're always going to have one leg. You've got no legs? Sorry, they're not growing back. We know that's a fact, so they don't need to prove that year on year.”
“If it costs money to go after criminals to make sure they're not ripping off the taxpayer and robbing the people that need the treatment, I'm all for it, because in the long-term these people will be out of the disability sector, and then we're not focused on trying to wind in, shorten or make any negative changes to those that need the treatment. There is always going to be good and bad, and there are going to be mistakes. A friend of mine is missing his leg. Up until recently, every year, he had to send a report to the NDIS that said that his leg hadn't grown back. That is silly and a failure, but it happens. How much does it cost to get the reports done? First, you've got to go to your GP, then your GP has to refer you to your specialist. Your specialist then has to write the report, and then the report gets sent.”