Zali Steggall
Warringah · Independent · Australia
“These amendments don't prevent the government from reforming the NDIS. They don't prevent the government from managing costs and they don't prevent the government from improving sustainability, but they do ensure that participants can seek reassessment when their plan no longer meets their needs.”
“The NDIS was built on a simple promise that Australians with disability would have access to the reasonable and necessary supports they needed to live with dignity, participate in the community and exercise choice and control over their own lives. The NDIS must be sustainable. It must be well governed.”
“If a decision has a practical effect of cutting a participant's support, then it should be treated as it is: a decision that affects that participant. Put simply, if your funding is significantly cut, you should have review rights. The third amendment deals with the review rights where funding is significantly reduced.”
“I rise to recognise the incredible work of some incredibly passionate women at the Arise Foundation and to call for greater investment in recovery and healing for women leaving violence. For too many women, the crisis does not end when they leave.”
“Reform must not mean that people are pushed away from work, study or volunteering because the supports that make participation possible have been overlooked by a system that has become more and more automated. The first amendment deals with plan reassessment.”
“by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) as circulated in my name together: (1) Schedule 1, item 21, page 9 (line 22), at the end of subsection 48A(1), add: ; and (e) alternatively to paragraphs (a) to(d), the participant demonstrates that: (i) the supports are no longer available; or (ii) the plan is insufficient to meet the participant's r…”
The complete record
Every one of 837 lines we hold for Zali Steggall, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 17.
“If the arrangements have shifted, parliament and the Australian people deserve to know the implications for cost, delivery, sovereignty and capability building. The UK has also undertaken parliamentary scrutiny of AUKUS, and that process identified significant risks. Australia should not be less rigorous than our partners in examining a commitment of this scale. The recent budget also included a $50 billion increase over 10 years, or $14 billion over four years to the defence AUKUS budget, with little information or transparency about the cost blowouts or increases.”
“Australia is now reportedly expected to receive only second-hand Virginia class submarines from the US, rather than developing the capability pathway many Australians understood was originally being pursued. For every MP here celebrating capability or production and construction in their local area, the question is: how much is that really going to happen? Despite $2.76 billion to date having been paid to the US, there is also no guarantee Australia will receive these submarines on the proposed timeline, if the United States' production capacity does not increase, or on the necessary timeline for our defence capabilities. The US government undertook a review of AUKUS and its capability to deliver the submarines. Neither the review findings nor how the practical terms of the AUKUS agreement have changed have been made public.”
“The very announcement of AUKUS and the lack of transparency from the start have been problematic. The Morrison government announced AUKUS and two days later the Labor opposition agreed to it—no debate, no scrutiny, no questions. Since then, there has been nothing but ongoing uncertainty in the face of substantial costs. AUKUS has the two pillars. Pillar 1 is the agreement between Australia, the US and the UK to acquire conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines, while pillar 2 focuses on jointly developing advanced defence technologies, including AI, cyber, quantum, undersea systems and hypersonics. Pillar 2 has been all but abandoned. There is no detail. This week, uncertainty around pillar 1 increased, while Australia is now expected to receive three second-hand US Virginia class submarines rather than at least one new vessel.”
“The government must provide much more information and establish that AUKUS remains firmly in Australia's national interest. AUKUS is too significant, too costly and too consequential to be exempt from the regular parliamentary scrutiny and review. Supporting a strong Defence Force and capable submarine fleet does not mean abandoning scrutiny. Major strategic investments require ongoing oversight, transparency and accountability. The recent changes to the AUKUS pathway raised legitimate questions about cost, capability, delivery risk and whether Australians are receiving what was originally promised. Australia faces the most challenging strategic environment in decades. We need credible defence capabilities, strong alliances and long-term planning.”
“I absolutely support that ambition and, as I said at the beginning, I commend the government for having the courage to tackle this, but we have to do it well for it to stick. We have to do it well for it to grow consensus among the Australian people. We should not pass rushed reform that may create new unfairness while trying to fix an old one. Young people need pathways to build wealth and a buffer. Small businesses need confidence to invest and grow. Tax reform should strengthen those pathways, not diminish aspiration. The bill should be referred to the House Standing Committee on Economics so it can get the detail right, protect against unintended consequences and deliver reform that is fair, targeted and evidence based.”
“It should also seek the modelling assumptions and policy rationale behind the government's approach so the parliament can assess whether the measures will actively improve productivity and housing affordability. There is so much misinformation and scaremongering out there, and that is one of the areas that the Treasurer has raised with me—the frustration around how much misinformation is festering. But the only way you address misinformation is by having a clear process of inquiry. It is not by shutting down debate and saying, 'There's nothing to see here; let's move on.' I would urge the government to consider that. I think the Australian people are reasonable. They want a tax system that is fair. Young Australians want a housing system that is fair to allow them to get in. Australians want a fairer tax system. They want this to be fair.”
“The concern is that change should be carefully designed and we have to absolutely know what the unintended consequences may be. Referral to the House Standing Committee on Economics would allow the parliament to test the evidence, hear from experts and stakeholders and improve the bill before it is passed. A committee inquiry should examine whether the bill should distinguish more clearly between residential property investment and other forms of investment, including shares, small-business assets and trusts. It should consider whether concessions, exemptions or grandfathering are appropriate for young investors, small investors or small businesses. It should examine whether there should be thresholds, caps or transition rules to protect ordinary Australians who are not the intended target of the reform.”
“If the policy goal is to reduce speculative investment in residential property, then the parliament should examine whether the bill is properly targeted to that goal. We need to know whether the measures risk discouraging entrepreneurship, investment in productive businesses and modest long-term saving by younger Australians. We also need to understand the impact on people who have already made financial decisions under existing rules. Tax reform should not blindside people who have acted responsibly and planned in good faith. The Treasurer has said that one in 10 people under 35 hold shares, but that still amounts to 660,000 people. And then there are still a lot of other people who are looking at how they are going to grow a buffer beyond their income and earnings. So the concern is not that the capital gains tax should never change.”
“I've heard from many young Australians who have already been priced out of property investment. If we close off the share investment pathway, a beneficial way to build a buffer, then we risk pulling up one of the few remaining ladders for wealth creation or buffer creation for them. Small business owners in Warringah have also raised concerns. Many are not large corporations with deep balance sheets. They are in fact local employers, family businesses and people who have taken risks, reinvested profits and built something over many years. The government has framed this bill as a housing affordability measure. That may be a fair description for parts of it, but it does not answer the broader concerns about shares, trusts, business assets and small business succession.”
“She's not overly engaged, but, for this, her and her peers are very much engaged. She told me that she and her partner both work in demanding jobs and they are above average in income. They're in engineering and law. They have good incomes. And yet, as millennials, they're up early and home late. They've borrowed responsibly, yet they still feel like there is very little left over. They are barely getting ahead. Nicola and many of her friends have invested the little bit of cash flow left over in shares and ETFs. It's not about getting rich. It's not about massive incomes on the side next to their work income. It's simply about trying to build some security beyond wages. It's about saving for a home, creating a buffer against rising costs or slowly building the capital needed to start a business.”
“The parliament should not be asked to rush through complex tax reform without a clear understanding of who is affected, what the unintended consequences may be and whether sensible carve-outs or transitional arrangements are needed. I understand that there are further negotiations and details that are being worked out, but, in that situation, it's simply impossible to genuinely assess the full measure without having all of that detail available. Good reform should be targeted, evidence based and durable, and that requires committee scrutiny. In Warringah, it's not an abstract policy debate. Constituents have raised serious concerns about how these changes may affect their ability to build a financial buffer. One constituent—Nicola, a 36-year-old from Warringah—told me that she doesn't usually follow politics.”
“When I look at the grandstanding hypocrisy of some of the contributions in this place, there is no doubt that it is hard to tackle, so I commend them for having the courage to look at it when it comes to the housing aspect. But, because it is so hard, it is incredibly important to have that social licence and try and bring in the vast majority of Australians to make sure there isn't ground for festering misinformation and to make sure that the Australian people understand the case and the true consequences and possible unintended consequences of reform and this legislation. What we know is that this bill goes far further than housing. It has implications for small businesses, family businesses, startups, trusts, shares and young Australians trying to build financial security outside the property market.”
“I support this bill being referred to the House Standing Committee on Economics, because it makes significant changes to Australia's tax settings and those changes deserve proper scrutiny. I thank the member for Wentworth for bringing this forward in the House today. I want to be very clear: I support the objective of improving housing affordability and making the tax system fairer. There is no question that negative gearing and capital gains tax settings have contributed to the distortion in the housing market, growing generational inequity and the difficulty in becoming a first home owner. I also want to put on the record that I do commend the Treasurer and the government for having the courage to try and tackle this. It is hard.”
“The structural pressures that keep women in poverty—unaffordable child care, insecure housing, unpaid care, low-paid feminised work, inadequate support for single parents—continue. You can pat yourself on the back if you want, but there are so many other areas that need to be addressed. Women cannot leave violence if they cannot access housing and those kinds of supports. So, if you're genuine about leaving no-one behind, address these issues.”
“Most are single mothers, and one-third of single-parent families are living below the poverty line, yet JobSeeker remains below 50 per cent of the minimum wage. Income support remains too low, too conditional and poorly designed for women experiencing coercive control or financial abuse. For example, a woman in an abusive relationship may be disqualified from support because her partner earns a sufficient wage even if she cannot access that income or benefit from it. That is a dangerous policy blind spot. It ignores the reality of financial abuse and coercive control and that poverty can trap women in unsafe relationships. If the government is serious about women's economic security, it has to lift income support and decouple it from relationship status.”
“I need to say—and I accept and understand—that many in the industry are tired of providing evidence to various inquiries; there are hundreds of outstanding recommendations. But, again, we need that accountability. A federal royal commission can show how many of those recommendations have not been implemented. This budget delivers no targeted relief for women in poverty. Lifting income support would have one of the most immediate impacts on women's economic security. The government has said 'no-one left behind', that this is a budget about fairness. But the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee has repeatedly called for income support to be increased. That will have an impact on women's economic equality. The Australian Bureau of Statistics say there are more than one million one-parent families in Australia.”
“The Prime Minister, when pressed, said: We know what keeps women in these relationships. We know what's required … And we need to get on with action … He said that we don't need a royal commission. If the government knows what needs to be done, the real question is: are they doing it, and are they doing it to the scale that is really required? And that is what a royal commission can expose. It can force states and territories together, with the federal government, for some accountability around what is really happening. It's too easy to say, 'We know what needs to be done and we're doing it,' but you're not. You have not changed the laws around alcohol, you have not impacted gambling and you have not impacted the drivers. We need the accountability that only a royal commission can provide.”
“If this government is serious about ending violence against women in a generation, it must provide secure, long-term funding for frontline services including women's shelters, legal clinics, counsellors, crisis accommodation and perpetrator-intervention programs. This means listening to organisations calling for at least a 50 per cent increase in frontline service funding just to meet existing demand. We can't keep funding fragmented responses without interrogating the system that continues to fail women and children. We need accountability and we need funding that matches the scale of the crisis. And this is where we have to call out the government and the Prime Minister around the response to the now over 112,000 people who have signed a petition for a royal commission into domestic violence.”
“So why are we still underinvesting in the very services that keep women safe and support women's economic security and productivity? Women's Legal Services Australia has warned that services are already forced to turn away around a thousand women a week. In the same day the budget was announced, Domestic Violence NSW reported a 49 per cent increase in high-risk referrals to services by New South Wales police. This year alone, 29 women and nine children have reportedly been killed by violence from people they knew. That includes five women and two children in the week following the budget. Yet frontline services remain chronically underfunded. Every budget is a reflection of priorities.”
“Women and children escaping violence need safety, secure housing, legal support, trauma informed services and long-term pathways to rebuild their lives. The budget includes $62 million a year to continue action on gender based violence. You'll hear, from many members of government, big numbers extrapolated over numerous years. What you need to do is break it down on a per year basis to understand the real shortfall. Violence against women is estimated to cost the Australian economy $21.7 billion every year. So consider the discrepancy of the scale of the commitment. The Women's Economic Equality Taskforce has estimated that $128 billion could be added to the economy by boosting women's workforce participation and productivity.”
“Where there is a debt owed to the Commonwealth, because child support has not been paid or has been under-declared for too long, the Commonwealth should recover that debt from the parent with the child support liability—not, as it currently does, from the parent to whom that debt is owed, who is already carrying the overwhelming burden of care. So this measure in the budget is an important step forward, but it is not the level of reform needed to make this system safe and fair. I've discussed this issue with the minister, who is well aware of the problem. More must be done to rectify this systemic abuse that is occurring, essentially facilitated by the Commonwealth. The area where the budget falls most seriously short is keeping women and children safe from violence. Domestic and family violence is a national crisis.”
“Too often, mothers are left with unpaid child support from an ex-partner and then the Commonwealth seeks to recover a debt from them through the family support payments because it has arisen from their former partner's delay in disclosing their income or attempts to minimise their income to avoid paying child support. In this context of domestic and family violence, it's deeply concerning that the system can effectively facilitate financial abuse. Parents should not be forced back into conflict, unsafe contact or repeated administrative battles with an abusive former partner simply to secure payments their children are owed.”
“So overwhelmingly this unpaid child support impacts women and—let's be real—it impacts children's because ultimately it is what the children need to grow up healthy and have their needs met. Single Mother Families Australia has also highlighted the scale of the problem. Nearly 300,000 families lose approximately $810 million annually in family payments due to child support income that may never be received. So that's a structural failure. The maintenance income test can be harsher than the income test applied to wages or investment. A mother is often treated by the government as though she has received child support from the former partner when in reality that money has never been paid or arrived.”
“I welcome the government's investment of $182.6 million over four years, with $19.6 million ongoing, to improve patient compliance within the Child Support Scheme. It's long overdue and an issue I've raised on many occasions, because unpaid child support keeps women and children in poverty. As a former family law barrister, I have seen firsthand the impact of problems within this system. Child support is too often weaponised after separation, and the government has acknowledged that in this budget. It's important to know the facts. There's around $2 billion in unpaid child support across Australia. Those payments are owed by 229,000 parents, and about 83 per cent of recipient parents are women.”
“In too many areas, the budget repackages existing announcements, applies selective gender analysis and celebrates progress against benchmarks that are far too low. There is no published gender analysis of the NDIS reforms that will divert some 160,000 participants to Thriving Kids by 2030 despite the enormous implications for women, who remain the majority of carers. Climate change, which disproportionately affects women in disaster recovery areas, in housing insecurity, in unpaid care and in community resilience, does not even get a mention in the Women's Budget Statement. These are serious omissions if the government wants to seem legitimate with this statement. There are some really important measures in this budget that I do want to commend in relation to gender equity around child support.”
“Delivering for women matters for everyone. When women are safe, healthy, supported and economically secure, families are stronger, communities are stronger, the economy is stronger and Australia is stronger. A rising tide lifts all boats. I welcome that this government has continued the Women's Budget Statement. Gendered analysis of the budget was abandoned by my predecessor, Tony Abbott, and restoring it was an important step. But analysis is not enough. This budget was largely underwhelming for women. This Women's Budget Statement rightly identifies many of the key problems—the gender pay gap, women's safety, unpaid care, financial insecurity and the compounding disadvantage faced by First Nations women. But the measures funded in this budget do not meet the scale of the challenge.”
“I want it to be here for Warringah families in 10 years and for every Australian with disability who needs it, but I will not support a bill that achieves fiscal sustainability by shifting the burden onto people with disability, their families and their carers. The government's urgency appears to be driven by fiscal and political expediency rather than best care for the most vulnerable.”
“It anchors cost containment decisions in the scheme's founding principle—that supports exist to enable Australians with disability to live independently and contribute on their own terms. My third amendment makes support determinations reviewable decisions, and, in the bill as drafted, a ministerial determination reducing support funding is a legislative instrument, meaning it applies broadly and is not, itself, a reviewable decision that an individual participant can challenge through a merits review. This amendment closes that gap. Where a determination reduces a participant's funding, they are deemed to be affected by a reviewable decision and can access existing review pathways. It does not prevent the minister from acting, but it creates accountability. I want this scheme to succeed; it is so vital for so many.”
“Disability is not static; it needs change. Providers exit markets, and circumstances shift between scheduled reviews. The minister's power to reduce funding across classes of supports is broad. It is too broad as currently drafted. The bill does not require the minister to consider what that reduction will actually mean for individual participants before acting. My second amendment changes that. Before reducing funding across a class of supports, the minister must actively consider whether the determination would undermine supports assessed as reasonable and necessary for individual participants. This introduces a genuine, holistic safeguard into a ministerial power that currently operates with very limited constraints.”
“Without statutory timeframes for decisions, mandatory clinical input in planning and independent oversight of the NDIA, the structural problems remain and reform risks layering cost cuts on top of dysfunction. At the consideration in detail stage, I'll be moving three amendments to this bill. The first is about broadening the reassessment trigger. Currently, the bill limits when a participant can request an unscheduled plan reassessment, tying it to a narrow set of circumstances defined by the NDIA. The bill narrows when participants can request an unscheduled plan reassessment, and this amendment adds three practical triggers: when supports in a plan are no longer available, when a plan is not meeting a participant's needs in practice or when new clinical evidence has emerged. These things are not static; they fluctuate.”
“Services in Warringah may look very different from those in regional New South Wales or other states. Families have already reported receiving exit letters from the NDIA, claiming children have 'achieved their goals', even when therapists and parents know they still need support. I'm calling on the government to provide a clear, legally binding guarantee that no child will lose access to funded supports until Thriving Kids is operational in their community—not just nationally but locally. Fourthly, there is no accountability framework for systemic failures. The bill does not address the systemic failures that are driving costs and participant distress—inconsistent decision-making, delays, poor plan quality and a high-volume appeals backlog.”
“Children with mild to moderate autism and developmental delay under the age of nine will be transitioned from the NDIS to the new Thriving Kids program, which is set to begin rolling out from 1 October 2026. But the NDIS eligibility changes don't take effect until January 2028, meaning there's a real risk that there's going to be a gap between when NDIS support winds back and when Thriving Kids services are available in communities in Warringah and across Australia. We've raised this issue with the government but have yet to be absolutely assured that a service gap will not occur—keeping in mind that these are young children, where every month and period of development is crucial to ensure they are reaching their full potential. State based delivery means geographic inconsistency.”
“The government has allocated only $200 million over three years for the Inclusive Communities Fund. Just think about that—$200 million over three years to replace social and community participation supports for over 368,000 participants currently using those supports. The maths just don't add up. This sequencing is precisely what the 2023 NDIS independent review warned against: reforms being implemented piecemeal without the supporting structures required. As put to me by a Warringah constituent, rushing these reforms risks 'entrenching cost driven decision-making that undermines both the integrity of the scheme and Australia's disability rights obligations.' Thirdly, the Thriving Kids transition must have a no-service-gap guarantee.”
“It has done so with aged care. It is repeating the mistakes and ignoring the recommendations that came out of the robodebt royal commission. Secondly, foundational supports must exist before eligibility is tightened. The bill stages these changes unevenly. Access changes based on functional capacity are not due to commence until 1 January 2028, but changes affecting social and community participation are being advanced before the Inclusive Communities Fund and broader foundational supports are fully designed, funded and actually operating in local communities. We can all see the gap. The $10 billion national agreement on foundational supports over five years sounds substantial, but $4 billion is already committed to the Thriving Kids program for children under nine, leaving just $6 billion for adults and the broader population.”
“As NDIS expert Dr Georgia van Toorn has noted: If algorithms are going to determine who gets support and who goes without, then the entire apparatus—including the algorithm itself, its modelling, classification rules and training data—must be open to scrutiny. The bill permits automated administrative decision-making but does not establish the transparency, the override mechanism or the accountability frameworks needed to make this safe. I'm calling on the government to publish the I-CAN algorithm and modelling, require qualified allied health assessors, guarantee that human override of automated plans is possible and establish an independent audit function for algorithmic decisions. We've seen what happens when automated systems go wrong: they have dire consequences. What the government appears to be doing is repeating the same mistakes.”
“Our current reporting indicates that, once I-CAN generates a budget—and this is an automated system—NDIA staff will have no authority to change it. It will not be reviewed or managed by people. This is an automated system. They can request a reassessment using different inputs, but it is still an automated output. This risks allowing a standardised assessment and budget-setting method to carry decisive weight in determining a participant's support with limited transparency about how the generated budget can be reviewed, varied or overridden. The assessors conducting these conversations are not required to have allied health qualifications. It's just staggering that we're still at the point of saying that. It's highly desirable but not mandatory. It's deeply concerning.”
“But, again, there is overreach in the government's response. The ministerial pricing mechanism provides a lever for cost containment that may be necessary, but there is no precaution or arm's length and the government may not always use this responsibly. There are serious concerns. Firstly, the I-CAN automated assessment system—transparency and accountability are sorely missing. This question was put to the government today in question time, and there is no reasonable or real answer to this problem. From April 2027, participant support plans will be determined through I-CAN—the Instrument for the Classification and Assessment of Support Needs—a semistructured assessment rating support needs across 12 domains, including communication and mobility.”
“A fair reform agenda would strengthen regulation, close loopholes in the provider market and protect the people the scheme exists to serve. The scheme's integrity problems should not be treated as though they sit with participants. People with disability are not the ones designing pricing models, running provider businesses or exploiting gaps in oversight. Reform should be aimed squarely at those who profit from failure. This bill gets a few things right. Strengthening fraud controls, civil penalties, expanded information-gathering powers and record-keeping requirements—these are necessary and long overdue. Expanding mandatory registration to higher risk providers—personal care, daily living supports, closed settings—is sensible and consistent with the NDIS Review's risk-proportionate model.”
“The bigger issue is that the scheme has been allowed to operate with insufficient oversight. The regulator does not have full visibility over the provider market, creating space for overcharging, poor practice and exploitation to take hold. But let's be clear. This is not the only area where it happens. Medicare fraud has been estimated at around $3 billion a year, yet we don't see the Prime Minister and members of the government—when they come in here brandishing their Medicare cards—also concerned about fraud in the Medicare system. We certainly don't see them come in here demonising patients and blaming them for that fraud. We don't describe Medicare fraud as a reason to demonise patients, yet the NDIS is too often discussed as though participants themselves are the problem.”
“Non-clinically-trained planners are making consequential decisions about complex disabilities. Significant public funds are being spent on administration, tribunals and consultants—not supports. Fraud and provider misconduct are genuine issues, but this claim is often conflated with legitimate participant need to justify eligibility tightening. It's concerning that there are even allegations that there was messaging consultation done by the government that actually said, 'If you amplify the concern around fraud, you will get more social licence for reining it in and for these changes.' In some ways, it's almost like it was a marketing strategy to enable these changes to be pursued. The government should absolutely pursue fraud, but that cannot be the whole story.”
“Without reform, that figure is projected to be exceeded, and that is an issue. In 2026-27, the budget projects some $37.8 billion in reduced expenditure growth over four years. The NDIS spending on core social and community participation reached $11.9 billion in the 12 months to 31 March 2026, and the government says average actual spend in that category has risen from around $14,000 five years ago to about $31,000 this year. I agree: these are real sustainability pressures that cannot be ignored. But the system's existing failures are also real and can't be dismissed. Participants in my electorate face chronic delays, inconsistent decisions, poor plan quality and an overwhelmed appeals system, with a backlog estimated at 35,000 change-of-circumstance cases.”
“Constituents are reporting change-of-circumstance requests sitting unprocessed for months, and some have reported drastic funding reductions—in one case, from 36 hours of support to just seven, without explanation or clinical justification. Families of young children are deeply anxious about the Thriving Kids transition, uncertain as to whether community services will actually exist in Warringah when their child's NDIS plan ends. Many of these constituents have raised their view that this bill appears to be driven by a cost reduction agenda, not by ensuring people receive reasonable and necessary supports In 2022-23, NDIS expenditure grew by 20 per cent. The government committed to an eight per cent growth cap by July 2026, but the latest figure shows that it is still exceeding that. There are currently 774,456 NDIS participants.”
“Warringah has heard from participants, carers, occupational therapists and providers, and their message is consistent: fix the system, don't punish the people it exists to serve—NDIS participants and their families, many living with autism, psychosocial disability, Down syndrome and complex fluctuating conditions. My electorate office has heard from local NDIS providers, including Northside and Bushlink, one of Warringah longest serving community disability organisations; allied health professionals—occupational therapists, speech pathologists and social workers, all of whom work with NDIS participants daily; and parents of children with developmental delay and autism, who are anxious about the Thriving Kids transition. The NDIS is essential to each of their lives.”
“The NDIS must be made fiscally sustainable, but sustainability cannot come at the cost of Australians with disability being left worse off. The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 contains reforms that are genuinely necessary—stronger fraud controls, provider accountability and modernised governance—and I support those measures. But this bill also contains reforms that are moving too fast without the supporting infrastructure, independent modelling or accountability frameworks that responsible reform demands.”
“I had some really insightful discussions with some of the participants around the challenges of their work and the importance of better services.”
“The pressures of insecure work, tough conditions, stigma around mental health, gambling, substance abuse, alcohol and a culture of just pushing through can have devastating consequences. MATES is changing that culture, and I commend them for that. It is an evidence-based, industry-led program that gives workers the tools to recognise when someone is struggling, start a difficult conversation and connect them with support. At its heart, MATES is about connection. It's about making sure that people know they are not alone and that asking for help is a strength, not a weakness. Programs like this save lives. I really want to commend them and thank them for including me and having me there to witness it firsthand.”
“Let's talk about men's health, especially in the construction industry, where men are nine times more likely to die from suicide than from a work health and safety accident. Recently, at a construction site in Manly, I went and attended a MATES program. The session was confronting but deeply impactful. Early in the morning I sat with a group of tradies and construction workers onsite to talk about suicide and the challenges they face. The session began with a simple question: put your hand up if you have been impacted by suicide or if you have lost someone to suicide. Every single person in that room raised their hand. It was a stark reminder of just how significant this issue is in their industry.”
“With too many clothes ending up in landfill, it offers a stylish and sustainable alternative, a place where quality pre-loved pieces can become someone else's new favourite item. Also based in the North Sydney Greenwood Plaza, it makes sustainable fashion social and accessible. Together, these initiatives reduce waste and strengthen community connection. I had the pleasure of attending them a few days ago, and I want to really congratulate all involved, in particular the volunteers, for their incredible initiatives. It makes me so proud of Warringah.”
“The Joy of Giving Hub and Swap in the City show how community led action can make sustainability accessible, joyful and a community building exercise. I'm delighted to recognise these two outstanding local initiatives helping our community reduce waste and embrace the circular economy. The Joy of Giving Hub gives pre-loved toys new homes, keeping them out of landfill while bringing joy to children and families. Founded in 2019, it began with a simple but powerful idea: children learn the value of giving by sharing what they no longer need. Through the dedication of local volunteers, toys are reused, families are supported and children see sustainability as something positive, practical and generous. Swap in the City brings the same spirit to fashion.”
“Parents should not be forced back into conflict, into unsafe contact or repeated administrative battles with an abusive former partner. The government must progress to a child support guarantee, and, when a parent fails to pay, children don't go without. When there is a family support debt owed to the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth should recoup it against the parent with a child support liability. Stop chasing women for those payments because all it does is give them credit rating issues, mean they cannot get into housing and mean they bear the brunt of it. There are many simple things that still need to be done in relation to this budget.”