Mark Butler
Hindmarsh · Australian Labor Party · Australia
“But earlier today we were all in here voting on the latest instalment in the member for Lindsay's ongoing but thus far unsuccessful campaign to rebrand the Liberal Party.”
“I thank the member for Werriwa for her contribution and for her really strong support for everything we're doing to make Medicare stronger and make medicines cheaper. I thank all members for their contributions to the debate on this bill. As the member for Werriwa said, Medicare is the very best of Australia.”
“I thank the member for his question, which is a question I've answered before in this place since the budget. As I've said on a number of occasions publicly and in this chamber, the additional support that over-65s have received since about 2004 for their private health insurance premium is something we did revisit given the significant p…”
“But, under ours, they'll receive an increase of more than 20 per cent, or an additional $160 million in this year alone, which means more doctors, more nurses and better care in Tasmania.”
“Importantly, this bill provides stability so patients can continue to benefit from the outcomes of these programs and strengthened access to primary care.”
“That approach gives providers and the government greater certainty while preserving the flexibility needed to keep program settings up to date as health system needs evolve. Importantly, the bill does not change the underlying policy settings of existing programs.”
The complete record
Every one of 580 lines we hold for Mark Butler, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 12.
“They lived through that infamous decade of cuts and neglect. Australians, if they're interested in Medicare, know the Labor Party is the party to deliver the real change and a healthier Australia.”
“But earlier today we were all in here voting on the latest instalment in the member for Lindsay's ongoing but thus far unsuccessful campaign to rebrand the Liberal Party. Even while we were reading about the opposition leader giving his party room a tongue lashing about rebranding, the member for Lindsay was moving a motion promoting the Liberal Party as the party of Medicare and the Liberal Party as the party of bulk-billing. I say to the member for Lindsay, in broad terms, good luck; in broad terms, strength to your arm! But the Australian people know what the Liberal Party has always thought about Medicare. They remember John Howard describing Medicare as the Hawke government's greatest failure. They remember John Howard describing bulk-billing as an absolute rort. They remember Tony Abbott trying to abolish bulk-billing altogether.”
“But, under ours, they'll receive an increase of more than 20 per cent, or an additional $160 million in this year alone, which means more doctors, more nurses and better care in Tasmania. We're also taking pressure off those hospitals, with urgent care clinics in Burnie, in Devonport and in other parts of Tasmania, and with a revival of bulk-billing. I'm pleased to report to the member for Braddon that bulk-billing in her electorate is up 12 per cent because of our investments and now sits at over 93 per cent for pensioners. It's at over 97 per cent for people without a concession card. It's increased by a whopping 25 per cent because of our investments. This is the sort of real change you get from hardworking Labor members like the member for Braddon.”
“Thank you to the member for Braddon, part of the mighty Tasmanian Labor team. A bit like South Australia, Tasmania is a little older than the national average, with a higher rate of most chronic diseases, and that makes a stronger Medicare there even more important. The member for Braddon and her colleagues never miss an opportunity to talk up the interests of their beautiful state when it comes to health, and this government is delivering. Yesterday, Tasmania's hardworking public hospitals were finally freed of the shackles of the substandard Morrison-era hospitals agreement. Under that deal, their funding would have been capped at just $750 million this year.”
“I thank the member for his question, which is a question I've answered before in this place since the budget. As I've said on a number of occasions publicly and in this chamber, the additional support that over-65s have received since about 2004 for their private health insurance premium is something we did revisit given the significant pressure on our aged-care system and the need to find additional funding to deal with the demand that has been the subject of some discussion in this parliament over the course of this week. Let's be clear: the additional premium on the rebate has meant that households next to each other on exactly the same income have been receiving a different level of support for their private health insurance based solely on their age.”
“Importantly, this bill provides stability so patients can continue to benefit from the outcomes of these programs and strengthened access to primary care. A further important feature of the bill is the amendment of the short title of the Health Insurance Act 1973 to the Medicare Act, with a transition period to support the consequential amendments and system changes that are required across Commonwealth, state and territory frameworks. This is a foundational reform that will strengthen the administration, the integrity and the sustainability of Medicare incentive payment programs and help ensure that government investment in primary care is delivered effectively. I commend the bill to the House.”
“That approach gives providers and the government greater certainty while preserving the flexibility needed to keep program settings up to date as health system needs evolve. Importantly, the bill does not change the underlying policy settings of existing programs. It does not alter substantive eligibility criteria or payment amounts, and existing participants are intended to transition into the new framework without needing to reapply. The bill also supports efficient, high-volume administration by enabling specific administrative action to be undertaken with the assistance of computer programs—subject, of course, to oversight, transparency, substituted decision safeguards and review rights.”
“These programs are a central part of how the government supports access, affordability and quality in Australia's primary healthcare system, including, particularly, in rural and regional communities. Primary care incentive programs represent more than $1.4 billion of annual government investment, yet a number of significant programs currently operate without a dedicated legislative scheme tailored to their establishment, administration, compliance and review. The bill addresses that gap by inserting a new part into the Health Insurance Act 1973, creating a consistent statutory basis for incentive payment programs while allowing detailed program settings to be dealt with in rules.”
“I thank the member for Werriwa for her contribution and for her really strong support for everything we're doing to make Medicare stronger and make medicines cheaper. I thank all members for their contributions to the debate on this bill. As the member for Werriwa said, Medicare is the very best of Australia. It allows Australians to receive high-quality health care regardless of their bank balance, and that was the mission that Bob Hawke had in mind. The Albanese government is strengthening Medicare, the heart of universal health care, to make it easier for Australians to see a GP for free. The Health Insurance Amendment (Incentive Payments and Other Measures) Bill 2026 establishes for the first time a clear and enduring legislative framework for Commonwealth primary care incentive payment programs.”
“It's reflected in stronger communities, deeper connections, better outcomes for countless people and immeasurable social capital. The organisations represented by these recipients play an essential role in community life, and they rely on the generosity, energy and leadership of volunteers to continue their important work. Long may it continue.”
“They demonstrate that the next generation is already making a meaningful contribution to their community. Our Local Legend recipients were Phillip Wass, Geoff Pierson, Rebecca Forest, Kerri Scharkie and Dr Nathan Cummins. Their longstanding service has left an enduring mark on the organisations and the people that they support. While volunteering is more than economics, its value is simply impossible to ignore. Across Australia, volunteers contributed an estimated 618 million hours of service in 2025. Our country volunteers more than any other in the OECD, and those hours represent an enormous contribution to our nation and to communities like mine in Adelaide's western suburbs. That contribution saves organisations countless dollars while delivering immeasurable social benefit, but it can't be measured simply in hours given.”
“I want to acknowledge volunteers from: the Adelaide Jaguars Women's Soccer Club—the Jags; the Airport Over 50s Club; the Camden Community Centre; the Charles Sturt Memorial Museum Trust; CHATS—Community Help and Togetherness; the Cheltenham Community Centre; Dragon Boat SA; the Fiji Senior Citizens Association; Gillman Speedway; Henley and Grange RSL; Henley Surf Life Saving Club; the Historic Ketch Falie; the National Railway Museum; Port Adelaide Historical Society; Rowing SA; Seaton Ramblers; Semaphore Lawn Bowls Club; the Telugu Association; West Beach Community Church; the Woodville Concert Band; and, of course, the Woodville Rugby Union Football Club. I want to acknowledge our Youth Award recipients: Hayley Fraser, Jai Gardner, Jayasri Pathuri and Snehasri Pathuri.”
“I'm so pleased today to rise to acknowledge the extraordinary volunteers and community organisations across the electorate of Hindmarsh, whose dedication strengthens the fabric of our community every single day. As part of this year's Hindmarsh Volunteer Awards, I was proud to acknowledge more than 40 outstanding volunteers nominated by their peers in recognition of their service and their commitment. Together, they represent the many people, groups and contributions that make our community in Adelaide's western suburbs so vibrant. They support sporting clubs, preserve local history, care for seniors, strengthen multicultural communities, honour our veterans, promote the arts and create opportunities for people of all ages to connect and to thrive.”
“Very strict conflict-of-interest arrangements will be put in place as a result of this bill if it passes. I commend those changes to the House.”
“Our original intention was not to allow related entities—a plan manager service—to have other support services provided by a related entity. We've taken feedback from the sector and concluded that there are very high-value services being provided by related entities—not the same service per se, but by related entities—plan management on one hand and a range of other support services on the other, and that it would be really to the detriment of participants were we to adopt a harder line in relation to this. We are making it clear that particular services are either plan managers or they're service providers of another type. Related entities will be able to provide plan management services on the one hand and other services on the other.”
“(16) Schedule 2, item 100, page 84 (line 4), omit "section 9", substitute "subsection 73EA(2A)". (17) Schedule 2, item 101, page 84 (line 31), omit "paragraphs 73F(2)(j) and (k)", substitute "paragraph 73F(2)(j)". (18) Schedule 2, item 101, page 85 (line 1), omit "do", substitute "does". Briefly, these amendments seek to clarify the separation that we've sought through this bill between plan manager on the one hand and providers of other services on the other. We're very determined to make significant reforms to the plan management part of this scheme. We'll be moving to a commissioned model so that plan managers will only be able to offer their services to participants when the government has been satisfied that they meet certain standards and qualifications.”
“(12) Schedule 2, item 97, page 83 (after line 8), after subsection 73EA(2), insert: (2A) A person is a related party of another person in any of the following circumstances: (a) the person is a relative of the other person (within the meaning of section 9 of the Corporations Act 2001 ); (b) either person is an associated entity of the other person (within the meaning of section 50AAA of the Corporations Act 2001 ); (c) circumstances prescribed by the National Disability Insurance Scheme Rules for the purposes of this paragraph. (13) Schedule 2, item 98, page 83 (lines 22 to 25), omit paragraph 73F(2)(j). (14) Schedule 2, item 98, page 83 (line 26), omit "(k)", substitute "; (j)". (15) Schedule 2, item 98, page 83 (line 27), omit "and any related party of the person".”
“(8) Schedule 2, item 93, page 81 (lines 23 and 24), omit ", or a related party of a person registered or applying to be registered,". (9) Schedule 2, item 95, page 82 (lines 5 and 6), omit ", or is a related party of another person that is". (10) Schedule 2, item 95, page 82 (lines 11 and 12), omit ", or is a related party of another person that is". (11) Schedule 2, item 97, page 83 (line 7), after "person", insert "and key personnel of the person".”
“(1C) If the person the CEO is attempting to contact is the participant, an attempt does not count for the purposes of subsection (1B) if, before suspending the plan, the CEO becomes aware that at the time the attempt was made, the participant was in the care of a hospital or other institution, or experiencing homelessness. (3) Schedule 1, item 89, page 34 (lines 15 to 17), omit paragraph 24(5)(b). (4) Schedule 1, item 89, page 34 (line 18), omit "(c)", substitute "(b)". (5) Schedule 1, item 91, page 35 (lines 7 to 9), omit paragraph 25(1B)(b). (6) Schedule 1, item 91, page 35 (line 10), omit "(c)", substitute "(b)". Question agreed to. by leave—I move: (7) Schedule 2, item 91, page 81 (lines 8 to 16), omit the definition of related party in section 9, substitute: related party has the meaning given by subsection 73EA(2A).”
“(1B) The requirements in this subsection are met in relation to the person mentioned in paragraph (1A)(a), (b) or (c) (as applicable) if: (a) at least 5 attempts have been made to contact the person using the person's preferred form of contact; and (b) the last of those attempts was made at least 3 months, and not more than 4 months, after the first of those attempts; and (c) if the person's preferred form of contact is not in writing—at least one additional attempt has been made, during the period between the first and last of the attempts mentioned in paragraph (a), to contact the person in writing.”
“(2) Schedule 1, item 83, page 31 (after line 13), after subsection 40A(1), insert: (1A) The CEO cannot be satisfied that reasonable attempts to contact the participant have been made as mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) unless the CEO is satisfied that the requirements in subsection (1B) are met in relation to: (a) unless paragraph (b) or (c) applies—the participant; or (b) if the participant has a nominee—the participant's nominee; or (c) if the participant does not have a nominee but has another authorised contact or representative—that other authorised contact or representative.”
“(1D) If the person the CEO is attempting to contact is the participant, an attempt does not count for the purposes of subsection (1C) if, before suspending the plan, the CEO becomes aware that at the time the attempt was made, the participant was in the care of a hospital or other institution, or experiencing homelessness.”
“(1C) The requirements in this subsection are met in relation to the person mentioned in paragraph (1B)(a), (b) or (c) (as applicable) if: (a) at least 5 attempts have been made to contact the person using the person's preferred form of contact; and (b) the last of those attempts was made at least 3 months, and not more than 4 months, after the first of those attempts; and (c) if the person's preferred form of contact is not in writing—at least one additional attempt has been made, during the period between the first and last of the attempts mentioned in paragraph (a), to contact the person in writing.”
“I commend the amendments to the House and I move: (1) Schedule 1, item 79, page 30 (after line 17), after subsection 30(1A), insert: (1B) The CEO cannot be satisfied that reasonable attempts to contact the participant have been made as mentioned in subparagraph (1A)(a)(i) unless the CEO is satisfied that the requirements in subsection (1C) are met in relation to: (a) unless paragraph (b) or (c) applies—the participant; or (b) if the participant has a nominee—the participant's nominee; or (c) if the participant does not have a nominee but has another authorised contact or representative—that other authorised contact or representative.”
“Essentially, these six amendments clarify our original intention in relation to the revocation or suspension of plant and the process that the agency would go through for that, as well as a drafting clarification, particularly around the operation of the requirement for appropriate treatment—namely, no requirement for additional treatment where a participant has already undertaken appropriate treatment.”
“I thank all members of the crossbench and the member for Ryan for their contributions to this important piece of legislation. I now present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and an addendum to the explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (6) on sheet ST122, as circulated, together. Leave granted. I won't detain the House. The rationale behind these amendments is contained in the documents just presented by the government.”
“There'll be some further debate about that over the course of the rest of this evening. For those same reasons, we're not supporting these amendments.”
“I just want to address a couple of remarks there. I've indicated my appreciation for the contributions that a number of crossbench members have made to this debate and for the time they've taken to draft amendments and come to us. I think the member said there were 30-something amendments from the crossbench. A number of them do cross over; they deal with the same material. But we are supporting, I think, in total, 12 of those amendments. I'll also move 18 government amendments—when we get to that—to reflect feedback we've received. I want to reiterate how much I value the engagement, even where people have different views about the direction that we should take, in relation to this critically important social program. I've made remarks about amendments that go to the reassessment proposals and support determinations.”
“In the meantime, having much more certainty around pricing on an annual basis, with advice from the board to the minister and publication—pursuant to the amendment that we supported from, I think, the member for Indi—is a huge advance on where we've been. We don't support these amendments.”
“I'll be brief. To clarify some of the remarks from the member for Kooyong, I think she understands that IHACPA's advice on aged-care pricing is still a decision made by government in the same way that we're seeking for the pricing advice that would go through the annual pricing review, the board and the minister to also be a decision of government. I've said publicly a number of times now that I see real merit in adopting the recommendation of the NDIS review and moving pricing of the NDIS, in time, to IHACPA. The preliminary work that IHACPA has done on that confirms, particularly with our experience of aged care, that this would be a long process.”
“I understand that some in this parliament—certainly, obviously, some in the other place and some out in the community—would like to see an expansion of the work of podiatrists. That is not something I have any problem with, in principle. But I do not support the idea that—after 10 years of work to set this up properly in an evidence based way in consultation with medical groups, patient groups and the like for registered nurses, the largest professional group in our healthcare system—at the last minute, we bolt on, because it seems like a good idea, a podiatry addition to this when that work has not yet been done. So we do not support the amendments sent to us by the Senate, and we ask the House to support the government's position.”
“There is a live discussion about whether the sort of expansion for registered nurses that we're seeing now, in the bill that the government presented, should be available to podiatrists as well. But let me be clear; the work in relation to podiatrists is not finished. It is still underway. It is far too early, in my view, to bolt on at the last minute an amendment to expand the opportunity to podiatrists to prescribe PBS medicines when that work has not yet been completed. Unlike the work for podiatrists, the work for registered nurses has been completed. Universities have already started delivering their programs. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee is already considering the medicines that may be put on the list for registered nurse-prescribers to prescribe. That work has not yet been done for podiatry organisations.”
“As a result of 10 years of hard work, this endorsement for registered nurses, appropriately qualified, to be able to prescribe medicines has been enthusiastically endorsed by all health ministers in the health ministers group. The Senate has proposed a last-minute amendment to bolt on to this best-practice piece of work, conducted to support the work of our hardworking nurses, a proposal to expand opportunities to podiatrists to prescribe medicines, which reasonable people might think is a good idea in principle. I can indicate that we have been engaging with podiatry groups, including the Australian Podiatry Association, about this issue for endorsed podiatrists.”
“I move: That the amendments be disagreed to. This bill is the result of more than 10 years of work—work conducted in a proper, iterative, evidence based way, work that seeks to continue to expand the opportunity for nurses to work at their full scope of practice. Given that there are quite a number of different proposals for the expansion of what we would regard, I think, as the existing work provinces of different parts of the health profession, can I make my view clear that this is best practice. This has been conducted by the nurses board in very close consultation with all relevant groups—medical professionals, patients, colleges and universities.”
“There are five new medicines for different types of cancer, and there are new medicines for growth hormone deficiency, for severe asthma, for myasthenia gravis and for a whole range of other conditions as well. Some of them would have cost tens of thousands of dollars without being added to the PBS. All of this is making a real difference to Australians and to their household budgets and their health, and it's building a healthier Australia.”
“Last year, for the first time in decades, we finally listed new menopause hormone treatments for Australia's women. Last year we introduced a new assessment item so women can talk to their GPs about issues associated with menopause and perimenopause, and, from today, led by the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care, we are extending the work of our successful endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics to include issues associated with menopause and perimenopause. And, last but certainly not least, today is a bumper day for the PBS, with 10 new life-saving, life-changing medicines added today that will benefit tens of thousands of Australian patients.”
“Finally, today, our hardworking public hospitals are freed from the mediocrity of the Morrison-era funding agreement. We know that demand and pressures on public hospitals are climbing year on year, and this side of the parliament is not going to nickel-and-dime hardworking doctors and nurses in public hospitals the way the Liberal Party always does. They would have received, under that agreement, about $12 billion in growth funding over five long years. Under this agreement signed by this prime minister, they'll get triple that amount—$37 billion—to keep them doing their important work in our 750 public hospitals. I'm also delighted to say to the member for Holt and others that from today we deliver another chapter in our support for women during menopause and perimenopause.”
“Thank you to the member for Holt. I know she does everything she can to deliver and promote cost-of-living relief to the hard-working people of the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne. I know she's delighted that the bulk-billing rate in her electorate is now over 94 per cent and that three quarters of practices in her electorate bulk-bill 100 per cent of their patients, 100 per cent of the time. And I know she knows that this is a big day for cost-of-living relief in Australia: a big pay rise for millions of low-paid workers, a tax cut for every Australian worker, more relief at the bowser for another month, more time for new parents with their beautiful new babies—up to six months now—knowing that the bills will be covered by our extended Paid Parental Leave. We're doing more to make Medicare even stronger and medicines even cheaper.”
“I also extend my deepest condolences to his beloved wife Katie, his children Emily, Matthew and Lucy, whose hearts must still be breaking, and to his family, his friends, his colleagues and the so many patients whose lives he touched. Richard Scolyer's remarkable legacy will endure through those lives he saved, through the research he championed and the hope that he gave to others. He was a brilliant, warm and deeply generous man. But perhaps the best way we can remember him is through his own words. He described himself as: … a proud everyday Aussie who 'gave it a crack', and in doing so, inspired others to pursue their dreams and passions with humility, love and compassion. Vale Richard Scolyer.”
“In doing so, he became both a patient and a research participant determined to keep contributing to the world of medical research and making a difference. Like many in this House, I felt privileged to spend time with Professor Scolyer over recent years. This included, as the Prime Minister said, honouring his legacy through the establishment of the Richard Scolyer Chair in Brain Cancer Research at the Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, ensuring that his commitment to advancing brain cancer research will continue to inspire future generations of clinicians and scientists, a fitting tribute to a man whose life was dedicated to improving outcomes for others.”
“Over the past decade, he has taken the Melanoma Institute to the forefront of global efforts to beat this disease, alongside his fellow Australian of the Year, Georgina Long. Richard was known not only as a brilliant scientist and clinician but also for his generosity, his optimism and his unwavering commitment to others. In 2023, Professor Scolyer, as we've heard, faced the greatest challenge of his life when he was diagnosed with glioblastoma. Rather than retreat from the world, he chose instead to confront the disease with the same courage and determination that had defined his career. Drawing on decades of melanoma research, Professor Scolyer became the first person in the world to receive combination immunotherapy before surgery for glioblastoma, alongside a personalised cancer vaccine.”
“I thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for their fine and fitting words. Professor Scolyer's contributions to cancer research, to treatment and to advocacy simply can't be overstated. His work to improve outcomes for Australians living with cancer has saved and improved countless lives, and his courage inspired Australians from all walks of life. Tragically, melanoma is Australia's national cancer. We lead the world in melanoma rates—not a race we want to win—but we also lead the world in finding new treatments and one day a cure. Richard was universally recognised as the world's leading melanoma pathologist and the highest ever published scientist in this area on the planet.”
“Again, I thank the member for Kooyong for her thoughtful consideration of this bill and contributions to this House. I have not framed this bill as a question of sustainability for the economy. I have framed this bill as securing the future of what I think is one of our most important social programs for decades to come. That remains my driving mission behind this bill. As I think the member knows, we are supporting other amendments in relation to section 25A, which is the section of the bill that the member is seeking to amend with amendment (11), and for that reason we won't be supporting this particular amendment.”
“We won't be supporting amendment (5) or (6). As the member indicated—first of all, I've set out very clearly our reasoning around support determinations, but we have also decided to agree to another amendment in relation to that aspect of the reform package.”
“The unmet needs analysis that was put together as part of the bilateral agreements that we have on mental health and suicide prevention, which the assistant minister at the table has been an important part of, found that 230,000 or so Australians right now, today, with severe and chronic mental illness are effectively getting no support whatsoever. This is a complex area. The member understands that. This is not an area that I seek to duckshove to states, as the member suggested in her remarks. I see this very much as a joint responsibility between the Commonwealth and the states, but not one that will be discharged through this particular piece of legislation.”
“All governments are accountable for fixing that and for redressing what is, I think, that missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle that didn't happen over the last decade or so. All governments, Commonwealth and states and territories, are accountable for that, but it's not appropriate that we be accountable through an act that is set up to provide NDIS supports. These are not NDIS supports, so we will not be supporting these amendments. I look forward very much to continuing to engage with the crossbench about the development of foundational supports. Thriving Kids is effectively the first cab off the rank, but we've got a lot of work to do for kids over nine, which the member would understand better than most in this House. We have a ton of work to do for people with psychosocial disability, who are not receiving, really, any support.”
“When we built the NDIS, out of the Productivity Commission report and all of the debate that preceded it and was around it, it was intended effectively to be a tier 1 system of supports for people with disability, particularly those with permanent and significant disability. It was never intended to cover the field, as the member rightly knows. There are a range of other, different systems of support that people with disability rely upon every single day—in health, in education—and the idea of foundational supports as a central recommendation of the NDIS review was essentially a recognition that that second tier of supports, which was a fundamental recommendation of the Productivity Commission, had never been actioned.”
“I thank the member for her amendment. I thank the member for the advice that she gave as part of the committee inquiry that the member for Macarthur chaired, of which she was deputy chair, in relation to Thriving Kids. It was valuable advice. I value her deep understanding of some of these areas of need, particularly for children, but more broadly than that. I don't think I did say to the member for Ryan that this was the responsibility of states. It is a responsibility that we share with states. It's a joint responsibility of the Commonwealth and all state and territory governments. Let me make this point.”
“The member for Indi is right in saying that she has a deep interest and deep understanding of this area. We consider ourselves a government that has tried to work with the member for Indi and others in improving supports for whistleblowers across government programs, including the NDIS. I'm quite attracted to the idea behind this amendment. The advice I've received is that we would need to do quite a bit more work. There are some very complex issues the member's amendment raises that really flow from the nature of this scheme. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to support this amendment today, but I am keen to, if the member is interested, keep working with the member on ways in which we can continue to improve supports for whistleblowers in this critically important scheme.”
“I thank the member for Indi for her remarks. A number of the matters that she has canvassed, particularly around support determinations, are picked up by other amendments from the crossbench that we will be supporting. Other amendments we don't support.”