Henry Pike
Bowman · Liberal National Party · Australia
“One of the things I hear most often from people across my Redlands community is that the aged-care system simply isn't working the way it should—not in theory and not on paper but in the real day-to-day lives of the people who rely on it.”
“She arranged an assessment, secured a package and followed the process, but, when her mother needed simple aids, like a safe kettle or easy-grip kitchen tools, she was told to wait months for approval pending assessments.”
“I heard from an 82-year-old man who is living alone after suffering a stroke. He has a level 2 home-care package, but it is completely inadequate for his needs. He cannot stand without a walker and he fears falling when he showers, when he shaves and even when he gets into bed.”
“I also heard from a 76-year-old woman who hasn't even tried to access support, and this is becoming a common story in my electorate. She told me it feels that there is nowhere to go for advice, and she's not alone. The sense is that it's all too complicated. These aren't isolated cases.”
“We know the Prime Minister has a challenging relationship with the truth. When he comes to this dispatch box, he tries his best to persuade Australians that what they're experiencing isn't really happening. The problem is that the Australian people aren't buying it.”
“But I think all members here, if they were honest with themselves, would appreciate that probably this is the first generation—certainly in my view—where we can't actually make that promise to our children. The aspiration of homeownership is beyond the reach of too many Australians.”
The complete record
Every one of 292 lines we hold for Henry Pike, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 6.
“Speaker, in just a few short years, in 2032, the community that you represent, the community that I represent and the community that the member for Fisher represents will get the opportunity to host an Olympic Games, a phenomenal—”
“I also heard from a 76-year-old woman who hasn't even tried to access support, and this is becoming a common story in my electorate. She told me it feels that there is nowhere to go for advice, and she's not alone. The sense is that it's all too complicated. These aren't isolated cases. These are symptoms of a system that has become too hard to navigate, too slow to respond and too disconnected from common sense. Older Australians and their families deserve far better than this. We need a system that works for all Australians and respects the input that they have made to our community over so many years.”
“She arranged an assessment, secured a package and followed the process, but, when her mother needed simple aids, like a safe kettle or easy-grip kitchen tools, she was told to wait months for approval pending assessments. Later, as her mother became almost immobile and required the highest level of support, basic necessities like continence products, a proper bed and mobility equipment were still not provided. She bought these all herself, every single item, and when she asked for reimbursement she was denied. Eventually exhausted and with no local options available her mother was placed in a nursing home four hours away. She passed away two months later. That family did everything that they could, but the system didn't.”
“I heard from an 82-year-old man who is living alone after suffering a stroke. He has a level 2 home-care package, but it is completely inadequate for his needs. He cannot stand without a walker and he fears falling when he showers, when he shaves and even when he gets into bed. Two years ago he requested a reassessment; two years later he has heard nothing. His world has shrunk to a single chair, a single window and a television. With the limited funding he does receive he can't afford to visit his wife, who is currently in a nursing home. This isn't care; this is neglect by delay. Another story came from a daughter navigating care for her elderly mother. She did everything right.”
“One of the things I hear most often from people across my Redlands community is that the aged-care system simply isn't working the way it should—not in theory and not on paper but in the real day-to-day lives of the people who rely on it. I recently sent out a My Aged Care survey which enabled my constituents to give feedback on where the aged-care system needs to be improved. The response has been overwhelming. The results of the survey were deeply concerning: 52 per cent of respondents reported waiting nine months or more for their approved aged-care package to become available, and 62 per cent of respondents reported facing issues with the lack of supply of providers once their package was provided. These are not short delays; they highlight critical gaps in the system, and it is impacting the real lives of Australians.”
“The Prime Minister is so out of touch with the outside world, so lost in the Canberra bubble, that those voices are entirely lost on him. But he's going to have to step up his efforts if he's going to outspend reality on this one. Perhaps the Prime Minister should ask the networks for another prime-time slot for him to deliver another patronising lecture. Why doesn't the Prime Minister invite Shaquille O'Neal to do a joint press conference to endorse his toxic taxes! These taxes punish aspirations. The Australian people know that, and they want them axed. Prime Minister, will you listen to those voices from my community want these taxes axed?”
“We know the Prime Minister has a challenging relationship with the truth. When he comes to this dispatch box, he tries his best to persuade Australians that what they're experiencing isn't really happening. The problem is that the Australian people aren't buying it. The Australian people aren't quite as stupid as the Prime Minister thinks they are. When I was back in the Redlands this weekend, I heard from local business owner Vijay, who told me about the impact that the CGT changes will directly have on his ability to expand and hire new staff. It's now no longer worth the risk. And I heard from the retired couple Glen and Margaret, who are two of 23,000 people within my electorate who'll be impacted by the government's reduction of the private health insurance rebate. They told me they can no longer justify the expense.”
“The problem is supply and the problem is demand. We've allowed too many people to come to this country without homes for them to live in, and that's why the coalition has adopted a policy that the opposition leader outlined in the budget-in-reply. We're going to peg those two figures together. We're only going to let in enough Australians to meet the—”
“When you look at the ATO lists of the occupations most likely to utilise negative gearing, right up the top there are police officers and nurses—the sort of people who we expect the Labor Party usually would advocate on behalf of. These are the people who are utilising this tax arrangement to try to do the right thing, build their wealth and set their family up for a position where they're going to have a comfortable retirement. Instead, all this does is bake in the advantage that those who've been able to utilise these arrangements have been able to enjoy for many decades and pulls the ladder up on that next generation of aspirational Australians. People talk about the impact of negative gearing. Negative gearing has been part of our tax system for a very long time, long before we had a housing crisis.”
“On the day we're getting our national accounts figures, that should alarm everyone. They also say that construction jobs are to fall by 3,800. These do differ from Treasury's results, which are representing a more modest impact, but I think that that makes for quite sober reading. Also, in the budget papers, it makes it clear we're not just going to get fewer homes. We're actually going to get higher rents. They acknowledge that in Budget Paper No. 1. To me, that isn't about intergenerational fairness. What that's actually doing is pulling up the ladder of opportunity for young Australians. It's not just about those young Australians who want to get their first step on the housing ladder. It's also about those Australians, and many of them aren't property moguls by any stretch of the imagination.”
“I'll also note that we had an interesting joint statement last Friday from the Property Council, the Real Estate Institute of Australia and Master Builders Australia. They've taken their own analysis of what the impact of these changes will mean for the sector that they represent. If I can be entirely honest, I think I've got more faith in their capacity to tell me the impact than I do in the government. They said: … the Federal Budget will see new home construction go backwards, and higher than anticipated rental inflation. Their modelling, which only goes for four years, says that the federal budget will cause new supply to fall by over 8,700 homes in that four-year period. Rents will increase $9 per week. There will be a reduction in the GDP of $864 million.”
“This just doubles down on that general sense of: 'Why am I taking these risks? Where's the reward? It's not worth it anymore.' That, of course, is terrible news for the Australian economy. We'll put aside the business stuff for a moment. I want to talk about the impact on housing. The government's own budget papers say that this will produce 35,000 fewer homes. That'll be a direct consequence of these new taxes. So, when those opposite talk about wanting to ensure that first home buyers or aspirants can get their first step on that property ladder, I ask: can you explain to me the economics of the situation where if you have 35,000 fewer homes we're going to end up with more opportunity?”
“We're the ones taking risks, creating jobs, backing ourselves, and trying to build something meaningful not just for ourselves, but for our staff, our families, and the broader community. … … … When you start talking about changes to things like CGT and trust structures, it sends a pretty clear signal: that long-term effort, delayed gratification, and building something over time are no longer being encouraged but are instead being targeted. That's always been my biggest concern when I go around my electorate. When I doorknock local businesses and I ask them about their outlook, I ask them, 'What's the next challenge for you guys?' Over the course of the last four years, I have gotten disheartening responses where people just tell me it's not worth the risk anymore.”
“It's not like multinational companies moving profits offshore to avoid tax—we have paid tax all these years, and we are in an extremely competitive industry where we cannot increase margins to adjust to this extra tax grab. He goes on to say: To put it bluntly, this budget has us seriously considering selling or even closing the business before June next year as there is no longer any reward for ingenuity, hard work, or effort. I think that sums it up incredibly well. I've also got a note here from Mark, who runs another business in my electorate that I won't name. He says: Day in, day out, small business owners are the ones putting everything on the line.”
“I'll read directly from it: Quite simply, the changes to CGT and trusts will have a devastating impact to our business. All these years we have played by the rules, paid our taxes along the way and now the government wants to completely change the game, never mind the rules of the game. The change to trusts means that we now must consider possible changes to our corporate structure, but no matter what changes we make, the result will be higher taxes. It is completely unfair to introduce what is effectively double taxation on discretionary trusts. We are already being taxed at the company rate so why should distributions to a company be taxed a second time?”
“However, in its totality, we cannot support this bill because of the massive increases in taxes that we're going to see. We're going to see a death tax. We're going to see taxes on family savings. We're going to see taxes on renters, first home buyers and young Australians trying to get ahead. We're going to see taxes on small businesses, startups and entrepreneurs—the people who are the very engine room of the Australian economy. I want to speak on a couple of emails that I've received in my electorate office from local business owners on their response to this budget. I have an email from Nick. I won't mention Nick's business, but it is in a sector where Australia is not competing very well, and he's an individual who is creating employment in the Redlands in a very, very difficult industry.”
“The Prime Minister has also confirmed that we'll potentially see $273 billion in taxes that Australians didn't vote for over the next nine years. In relation to the specific provisions within this bill, schedule 1 introduces changes to the CGT regime. The coalition opposes those. Schedule 2 introduces changes to the negative gearing regime, and the coalition opposes those as well. Schedule 3 introduces the working Australians tax offset. We support that. Schedule 4 introduces the $1,000 standard deduction for work related expenses. That's another measure that we support. A lot has been said by previous speakers, and I won't dwell on the point that this bill has obviously been glued together in order to try to create a wedge.”
“I think it's incredibly disappointing for the dignity of this House that we have such a blatant distance—I want to be careful with my language here, because I don't want to be unparliamentary—between what was said before the election and what's being implemented now. I don't think it reflects well on any of us. I pointed out the fact that I feel this is an assault to aspiration. At a point when we should be encouraging business growth, the ultimate outcome of these changes will be $77 billion in higher taxes. When those opposite talk about trying to implement very, very modest tax changes or very, very modest tax cuts through this bill, we need to point out that headline: $77 billion in higher taxes.”
“A lot has been made in this chamber, and outside it, of the very nature of the fact that the Prime Minister promised so many different times that these tax changes wouldn't be implemented. We remember the 2019 election, when these tax changes were a prominent part of the Labor government's election platform and they suffered a defeat. This is one of the main areas that people point to now and say that they lost the 2019 election because of these and other tax changes they were trying to implement. There is a distinct reason why so many frontbenchers, including the Prime Minister, were at pains to say in the lead-up to the last election, 'No, no, no—we wouldn't be possibly be bringing in changes to negative gearing or to CGT.' Well, here we are.”
“Can we create more wealth here? Can we get to a point where Australia is charging ahead with so much prosperity that we are seeing more opportunity created? I think that's where the fundamental difference is between both sides of this chamber. On my side we're of the view that we should be trying to supercharge small business in this country. We should be giving them more opportunity, more benefits, more capacity or more confidence to invest and create jobs and wealth. Unfortunately, what we see through these changes is the exact opposite, and we think this is completely the wrong direction. Let me start by, firstly, making some comments on the broken promise that this bill represents.”
“But I think all members here, if they were honest with themselves, would appreciate that probably this is the first generation—certainly in my view—where we can't actually make that promise to our children. The aspiration of homeownership is beyond the reach of too many Australians. Economically, we don't have the same opportunities that I think previous generations had, and I fear that my nine-year-old and my six-year-old will not be able to enjoy the same economic opportunities we've been able to enjoy. The question before the House, and probably more so in this bill than in any other legislation I've seen in my four years here, is: how do we actually deal with that? Do we start to rejig tax settings and decide on different ways to share the pie? Or do we try to actually grow the pie? Can we grow the Australian economy?”
“The previous speaker spoke to that great Australian promise that I think has probably existed since 1788: that each generation of Australians is able to pass down to their children a stronger and more prosperous nation. We've had our fair share of challenges in this country. We've been through world wars. We've been through depressions. We've been through gold rushes and we've been through economic collapses. But it has always been the experience in Australia that each generation can, despite those challenges, pass on to their children a stronger, more prosperous, better country and that each generation of Australians can expect, as the previous speaker said, that little bit more than what their parents were able to achieve.”
“The sector deserves far more certainty than what is being delivered through this budget. In relation to mental health, these are answers that the sector and I are both crying out for. Given that many of the sector are pinning their hopes on a new, more ambitious agreement, why is the government not anticipating any new funding for the next years of the agreement? Does the absence of funding beyond 2026-27 indicate the government has no ambition for a new mental health and suicide prevention agreement?”
“At a time when the sector is putting all hopes on the next national mental health and suicide prevention agreement, the budget papers are remarkably thin and only give more uncertainty. Only 12 months of extension of funding has been committed for the agreement. The government claims negotiations are ongoing, but there is no clear funding envelope in the forwards for the agreement to continue, let alone be expanded. That is concerning because demand for mental health services is, of course, rising. Providers are under pressure and too many Australians are still missing out on critical psychosocial supports. The last thing that anybody wants is vulnerable Australians falling through the cracks during periods of major system change. That's the worst possible time for them to get the settings wrong.”
“With the October start date just around the corner, what is the specific design of the Thriving Kids initiative, and how will there be uniform implementation of services across each of the state jurisdictions? What specific services and supports will be delivered under the $3 billion Foundational Supports program outside the NDIS? How will they differ from existing NDIS funded supports, and how much of this funding is being directed towards the Thriving Kids initiative? These are the questions that stakeholders are asking, and I hope the government members are nimble enough to try to provide some level of answer tonight. In relation to mental health, this budget does not inspire confidence about the government's ambition for mental health reform.”
“What specific assumptions are being made regarding participant numbers, plan growth, eligibility changes, foundational supports and fraud savings? When last in government, the coalition was ready to launch a new digital payment system. It was something that the former minister, Bill Shorten, threw straight in the bin. Is the government using that as a basis for the design of the new digital payment system? How was the $300-plus million price tag on this initiative estimated? Given the change to functional assessments, how will the government define which children will be eligible for Thriving Kids support and what thresholds or assessment tools will be used? Will access to Thriving Kids access be based on functional assessments or on diagnosis?”
“Many of the reforms that the government is now proposing are things that the coalition has been supporting for years, including functional assessments, stronger registration and digital payment controls. These are all measures that the Labor government, in opposition, previously opposed. Our concern is that Labor is rushing cuts and eligibility tightening, while the real integrity reforms that we want to see in the scheme are going to be delayed for years and probably won't be fully implemented beyond the forwards of this budget. I note that neither of the NDIS ministers are present here today, but I have several questions. Will the government detail how the projected $37.8 billion reduction in NDIS payments growth will be achieved?”
“That's despite the fact that at the start of this financial year the government was aiming for a growth trajectory of eight per cent, which then became five per cent and is now sitting at two per cent. While they've been setting all these targets, it's actually been growing in the wrong direction. They're failing to land many of the reforms that they had promised previously that were going to bring the scheme under control. They've delayed the implementation of the ICANN tool. No stakeholders know anything about the Thriving Kids initiative, which is supposed to kick off in October. The shadow minister for the NDIS touched on the massive fraud issues that we're seeing across the system, and the government's inability to deal with those issues.”
“As the shadow assistant minister for the NDIS and for mental health, my phone has certainly been running hot over recent weeks, with a lot of stakeholders in both areas who are deeply disappointed with the government's budget. After denying reality on the NDIS for many years, in this budget Labor have finally recognised that the NDIS is not sustainable on its current growth trajectory. The coalition is prepared to work constructively with the government in relation to the NDIS reforms that have been built into the forward appropriations of this budget, but I am highly sceptical of the Labor government's capacity to truly deliver the reform that the scheme needs. In the last quarterly report, scheme growth was up from 10.3 per cent to 11.3 per cent. It's getting worse as we go along.”
“The result of this will be 12 locals being made redundant and the loss of another local business due to the decisions made by this government, which refuses to control its spending agenda.' These are ordinary Australians. These are people who've worked hard, saved, built businesses, paid taxes and tried to do the responsible thing. They're not asking for special treatment; they are asking for a policy environment that supports their efforts rather than undermines them. Australia succeeds when that hard work is rewarded, not resented. The coalition believes there is a better path—a fairer, freer and stronger Australia, where hard work is rewarded, small businesses are backed and the next generation has a genuine chance to get ahead.”
“An individual who owns a manufacturing business in my electorate has contacted me in relation to the CGT changes as well. He says his accountant has advised him that he needs to have his business revalued at 30 June next year, at an estimated cost of approximately $20,000. It's the immediate impact of these changes. This is wasted money that he says could be better used in his business for development or wage increases for his great staff. He says he was considering investing in his business operations to install new equipment and employ additional staff, but has now cancelled those plans. This individual says: 'To put it bluntly, this budget has us seriously considering selling or even closing the business before June next year, as there is no longer any reward for ingenuity, hard work or effort.”
“He made it clear that, for small businesses, profits are not just income; they are what funds growth, job creation and long-term stability. Another small-business owner in my electorate, Mark, who has been building his business for over a decade, says he's always focused on working hard, employing locals and contributing, but now feels small businesses like his are being treated as a convenient revenue stream by the government. Mark says, and I quote, 'From my side, the impact of these types of changes isn't just theoretical; it directly affects decisions around hiring, expansion and how much we're willing to reinvest back into the business.' His message is simple: when the risk and effort no longer match the reward, the incentive to grow disappears and hesitation becomes the enemy of investment.”
“It's always been the great promise of Australia that anyone could build a better life through hard work and sacrifice. That was never something to apologise for; it was something to aspire to. But increasingly this government seems to view aspiration itself as something it needs to curb. Throughout this month's budget, the changes that will hit Redlanders who have worked hard, built businesses and invested their money responsibly. I've heard directly from local small-business owners who are feeling let down and cheated by these changes. Vijay, a local business owner in Victoria Point, told me that the proposed changes to capital gains tax and trust arrangements are creating real uncertainty, which is reducing his ability to reinvest, delaying expansion and making him more cautious about hiring.”
“We've got new taxes on investment, new taxes on enterprise, new taxes on family assets, new taxes on the future—and to what benefit? How does this help young Australians? How is having more debt, higher taxes, less housing, higher rents and less reward for effort going to help them? Australia succeeds when hard work is rewarded, not punished. Australians don't want carve-outs to the Labor Party's toxic taxes. They want to have them axed, and that's exactly what the coalition is going to fight for.”
“There's a saying often attributed to Benjamin Franklin that nothing is certain in life except death and taxes. Thanks to the Albanese government's shameful budget, we now get to experience both those certainties at the same moment. Buried in this budget is a shameful new 30 per cent minimum tax on discretionary testamentary trusts. Let's call it what it is. That is a death tax. It will hit some of the families least able to afford it, including families in my electorate caring for children and grandchildren with profound disabilities who use these structures to provide security and care after they are gone. Nobody voted for this. This government went to the election promising Australians that these taxes would not be implemented under their watch. This budget is built on broken promises and punishing aspiration.”
“We know, from the last quarterly report, that the NDIS is growing at 11.3 per cent, up from 10.3 per cent, so it's actually heading in the wrong direction, despite all the efforts that they've made and the NDIA has made to try to bring those costs down. They had a growth target of eight per cent that they missed. They had a growth target of five to six per cent that they missed. They're now telling us that, through these changes, which are more back ended to the end of the decade, we're somehow going to get to two per cent or below two per cent. I'm very concerned that those budget savings were built into the budget long before these reforms were dreamt up. Can I finish by encouraging all the stakeholders who've got an interest in this space to make sure that they get their submissions in.”
“Obviously, that's a major concern for many people out there. We've seen some horrific examples and we've seen some prosecutions too in relation to that. There is very little in this bill, I would say, that truly tackles fraud head on. It's lacking in detail. We've already had two packages of legislation that have been through here in the course of this government that have sought to tackle fraud. Unfortunately, despite all the resources, despite all the effort, despite all the legislation, we're actually seeing very little done in terms of prosecutions, and the detection of fraud is still at levels that I don't think would be considered to be appropriate, given the scale of the problem. We're concerned that the government's proposals will also not achieve their budget cost savings.”
“My fear is that, if we move the powers of pricing within the scheme under greater control of the minister—and this isn't an attack on the current minister; I think this will be the case for any minister who holds this portfolio over the life of the scheme—we're going to see greater political pressure trying to reduce and screw down those prices, and that is not necessary. That may be a good thing for the budget, but it may not necessarily be a good thing for those who are actually receiving that support or providing that support. We will be looking at that further as we consider the inquiry recommendations and the evidence that's seen through the Senate's consideration of this bill, and we will be potentially proposing some amendments in respect of that. I also want to touch on fraud.”
“We've got an issue with pricing within the NDIS. It will take me much longer than the 3½ minutes that I have left for my remarks to touch on, and I might make a further contribution at a later point on that topic. One of the major things that we're hearing from providers is the need for a truly independent pricing process. We're rapidly approaching the end of the financial year. Many of these professions and services haven't had an increase in their pricing capacity for many, many years. Many haven't been able to increase their costs since pre COVID. Despite that, all their overheads are moving, of course, in one direction, and we've seen significant inflation over that period of time.”
“They're not being made to the back end to reduce red tape or reduce the number of expenses that we're seeing within the scheme. They're being made to those who are the most vulnerable and the least likely to complain. That is ultimately the reason why we need to ensure that we get these reforms absolutely right. It's those people that the scheme was actually designed to support—most of all those at the highest end of the spectrum, those with the highest needs and those that many of us envisage that the NDIS would be supporting. That certainly hasn't been the experience that I've had in recent months as the government's tried to tackle the runaway costs. I've touched on the digital payments system, but I also want to raise concerns around the transfer of pricing decision responsibilities to the minister.”
“He's a tremendous individual. And he's been advocating very hard on her behalf. They needed a little bit of extra support through their package to pay for some extra supports that they needed. When they asked for a reassessment, that triggered a full reassessment of their whole scope, and we ended up with a 43 per cent reduction in her package. These are the sorts of quiet cuts that we've seen. I don't pretend that these aren't happening across the entire country, but these are the sorts of cuts that I'm seeing in the Redlands and I'm sure many other members are seeing. When we reach the point where the sustainability of the scheme is at crisis point, we see these quiet cuts being made. Unfortunately, they're not being made on the fringes.”
“It's certainly been my experience—and I'm sure I wouldn't be Robinson Crusoe here—with those who've contacted my office in relation to these reforms and the NDIS changes that we've seen over the course of recent months that people actually aren't putting their heads above the parapet to say that they want to have an unscheduled reassessment. What we've seen is a series of quiet cuts within the NDIS. I'll give you an example. I had a lovely bloke come and meet with me. He lives not far from me, in the Redlands, and his wife very tragically is enduring early onset dementia. She'd be in her late 50s or early 60s, and she's unfortunately at the point now where she requires around-the-clock care. This is having a massive impact. Her husband's one of the most quietly spoken but just absolutely dedicated men you'll ever meet.”
“So I would strongly encourage the government to take a look at the work that was done on the digital payments system in the final days of the Morrison government. You'll find that it was very much advanced; you'll find that it was almost at the point where it was ready to launch. I'd encourage the government to, rather than spending I think it's $300 million in the budget to try to implement that reform, perhaps we can recycle some of the work that the coalition did. It is, of course, one thing that the stakeholders tell me is absolutely critical to both tackling fraud and reducing costs across the scheme. One of the points of reform that the government is seeking to do here is to end planned rollovers. It's an interesting concept because they're also tightening the criteria for unscheduled reassessments.”
“It's something that will increase the ability for the government to keep an eye on the transactions and make sure that, where fraud is occurring, we're stepping on that and making sure that we are taking the appropriate action in real time. But it also increases the convenience for both the participants and the providers, and it's something that we had pushed in the final years of the last government to try to get to the point where we were ready to launch a digital payment system. Think of a sort of high-caps model for the NDIS. Unfortunately, one of the things that we were incredibly frustrated with was, when this government was elected, all that work seemed to go straight in the bin, and now here we are four years later having to reinvent the wheel.”
“If someone is just providing some bit of equipment, or if they are mowing someone's lawn, obviously we don't need to have that same level of regulation and detail. So we need to get that tiering correct to ensure that we are appropriately applying the rules and the regulations on those that are at the higher-end needs and at the most acute levels of care, but we also need to make sure that those who are more incidentally touching the NDIS aren't adversely affected. One of the key reforms that is involved in this package and is being instigated, or will be allowed to take place through this legislation, is the introduction of a digital payment system. This is something that the coalition has long championed.”
“A lot of the measures that are being proposed had previously been championed by the coalition, but they were, I'll note, strongly opposed by Labor at different points. Functional capacity assessments are effectively a repackaged version of the coalition's independent assessments model, which Labor was opposed to. We've been strongly pushing for stronger registration as well, and I note the comments that people have made about the need for greater registration so we can tackle those quality and fraud issues. I also note that, really, what we want—and I think I'm speaking on behalf of the government, as well as the opposition—is to ensure that we get to a tiered level of registration.”
“Certainly, they're filling my inbox at the moment with their thoughts on and concerns for the legislation, and I'm very pleased that we're going to have a committee process in the other place to get to the bottom of this; although, it will be a short timeframe. I echo the sentiments of the member for Lindsay: I encourage any stakeholder listening in to make sure that you get your submission in on time and have the opportunity to have your say. The coalition is very keen to potentially amend this legislation in the other place to make sure that we're getting this completely right, because it is a large bit of legislation. There are many components to it, and it is obviously something that has been pushed onto the sector at very short notice.”
“So if I can encourage the government, as a principle, as we go through this journey—and this journey is going to be a lot longer than just the passage of this bill through this House or in the other place. The journey of reform on the NDIS is going to take years. I'll touch on some of the particular reforms, but we're not going to have these functional capacity reassessments until 2028. This is multiterm reform, and it's important to remember that. What I would encourage the government to do is ensure that we get the ultimate level of transparency that we possibly can. If we're thinking about multiple options, in terms of how we implement these reforms, let's let people know about it, and let's let people in the disability sector have their say on it.”
“That 160,000 participant number that has been put out there doesn't include those that are going to be added to the scheme over the next few years before we reach that point in 2028 when these reassessments begin. So there's actually a lot more than that who are going to experience—or have at some point experienced—the scheme, have been a participant on it and will be excised from it. Undoubtedly, there is a huge amount of concern within the community from not just those who are participants but those who are connected with them—family members. They are worried about these reforms and are worried about what it's going to mean. There are a lot of unanswered questions, even in this legislation, about how we're going to go about that process.”
“Of course, we're going to have multiple contributions to this debate, and I think everyone on both sides and on the crossbench will be articulating that there is a sustainability issue with the scheme. The problem is that, if you deny the fact that there is a sustainability issue with this scheme and you bury your head in the sand around the challenges with the scheme, you very quickly allow that lack of stewardship to drift unchecked and we reach the point where we are today. The coalition is very keen to work with the government to ensure that we get these reforms right. But it is clear that poor stewardship has led us here and Labor has allowed the costs of this scheme to drift before resorting to very blunt cuts which are going to see about 21 per cent of participants removed from the scheme.”