Monique Ryan
Kooyong · Independent · Australia
“I second this motion and commend the member for Curtin's motion to refer the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 to the House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs. This should not be a controversial request.”
“What about the clinicians, the researchers, the public health experts and the community organisations who have spent years documenting the devastating impact of gambling addiction? Some of them have been given days to review this complex legislation and provide feedback on it to a very limited extent.”
“After this sort of delay, the government has no excuses for not getting this legislation right. But it's rushing to introduce legislation that has been denied input from the public.”
“They're special relationships, the glue that holds us together. For Emily, Matt and Lucy, Noah and Maia, Millie and Rory—I know you share those special relationships and I know that they'll continue. I know that Rich knew that too. Parkrun is something we all do together. It's really symbolic of Rich.”
“We were fortunate to have people in our lives who gave us a sense of what was possible—doctors, engineers, teachers and scientists. We learnt the importance and the wonder of learning and science. There was always plenty of sport. We participated in everything, but particularly footy.”
“The government has not responded to that recommendation appropriately. Its proposals fall well short of that. There are ongoing and serious questions about the extent to which this legislation will provide any support or any protections for children and for vulnerable Australians.”
The complete record
Every one of 938 lines we hold for Monique Ryan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 19.
“People shared stories about how he went out of his way to help them, to create opportunities for them and how much they appreciated it, how much they valued Rich as a colleague and a friend. He was in every way a great public servant and scientist, an example of why we should value science and public servants. He was a wonderful brother and a fantastic dad. Mark finishes, '"So what is the essence of Rich to me? I find it all around me—at parkrun, in the bush, riding solo, in family, in friendship. I'll keep asking myself: "What would Rich do?" His answer would be simple: 'Think of others. Contribute. Make a difference.'" The country is poorer for losing Rich Scolyer. He was the very best and brightest of us all. I commend this motion to the House.”
“Selfless as ever, he had a banana and a squashed peanut butter sandwich to share with me. It was a special week. We also pushed each other, running two full pace parkruns. He told me it was the best week we'd ever had together. I said, 'What about when we were kids?' He said, 'I've got brain cancer, so this is the best week.' It was a privilege just being his brother. Being able to drive Rich to treatment was special time together, chatting and reminiscing, having fun, even with both Rich and Anna backseat-driving. I've met many of his long-time colleagues and collaborators, particularly his friend and mentor, John Thompson. I learnt from so many how respected and valued he was.”
“They're special relationships, the glue that holds us together. For Emily, Matt and Lucy, Noah and Maia, Millie and Rory—I know you share those special relationships and I know that they'll continue. I know that Rich knew that too. Parkrun is something we all do together. It's really symbolic of Rich. We ran parkrun the last two Saturdays. It'll always give me the feeling of Rich. But Rich was competitive, too. He was always happy talking training, improving PBs, commenting on what you'd been doing, talking about races and his training with his great mates. The Tour de Cure was such a special thing to do with Rich. Less than two weeks after I got my first bike, I spent a week cycling with him. The last two rides started at 5.30 in the morning at the Harbour Bridge for his favourite ride out to West Head.”
“We were fortunate to have people in our lives who gave us a sense of what was possible—doctors, engineers, teachers and scientists. We learnt the importance and the wonder of learning and science. There was always plenty of sport. We participated in everything, but particularly footy. Rich and I grew up loving being part of teams and learning the value of teamwork. We had great family trips, holidays and celebrations with cousins, uncles and aunts, even a summer holiday visiting family in South Africa. We learnt a love of bushwalking and spent eight summers camping at Ulverstone. In 2022 I walked with Rich into the walls of Jerusalem again, this time with our kids. It felt good escaping again as brothers and dads with our kids in the Tassie bush. Cousins are so important growing up.”
“Richard, my brother, my blonde haired brother, cheeky, annoying, funny, fun, showing off for the camera, spitting the dummy, being naughty, stuffing up, stubborn, determined, exploring, finding his own way to do things—like using the toilet facing backwards instead of facing to the front—challenging, succeeding, sometimes not succeeding, but always trying. Having a crack. Our parents were always caring and supportive. Rich and I grew up learning to look after each other. We were shaped by challenges when we were young. We had to learn to look after mum when she needed it. We were always surrounded by family and friends, too many to mention. We were lucky to grow up in Tasmania in the sixties and seventies, and we loved it. We had a great public education.”
“I rise to support this motion. Professor Richard Scolyer, who died on 7 June aged 59, three years after being diagnosed with a glioblastoma, was by any measure one of the most consequential clinician scientists this country has produced. He was a friend and he was the very best of us. I'd like to read some words that his brother spoke at the funeral. Richard's brother, Mark, has been a dear friend of mine throughout my adult life, and it's a huge privilege to read what he said about his brother. Mark said: I've been thinking about the essence of Rich, and what he is to me.”
“My question is to the Minister for Education. It was reported today that the Australian Tertiary Education Commission won't advise on the reasonable costs of degrees until mid-2027 at the earliest, which means that the Job-Ready Graduates scheme will continue at least until 2028. Next year, 285,000 students will pay more than $54,000 for arts, law and commerce degrees, and $90,000 for double degrees. How can you justify this when you've acknowledged on many occasions that the Job-Ready Graduates scheme isn't working?”
“We can wait another three or four weeks and scrutinise this legislation properly. If the government believes that this legislation is worth doing, then it should subject it to the scrutiny that it deserves. That includes giving the public an opportunity to feed back on something which will change their lives—one of the most significant public health crises that the country is facing right now. For those reasons, I urge the House to refer this bill immediately to the House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs so that the parliament can properly examine the evidence, hear from those Australians affected most by this legislation and ensure that these long overdue reforms are as effective as they can possibly be.”
“We shouldn't have to keep reminding the government of the extraordinary work done by one of their own. We know that members of the government feel conflicted about their inaction on this point. We know that it upsets them and angers them when we raise the question of Peta Murphy's contribution and how strongly she felt about this. We shouldn't have to do this. We shouldn't be having these difficult, tortured conversations. We should just be doing what is right for the people and the communities that we represent in the best interests of not just the parliament but the constituents who come to us every week and raise this issue. Their spirit and their belief in the democratic process should not be disrespected by this parliament. We've waited more than three years.”
“The government has not responded to that recommendation appropriately. Its proposals fall well short of that. There are ongoing and serious questions about the extent to which this legislation will provide any support or any protections for children and for vulnerable Australians. The parliament is showing a willingness to legislate on digital harm and to act on the digital environments. The government has constantly trumpeted its social media ban, which is not working, but the government is not taking action to protect young Australians from a danger which is just as significant and which is in front of them every single day. Peta Murphy was a friend of many people in this House. She was closer to members of the government than she was to the crossbench or the opposition.”
“What about the clinicians, the researchers, the public health experts and the community organisations who have spent years documenting the devastating impact of gambling addiction? Some of them have been given days to review this complex legislation and provide feedback on it to a very limited extent. Some have been given no opportunity at all. A committee inquiry would allow us to hear directly from those people who would be most affected by this legislation to test the evidence, to identify the potential unintended consequences and to improve the legislation. That's what this place and the committees associated with parliament are supposed to do. There are questions that deserve careful examination. The Murphy report was pretty clear. It recommended a comprehensive ban on gambling advertising, including online advertising.”
“After this sort of delay, the government has no excuses for not getting this legislation right. But it's rushing to introduce legislation that has been denied input from the public. The families who we represent and the young people who are being taken advantage of by predatory gambling industries have been given no ability to have input into this crucial legislation. The government's released an exposure draft but has not decided to conduct appropriate open and transparent public consultation. Instead, it's held targeted conversations with the broadcasters, the sporting codes and the gambling industry. What about the families who live every day with the consequences or the ongoing challenges of harm caused by gambling? What about the parents who are concerned that every time their kids open the AFL app, they see Sportsbet?”
“I second this motion and commend the member for Curtin's motion to refer the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 to the House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs. This should not be a controversial request. It's a sensible and reasonable solution and suggestion from the crossbench and is exactly what legislation of this significance deserves. Australians have waited more than three years for meaningful gambling reform in the wake of the Murphy report. That's a thousand days of inaction from this government and a thousand days in which young Australians, the Australians that we represent, have been harmed by that inaction. Australians have continued to lose their savings, their relationships, their homes and, in some tragic cases, their lives because of the inaction of this government.”
“The review must be conducted by persons entirely independent of both the National Disability Insurance Agency and the department. We're not asking the government to mark its own homework. We're requiring genuine arms-length scrutiny by people who have no institutional stake in the outcome. This is an improvement on the review already in place under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act 2024. A bill that reforms the NDIS but has no mechanism to assess the impact of that reform on the people who will be most materially affected would be reform without accountability. So I'm very glad that the government have signalled to me their support for amendment (2), and I'm grateful for that. I commend the amendments to the House. Question agreed to.”
“It must assess participant outcomes, including the continuity and quality of supports that people are actually receiving. It must look at review and appeal rights, because a scheme without meaningful recourse is a scheme without integrity. It must evaluate the viability and sustainability of the provider market, because good policy cannot be delivered by a sector that is financially stressed and which is shrinking. It must specifically address service delivery in thin markets—those rural, regional and remote communities where the challenge of accessing support is compounded by geography and isolation. And it must consider how these amendments interact with the emerging foundational supports framework, because the NDIS exists within a broader ecosystem which is still taking shape. The independence requirement is equally non-negotiable.”
“First, we'll establish a legislated moment of accountability—not a discretionary internal evaluation and not a ministerial announcement but a requirement embedded in the law itself. Second, we will align that moment of accountability with the review framework which is already established under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act 2024. That alignment means that, when the scrutiny arrives, it will arrive in a coherent and comprehensive way, assessing this bill's amendments alongside the broader reform agenda rather than in isolation. The scope of the review that amendment (2) requires is deliberately prescriptive. It must examine access to the NDIS and whether the pathway into the scheme remains fair and able to be navigated.”
“This bill as currently drafted contains no mechanism for a review, no trigger for scrutiny and no obligation to return to this parliament and account for what these changes have delivered. I've moved these amendments today because that omission is not acceptable. The people that this legislation affects can't afford for us to pass reforms and then walk away. This bill could remove as many as 241,000 participants from the scheme. All of them deserve to know that the parliament will be required to look back, measure and answer for decisions that have been made on their behalf. Amendment (2) creates that obligation. By inserting a statutory review provision that aligns with the review of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act 2024, we will achieve two things simultaneously.”
“(4) The review must consider the following matters: (a) access to the NDIS; (b) participant outcomes, including continuity and quality of supports; (c) review and appeal rights under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 ; (d) the viability and sustainability of the provider market; (e) service delivery in thin markets; (f) the interaction between the amendments made by this Act and any foundational supports or related systems of support. (5) The persons conducting the review must give the Minister a written report of the review. (6) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.”
“by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2, as circulated in my name, together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit "Sections 1 to 3", substitute "Sections 1 to 4". (2) Page 3 (after line 8), after clause 3, insert: 4 Review of amendments (1) The Minister must cause a review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by this Act. (2) The review must be conducted at the same time as the review under section 4 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act 2024 of the operation of the amendments made by that Act. (3) The persons conducting the review must be independent of the Agency and of the Department.”
“Amendment (9) would ensure that a support determination which affects a participant's plan such that it is insufficient for their needs may meet a condition for conducting a reassessment under the broadened reassessment trigger in amendments (2) and (4). Amendment (8) then requires additional parliamentary transparency for this unbounded power to reduce funding across support classes. This bill is a pretty bitter pill for many disabled Australians and is something that many of them are having great difficulty in swallowing. I ask the government to accept these amendments to render the legislation slightly less concerning to vulnerable Australians.”
“Given that the bill also provides for automatic renewals without participant involvement, some participants could be stuck with inappropriate plans for years. And I note many participants' concerns that, if they do seek reassessment, their plans are likely to be cut. We're hearing that that is happening all of the time, and it is causing great concern to many recipients of NDIS supports. Participants should be able to seek reassessment where their plan is insufficient to meet reasonable and necessary support needs, including where a support determination has reduced their funding below what is reasonable and necessary.”
“Cheryl, I know you're watching and I've been speaking for you. George, I know you're watching. You always watch. I've been speaking for you. I've been speaking for Peter's mum. I've been speaking for the many constituents who have come to our office over the last weeks and months and expressed huge distress about this bill. The crossbench in the House has circulated 39 amendments to this bill. Recommendation 26 of the NDIS independent review was that changes to the NDIS can only be implemented once foundational supports are in place. My amendments (2) to (4) address limits on participants' ability to seek reassessment. Under this bill, participants can't request a reassessment unless they meet very narrow conditions.”
“I'm trying to improve a suite of harsh and drastic reforms which have not been subjected to inclusive community consultation—reforms which are targeted not at rorters and at waste but at the vulnerable individuals who depend on the NDIS. The media, many in the general public and many in this House have missed the point of this legislation. I don't believe that it's primarily aimed at reducing fraud, budget pressure or systemic abuse. It's aimed at getting people off the NDIS and limiting the supports available to those who remain on the scheme. I've moved 15 detailed amendments today. I've been asked by members of the House to stop moving amendments and to stop causing divisions. But I've moved these amendments and I've spoken to this bill repeatedly because of those people who are watching at home.”
“(9) Schedule 1, item 34, page 13 (after line 18), after section 34A, insert: 34AA Effect of support determination If a determination under section 34A has the effect of reducing the funding available to a participant under the participant's plan, the participant's plan may be insufficient to meet the participant's reasonable and necessary supports such that the participant may meet the condition for conducting a reassessment under subparagraph 48A(1)(b)(iii). My amendments today have been informed by consultation with over 60 community members in Kooyong. I've also consulted the Justice and Equity Centre, People with Disability Australia, Occupational Therapy Australia, Inclusion Australia, the Summer Foundation and other prominent disability advocates.”
“(7) A support determination to which subsection (6) applies does not take effect unless, within 15 sitting days after the determination is tabled in each House of the Parliament, each House passes a resolution approving the determination. (8) If a House of the Parliament does not pass a resolution approving the determination within the period referred to in subsection (7), the determination is taken never to have had effect. (9) In this section material reduction in funding includes a reduction that is reasonably likely to have a significant impact on participants' access to supports.”
“(4) Schedule 1, item 21, page 9 (after line 16), after subparagraph 48A(1)(b)(ii), insert: (iii) an alteration in the participant's plan such that it is insufficient to meet the participant's reasonable and necessary support needs; and (8) Schedule 1, item 34, page 13 (after line 18), at the end of section 34A, add: (6) A support determination that is reasonably likely to result in a material reduction in funding for a class of supports must be accompanied, at the time the determination is tabled in each House of the Parliament, by: (a) a statement of reasons for the determination; and (b) an assessment of the likely impact of the determination on participants; and (c) actuarial or financial analysis relied upon in making the determination; and (d) a summary of consultation undertaken with people with disability and representative organisations.”
“by leave—I move amendments (2) to (4), (8) and (9) to the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026: (2) Schedule 1, item 21, page 9 (line 10 and 11), omit "either of both", submit "any". (3) Schedule 1, item 21, page 9 (line 16), omit "and".”
“It's not a radical ask; it is simply asking the government to do what the review that it commissioned actually recommended: make pricing decisions in the open, with independent input and with explicit regard for whether disabled Australians can actually access the supports that they need. If the government can't accept that, I think the public deserves to know why. So I commend the amendments to the House.”
“That is not true independence; it's advice flowing upwards to a single political decision-maker, with no statutory obligation to act on it, no requirement to publish it and no accountability to the sector that depends upon it. This amendment is a more modest safeguard on the government's proposal. It would require the minister to obtain and publish independent pricing advice and to consider the effect of pricing decisions on support availability, including in thin markets and in rural and regional settings. Its purpose is to improve transparency and to reduce the risk that pricing decisions could undermine the sustainability of providers or the access of participants.”
“Back to my amendment, which addresses the independent power of the minister to set pricing, the independent NDIS review's recommendation 11 and action 11.3 explicitly recommend that we should transfer NDIS pricing advice to the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority in order to strengthen transparency, predictability and alignment. IHACPA is required to consult with the broader sector when advising the Australian government on prices. The government hasn't done this. Instead, it has made the minister the decision-maker on NDIS pricing, with the NDIA retaining responsibility for conducting independent analysis and stakeholder engagement through its annual pricing review, which will inform pricing advice given to the minister.”
“But, as the Treasury modelling makes plain, the overwhelming weight of projected savings comes not from catching crooks but from removing people from the scheme and from narrowing what it will fund. The disability community is not fooled. This bill is not a minor integrity measure; it is a structural redesign of who can access the NDIS, how plans are funded and how decisions are made and reviewed. When only $0.9 billion of $38.1 billion in savings comes from fraud related measures, we can't credibly call this an effective crackdown on fraud. It is an austere bill which is dressed in a cloak of integrity.”
“The purpose of those contracts was to conduct focus groups and message testing to identify how to best frame the changes proposed in the NDIS bill. Redbridge polling found that, while the NDIS is loved by the general public of Australia, the general public and participants would show qualified tolerance for funding cuts and stricter eligibility criteria were these austerity measures positioned as a necessary crackdown on NDIS fraud and rorting. Let's be honest about what this bill is actually doing. It's not wholesale reform to combat something that is a concern to our communities: fraud and rorting. Only a small sliver of this 113-page bill relates to fraud in any meaningful sense. The government has framed the bill in the public eye largely around fraud and restoring the scheme's social licence.”
“Treasury modelling tabled in the Senate shows that, of the $38.1 billion predicted to be saved from cuts to the NDIS over the next four years, just $0.9 billion is expected to come from making the minister the decision-maker on pricing and related fraud measures. The same modelling shows that $9.3 billion in savings is projected to come from functional capacity savings and $13.2 billion from cutting social and community participation supports. That's nearly 60 per cent of the total savings purely from reducing supports and tightening eligibility. We all know that, during 2024-25 budget estimates, it was revealed that the NDIA had awarded two contracts—one in February 2023 and one in September 2023—with a total value of $400,000 to the Redbridge Group.”
“by leave—I move: (11) Schedule 1, item 92, page 36 (after line 12), after subsection 25A(3), insert: (3A) A person is not required to undertake treatment that is: (a) unreasonably inaccessible or unavailable; or (b) not clinically appropriate; or (c) associated with unreasonable risk. (12) Schedule 3, item 4, page 91 (line 9), at the end of subsection 45C(17), add: ; and (d) any independent pricing advice obtained under subsection (18); and (e) the impact of the determination on the availability of supports, including in thin markets and regional areas. (13) Schedule 3, item 4, page 91 (after line 9), at the end of section 45C, add: (18) Before making a determination under subsection (1), the Minister must: (a) obtain independent pricing advice; and (b) publish that advice; and (c) consult participants and providers.”
“We're also hearing from constituents about their frustration with the HTA review and the time that has taken as well. So I would argue that we have to move where we can, in increments where we can, on behalf of those people like podiatrists and exercise physiologists who feel that they've been asking for a very long time for their scope of practice and the funding for that to be extended and have not seen the government act on that to date.”
“I'd like to acknowledge that the government has concerns about podiatrists being registered in this fashion and that it feels that the work has not yet been done. I think I can speak on behalf of constituents who are podiatrists and who would argue that the work should have been done, that the work the government is doing on the extension of the scope of practice for many professionals in the health sphere is taking too long and that the work the government is doing to revise the PBS is taking too long. We're already seeing the impact of that excessive duration of wait with the loss of agents like Zoladex from communities and people we care about, because pharmaceutical companies are now saying that the commercial imperative for marketing those sorts of agents in this country is not present for them.”
“If we define permanence in a way that excludes people who lack the financial or geographic means to access treatment, we're not securing the NDIS; we are rationing it according to circumstance and financial status.”
“The Australian Human Rights Commission has submitted that the definition of 'appropriate treatment' in the new section 25A will 'significantly restrict access to the NDIS and undermine a rights based approach to disability supports'. Amendment (11), which I have moved today, addresses these concerns. It expressly provides that a person is not required to undertake treatment that is unreasonably inaccessible or unavailable, is not clinically appropriate or is associated with inappropriate or unreasonable risk. The government has framed this bill as a matter of sustainability for our economy. Sustainability can't just be achieved by narrowing the gate.”
“The bill proposes to deny access to support until treatment has been exhausted, without acknowledging that the capacity to access treatment may itself depend on having NDIS support. For example, if a treatment might result in improvements over many years but the person would still have substantially reduced functional capacity, they may be prevented from accessing the NDIS in the meantime. The bill could also make it harder for people with progressive conditions to access the NDIS, even where treatment only slows but cannot reverse the deterioration of their functional capacity. The government assures me that these examples won't eventuate, but the government is unwilling to provide that express safeguard in this legislation.”
“The Justice and Equity Centre has told this parliament already that 'this approach unjustifiably interferes' with a person's 'right to bodily autonomy'. It's not enough to leave this to the rules to be made later by the minister. They are rules that don't even require agreement from the states and territories. That is not going to reassure vulnerable individuals. Because permanence is part of both the disability and the early intervention access criteria, the government's bill directly affects eligibility to entry to the NDIS and continued access when a person's status is reconsidered. There is a profound and unresolved circularity here. For many people with a disability, accessing the NDIS is precisely how they can access ongoing treatment. Without the NDIS, they may well not be able to do that.”
“What the government is trying to do in legislating this definition is to overturn the Federal Court's previous decision in Davis, which established the precedent that financial circumstances must be considered when determining if treatment is available. Whether a person can afford a treatment will form part of the factual circumstances that a decision-maker may need to examine in deciding if a treatment is one that an individual can, in reality, access. The Federal Court applied the ordinary meaning, which is a fair meaning, but the exemptions in this bill are too narrow; that's my proposition today. Proposed section 25A(3) excuses a person from treatment only for medical reasons, not because of cultural or personal belief or bodily autonomy.”
“Applicants must have tried all treatments commonly available in Australia, regardless of whether or not they can afford them or whether the treatments are accessible where they live. Persons in rural and regional Australia might not be able to access specialist treatment that is theoretically available in a capital city. The House Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Disability is looking into this issue at this very time. A person with limited income may not be able to afford treatments. Even though the government has assured me that 'appropriate treatments' means those listed on the PBS, many items on our Medicare schedule still have associated out-of-pocket costs, are not readily available at times and may be out of reach for some individuals.”
“I move amendment (11) on sheet 1, as circulated in my name: (11) Schedule 1, item 92, page 36 (after line 12), after subsection 25A(3), insert: (3A) A person is not required to undertake treatment that is: (a) unreasonably inaccessible or unavailable; or (b) not clinically appropriate; or (c) associated with unreasonable risk. Among the most concerning provisions in this bill is the new definition of 'permanent' disability for eligibility purposes. Under the bill, an impairment will only be considered permanent—and therefore make the applicant eligible for NDIS support—if all appropriate treatment options have been exhausted; no further treatment is likely to materially improve, reverse or alleviate the impairment; and the impairment is likely to persist for a lifetime.”
“This amendment will draw a clear line in the sand and it will say, 'Whatever else this bill does, it cannot be used to cut the supports that people cannot live without.' I commend the amendment to the House, and I move amendment (6) as circulated in my name: (6) Schedule 1, item 34, page 13 (after line 10), after subsection 34A(4), insert: (4A) The determination may relate only to supports for social and community participation.”
“It is supported by the National Legal Aid, which has suggested repeatedly that supports should not have broad or scheme wide application. I note that the government has struck a deal with the Greens in the Senate which will confine support determinations to the improved daily living skills component of capacity building supports and social, economic and community participation. But that improved daily living skills component of capacity building supports is something that should be protected as well from support determinations. So in that way, this amendment goes further than the agreement reached in the Senate.”
“I believe it's a blunt instrument, and I think that it will land hard on the lives of people with a disability. But this amendment goes further than that disagreement. It would build a wall around something which is even more important. It would ensure that the support determination power could never be turned against those supports that hold people's daily lives together, that it couldn't be used to whittle away the core supports that let people eat, dress, communicate, move safely, access therapy or just stay healthy and independent. These aren't luxuries. They're not nice-to-haves sitting at the margins of public policy. They are the floor beneath people's feet. They are the fundamental supports that make disabled people's participation in society possible at all. This amendment is a measured and proportionate response to that fear.”
“The purpose of this amendment is simple. It is to stop the broad determination-making power in this bill being turned into a back door used through delegated legislation to quietly strip away essential disability supports while no-one is watching. There is real, raw fear in the disability community right now about how this ministerial power might be wielded—perhaps not by this minister but by subsequent governments, for example, those perhaps administered by One Nation, which has indicated it would abolish the NDIS. People aren't imagining things. They fear that this legislation could be used to hollow out the everyday living supports that they rely on to get through the day. Let me be blunt. I disagree with the proposed 50 per cent cut to social and community participation supports. I disagree with most of section 34A of this bill.”
“I move this amendment because it provides an important safeguard for NDIS participants. This amendment is straightforward. It provides that a support determination under proposed subsection 34A(4) may relate only to supports for social and community participation. It'll force the government to put its money where its mouth is. The government has represented that section 34A will be used to cut social and community participation supports. But the bill, as drafted and confirmed by the explanatory memorandum, empowers the minister to reduce funding across almost any support category. That includes daily living, transport, assistive technology, specialist disability accommodation and more. My amendment (6) asks the government to explicitly limit support determination powers in section 34A to social and community supports only.”
“This amendment complements the work undertaken in the Senate by ensuring that the legislation can appropriately account for those participants whose support needs are exceptional and who would otherwise be disproportionately affected by the legislation currently before the House. And so I commend this amendment to the House.”
“Rather than leaving this matter to future discretion, we need to provide certainty now. Doing so will reassure Australians who have a significant and lifelong disability, and the families and carers who support them, at a time when those people already have significant fear and uncertainty about the potential impacts of these reforms. I acknowledge that the amendment secured by the Greens in the Senate to exclude particular categories of supports, including disability employment and health related supports, from the operation of support determinations was an important improvement to this bill. But, if we can recognise that some supports should be treated differently, we should also recognise that some participants need to be treated differently.”