Nicolette Boele
Bradfield · Independent · Australia
“For the last 25 years, even though we've had national laws to protect the places we love, our environment has continued to deteriorate. Experts say that's because our key environmental law, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, is all about following processes and not about achieving outcomes.”
“They're full of vague, non-binding language and they're all about process. To be clear, there are some good things in the draft standards, such as requirements to have community engagement plans and strengthened water protections.”
“Thorough consultation can help mitigate problems such as these so they do not arise, and the changes proposed by my amendment would ensure that reforms are considered systematically and holistically and that they are informed by lived experience.”
“The Ku-ring-gai arts community has received some devastating news in the last few weeks. First, we learnt that the Marian Street Theatre redevelopment in Killara had been terminated by council. After nearly 100 years, it was shut down in 2013 due to age and safety issues.”
“Shortly thereafter we heard the equally devastating news that the property holding the much beloved independent Roseville Cinema, a community icon since the 1930s, is going to be sold. A judge has ordered that the building be sold to pay off the debts incurred by the owners.”
“As responsibilities across the disability ecosystem shift across jurisdictions, it is more important than ever that thorough, meaningful consultation is undertaken to understand and to avoid unintended consequences.”
The complete record
Every one of 345 lines we hold for Nicolette Boele, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 7.
“That means returns from investing in solar farms, large-scale batteries and other emerging assets like affordable housing don't get assessed properly. Even though they are great for super fund members and for the economy, the rules stop super funds from unlocking the private capital that could do the heavy lifting on affordable housing and on clean energy. Thankfully, the government is consulting on changes to this narrow performance test, and I was pleased to make a submission to the inquiry last week. I endorsed a proposal from Climateworks, which puts forward a simple and smart reform design. I urge the government to implement these changes.”
“Last week, it was reported that, since 2020, Canadian pension funds have invested more in Australian renewable energy projects than Australia's largest 30 super funds—over $400 million more. Isn't that strange? Shouldn't we want our own super funds to be investing in the clean energy assets that are delivering strong risk-adjusted returns for super savers, energy productivity and resilience for all Australians? That's a simple question in a very strange situation. Australian super funds are required to judge their performance against a narrow benchmark. That prevents them from investing in assets like renewables and affordable housing. Instead of asking whether an investment is good for the future, the test looks at how it performs against assets and companies from the past decade.”
“We need to inoculate our political process and our democracy from these risks. It's shocking that, as a politician, I could run ads tomorrow that have no bearing to the truth and face next to no consequences. It just doesn't make sense. Most Aussies agree. Seventy per cent of voters support laws to require claims in political advertising to be accurate and truthful according to a poll commissioned by the Australian Democracy Network. And why wouldn't they? Who wants to live in a democracy where our elected leaders, or those running against them, are free to lie and deceive. We don't allow it in our supermarkets, in our super funds or in our gas networks. Why do we tolerate it in our elections? Without truth in political advertising, the quality of public discourse is degraded.”
“The board would sit within the Australian Electoral Commission but make independent decisions, be led by experts and be capable of investigating breaches of the law. Second, it would create an enforceable ethical political advertising code to ensure that ads aren't peppered with disinformation and lies, that scientific claims reflect the evidence and that opinions are not presented as fact. And, third, and very importantly, it responds to the rise of AI by requiring all ads to disclose when they use AI generated visual or audio content. We are already seeing malicious actors use AI to disrupt democratic processes. The ABC found 370 fake Australian political messages in just one week across 14 foreign run Facebook accounts, and, in the 2024 US election, AI voice agents were used to call citizens and tell them not to vote.”
“I second the motion. A strong democracy needs a firm foundation in fact, evidence and honesty. For that reason, it's a privilege to be speaking today on the need to have truth in political advertising to improve transparency and ban the lies. I thank and commend the member for Warringah for her tireless work in this area. In the last parliament, the member introduced a bill to establish a truth-in-political-advertising framework for the Commonwealth elections and referendums. The bill she is proposing today, the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Voter Protections in Political Advertising) Bill 2026, makes some very important additions. First, it would introduce a board to oversee the truth-in-political-advertising framework.”
“My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. The government handed out $622 million in diesel tax credits to BHP last financial year, and BHP's after-tax profits were over $15½ billion. Can you explain to Australians why one of Australia's most profitable companies needs a $622 million taxpayer subsidy for diesel use, especially in the middle of a fuel crisis, when regular Aussies are feeling the crunch at the bowser?”
“And budgets are just that; they are priorities. They are the one time in the annual political calendar when governments have no choice but to lay all their cards on the table. In following the money, this budget makes it clear as day that this government simply doesn't prioritise nature, so my question to the government is: to meet the government's commitments to no new extinctions and conserving 30 per cent of Australia's land and sea by 2030, what advice are you relying on that has led you to reduce funding for nature in this budget?”
“Yes, it's a lot of money but an incredibly worthwhile investment. Research shows that the more a country spends on conservation, the fewer species it loses. That one per cent of the budget would go to tackling invasive species, stopping new extinctions, protecting 30 per cent of Australia and restoring Australia's degrading landscapes—in other words, its habitats. One per cent is to stop us going backwards and set us up for a healthier, cleaner future. Now, most Australians want this to happen. Australians care about nature and they want the government to do more to protect it. Ninety-five per cent of Australians believe that spending on nature should be increased to one per cent or more. One per cent is doable. It's well within the realm of possibility but only if the government treats nature as a priority.”
“A strong economy is impossible without a healthy environment. Our prosperity would crumble without well-functioning ecosystems to provide us with potable water, clean air, healthy and productive soils, pollinators for fruit and nut trees and other crops, and mangroves for storm and flood protection. None of these things is nice to have. Each is absolutely critical. So what kind of spending do we need to put nature on a better footing? Is it 10 per cent of the budget? Is it five per cent? It's actually not that large a number. Leading scientists and ecologists from organisations like the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists and the Biodiversity Council have calculated that to put Australia's environment onto a more secure footing would cost only one per cent of the budget. That's about $8 billion a year.”
“The great thing about the budget is it allows us to evaluate whether the government is doing what it takes to achieve those commitments. This budget shows too clearly that it's not. At the same time as providing minimal funding for nature protection, it's pouring far more money into activities that harm nature—fossil fuel subsidies, including fracking projects that damage water tables; native forest logging; and projects that clear native vegetation. When the odds are stacked against it like this, Australia's unique and ancient biodiversity will continue to die and on this government's watch. This isn't just a problem for environmentalists; it's a problem for Australians. The good news is that we know it's smart economic management to invest in nature. Nature underpins everything else in the budget.”
“The Biodiversity Council calculates that funding for on-ground nature programs is only 0.6 per cent of the budget. That's $1 for nature out of every $1,667 spent by the government. In other words, it's practically nothing. Our main program for preventing new extinctions, the Saving Native Species Fund, only has two more years of funding, and it's less than $40 million a year. Australia is the world leader in extinctions. It is No. 1 in the world for mammal extinctions and No. 2 for biodiversity loss. These are not records of which we should be proud. It's great that the government has committed to no new plant and animal extinctions and to conserving 30 per cent of its land and marine species areas by 2030. But these are just commitments. They're just words.”
“One startling statistic about the budget has flown under the radar this year, and it's funding for nature. It's made up just 0.3 per cent of total spending. That's less than one-third of one per cent of the budget. To put that into perspective, for every $100 spent by the federal government this year, only 30c will go to activities that benefit nature. It gets worse because the 30c declines to 10c in 2029. That's down from a $1.10 per $100 under the Rudd-Gillard governments. Let's take it a step further and narrow down to the money allocated specifically to on-ground conservation activities. These are the programs that directly protect nature, like establishing new conservation areas, restoring habitats for native animals like koalas, or combating invasive species. Here the picture is even worse.”
“I will, of course, hold the government to account on its ongoing consultations with the startup and small-business sector, and I will keep pushing for more information and clearer communication about the impact of these changes. I commend the government's appetite for reform, but just because a policy is courageous doesn't mean it has been well designed or that the process has been thoughtful or transparent. For those reasons, and with genuine regret given how much I support the housing elements, the tax deductions and the tax cuts of this bill, I will not be supporting this legislation today. I urge the government to take the time to get this right, because this cause is just too important to continue to get wrong.”
“Continue to be brave, but have the humility to change the design of these reforms in order to mitigate unintended consequences. I genuinely believe in the direction of this reform. If this bill were only about housing—if the negative gearing changes were paired with the CGT reform and ring-fenced to residential property—I would vote for it without hesitation. But that is not what is before us. What we have been presented with is a change that applies across all asset classes and is introduced ahead of consultations that the government acknowledges it still needs to conduct, and it's happening with design questions still unresolved and without the broader public having been brought along on the journey.”
“A Senate committee is looking into these bills, but it'll only have a couple of weeks to do so. That's not enough time to properly scrutinise these reforms, nor is it enough time to build support amongst the public. Why not take the time to build genuine community understanding and support that would help ensure that any changes endure beyond this government? I want to say again that I welcome the government's bravery, but I ask it not to rush. Consult properly and return to parliament later this year with reforms that have been properly scrutinised and designed, and take the time to explain to Australians clearly what these changes mean for their own financial lives. Take the time to consider people's views and genuinely listen.”
“We saw another example of these rushed and opaque processes in the budget, with the government's announcement of separate tax reforms on foreign investors that would disproportionately affect the renewables industry—again, problems that could have been foreseen and resolved but were not, because the government didn't engage with the industry players before setting out legislation to make changes impacting those groups of people. I support fellow crossbench member Allegra Spender's motion last week to refer this bill to the Standing Committee on Economics for a report by the end of July. The government voted down this motion. I'm pleased to support amendments today which call on the government to limit CGT reforms to property, but the government will almost certainly vote those down too.”
“The government says that they want this too, which is why they've committed to consulting on possible exemptions for start-ups—and I welcome this. But it raises an important question: why the rush? The government's asking the parliament to pass a fundamental framework for this reform, while acknowledging that significant design questions remain unresolved. Why legislate the framework before these thorny issues are settled? Despite all of the resources that it possesses, the government has chosen to develop something behind closed doors and spring it unexpectedly on voters who are expecting to see targeted changes to property taxes. This process just doesn't cut it.”
“And over 30 of these companies are on track to reach a $1 billion valuation in the next two years. Now, the government claims to want to see this sector thrive, but its tax changes undercut that goal. These are companies like MCi Carbon, which decarbonises cement and steel production and turns CO2 emissions into valuable products; or Allume, which is helping residents in apartment blocks to install solar and electrify—companies doing innovative, valuable decarbonising work, towards an economy that is going to prosper, and unlocking economic opportunities. Bradfield is home to many people working in and investing in climate tech. We want to see these companies stay in Australia; we don't want to see a brain drain.”
“This is also about the far-more-numerous smaller start-ups, that you don't hear about but which also do such valuable work: driving innovation, employing talented people and making our economy more productive. I'm particularly concerned about the climate tech sector. This is one of the most important emerging parts of our economy. Helping it grow will help us tackle the climate crisis and improve energy security, and make us more prosperous in the process. We're fortunate to have such a burgeoning climate tech sector: 800 companies employing 12,000 people, with world-class researchers and entrepreneurs working on all kinds of important issues, from energy storage to clean agriculture to industrial decarbonisation. Many of these companies manufacture products right here in Australia.”
“Founders spend years building their companies, and, often, forgoing wages or super, in the hope that their risk-taking will yield long-term rewards. But the financial and time investments in these high-growth assets will be punished under the new scheme. This will likely disincentivise people from engaging in the years of hard work that go into start-ups, or it will push them to take their businesses elsewhere—overseas. I surveyed constituents about this issue as well, and three in four people who responded supported a CGT carve-out for founders. They recognised that passive property gains and active business gains are different and that the government's tax reform should reflect this. These start-ups are not just the unicorns that we hear about in the news—the companies that will end up worth over a billion dollars. Those are rare.”
“Then there are the concerns being raised by business. As someone with a background in venture capital, I see how these proposed reforms threaten to place a significant tax burden on this important part of the finance sector that takes risks and backs business. A VC fund will back 20 entrepreneurs with their ideas or business models, knowing that only one will likely net them any profits in five or 10 years time. The proposed tax changes mean that government will reap rewards when profit is made, but they leave all the downside risk with VC investors. Now let's talk start-ups, particularly those without formal VC inputs—people who take a loan from the bank or from family or from friends. The sector has a unique relationship with risk and reward.”
“I've heard from self-funded retirees who are too old to be completely funded entirely through superannuation and who were intending to sell shares as a retirement strategy. I've heard from young people who are using ETFs to save. I've heard from small-business owners with no super who are planning on selling their business to fund their retirement. And I've heard from young parents who are banking on selling some shares to get through an extended parental-leave period. These plans are now all in doubt. That's why I came out, right after the budget, to call for the government to ring-fence the reforms to residential property and to slow down on the other changes—to consult first, consult widely, and make sure other changes do not result in unintended consequences. I still hold that view now.”
“The government's stated rationale is that it doesn't want to replace one distortion with another. Consistent tax treatments across asset classes is a legitimate policy goal, and I accept that in principle. But the case for extending these changes beyond property, at this time, has not been clearly made to the Australian public, and the result has been confusion and concern and, in some cases, anger. I've had constituents contact my office who genuinely thought that the changes were only going to be about investment properties; they were blindsided when they realised their other investments were going to be affected too. The government hasn't communicated well enough on this.”
“In a survey that I conducted earlier this year, people in my electorate overwhelmingly supported reforms to capital gains tax discount for housing, even if they themselves held investment properties. People recognise that change is needed for their children and grandchildren to live prosperous lives, and I share that support. But, alongside many colleagues on the crossbench, I have a number of reservations about the design of the government's proposed changes. I have concerns about the way that the government has conducted this process. Why? Because the government is trying to sell this as a housing policy, but it has extended CGT changes to every asset class, not just real estate but also shares like ETFs, bonds, larger small businesses and startup equity.”
“Houses have become unaffordable to just too many people, and far too much money has been redirected from productive investments to sit passively in properties. Doing nothing about these taxes would mean that we continue to face persistent and worsening problems of housing affordability and inadequate shelter. Doing something is necessary, and some of the government's changes will indeed help. By limiting negative gearing for existing investment properties while preserving the full benefit for new builds, the reform steers capital toward where it is actually needed—new housing supply. The CGT changes, when applied to property, are defensible on similar grounds. So, in relation to housing, I want to emphasise that change is welcome, and my electorate broadly supports this.”
“I see a generation that has done everything right and is still shut out of the market and the opportunities that were afforded to their parents. The capital gains tax discount, combined with negative gearing on investment properties, has contributed to this broken system by distorting the housing market. For decades, these tax arrangements have encouraged investors to treat property as an asset class. Over the years, we've learnt to accept this as normal, but it's not. People in other countries find our relationship with property, quite frankly, bizarre. This drive to treat property as a financial asset has been damaging. Since the capital gains tax discount was introduced in 1999, property prices growth has dramatically outpaced wages growth.”
“The third element of the bill is a tax cut of $250 for working Australians, and the fourth is a $1,000 instant tax deduction, allowing you to claim up to $1,000 in work related expenses without having to keep all of those receipts. I want to focus today on the CGT changes and negative gearing, because they are the most consequential for restoring fairness for Australian workers and for backing business to take risks, employ Australians and contribute to productivity. I'm constantly listening to people in my community in Bradfield speak about housing. The system just isn't working. I speak to young people who grew up on the North Shore but who simply cannot see a path to owning, let alone renting, a home there. I talk to parents who are watching their adult children move further and further away.”
“But, for other assets, like some apartments or shares, your discount may actually increase. It depends, of course, on how much your capital gain is due to inflation or due to real gains. There will also be a minimum tax rate of 30 per cent on real capital gains. The second element of this bill limits negative gearing on residential property. Investors who purchase existing properties will only be able to offset their rental losses against rental income, not against their wages or other income. Investors in new builds, however, retain the full negative gearing benefit. This design is clearly intended to tilt investment toward new housing supply, and, of course, I welcome that.”
“Who should bear the burden of tax? What kind of wealth building do we want to encourage, and what realistic chance do young Australians have to own their own home and to get ahead? These are serious questions, and I'm glad that the government is finally trying to answer them. But let me briefly explain what is in front of us, because the public debate has not always been clear. The bill has four main elements. The one that has received the most attention is a change to the capital gains tax discount. Currently, you receive a 50 per cent discount on capital gains tax, and that's being replaced with the discount based on inflation, so you only pay tax on real above-inflation gains. Based on historical data, for some assets, like detached housing, that's likely to reduce your discount.”
“I rise to speak on the government's proposed tax reforms, Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026. I want to start by commending the government for showing grit and determination to attempt something genuinely brave. Since the last election, many of us in this chamber have called on the government to use its mandate to do something courageous and meaningful. Real reform is hard. It's politically costly, and too often governments simply avoid trying. Whatever my reservations about the details of these tax changes—and I'll get to those reservations shortly—I commend the government for attempting to address the structural inequalities that have been embedded in our tax system for a generation. These bills go to the heart of what kind of country we want to be.”
“While existing small-business CGT concessions will remain, there are 175,000 small businesses that won't be eligible. These larger small businesses do a lot of heavy lifting on productivity and employment. Thankfully, there's a simple tweak that could go a long way. Lifting the eligibility threshold for the small-business CGT concessions from $2 million in annual turnover to $10 million would cover all small businesses and align the concessions with the ATO's definition of small business. The government is undertaking consultation on this issue, and I welcome their willingness to engage. I urge them not to rush but ensure that these important reforms work for young people and a productive economy.”
“There's broad support in my electorate for tax changes to fix the broken housing market. People understand that capital gains tax and negative gearing rules have priced out young people for their first home, and that needs to change. But many have also raised concerns about the government's planned reforms disincentivising investments in startups and small businesses. I've surveyed my constituents about this, and three in four respondents supported CGT carve-outs for founders, recognising that passive property gains and active business gains are different. But beyond the startup and tech sector, I've also heard from small-business owners who have put in years of hard work, often forgoing salaries and super, with the expectation that their business would support their retirement.”
“We will be keeping your voice alive and loud; we'll be giving voice to your demands. And with your help, it won't be long before the government simply can't afford to ignore us anymore.”
“It's going down from $1.9 billion this year to $1.25 billion in 2029-30. This projected decline is coming despite high international gas prices caused by the wars in Ukraine and Iran. It is coming down despite huge increases in gas export volumes. And it is coming down despite the changes made to the PRRT in 2023, which the government claimed would increase revenue. In light of this, you'd be thinking the government would be chomping at the bit to secure an extra $17 billion a year. Although it has chosen to let this opportunity pass, the fight is not over. The budget is not the only window for reform. The government could turn around tomorrow and announce a 25 per cent gas export tax if it so chose to. And I believe the pressure will continue to grow. My colleagues on the crossbench and I will continue beating the drum on this issue.”
“And that's exactly what we saw in the budget. We've heard two things from the government in the past few weeks. First, we heard about the need to find savings wherever we could. And second, we heard that this budget would be all about tax reform. By deciding to leave a gas export tax off this budget, the government has directly undermined both of these goals. If the government chose to raise that extra $17 billion, it would be under far less pressure to reduce funding and cut valuable services. We would not, for example, be forcing people with disabilities to bear the brunt of government savings through NDIS cuts. And if this budget was focused on tax reform, why did the government leave the most obvious area for reform untouched? In fact, the budget shows revenue from the existing tax on offshore gas, the PRRT, is actually going down.”
“It's just an undeniably clear case of vested interests versus public interest in this situation—and the government continues to wonder why its primary vote is consistently declining. In the lead-up to the budget, the Prime Minister dismissed this reform as 'populist'. This is a mistake. When the Prime Minister calls this proposed reform 'populist', he is seeking to diminish your valid concerns. He is trying to convince you that it's unreasonable to desire a fair return on the resources that you own. He is trying to persuade you that you simply cannot ask for more of what is already yours. And when he blocks this reform, he's not just disregarding the will of the people; he's hamstringing his own government's ability to deliver the services and cost-of-living support that we all so desperately need.”
“A majority of voters across the spectrum, from Labor, the Liberals, the Greens, One Nation and Independents, support a 25 per cent tax on gas exports. There is a clear and growing consensus that Australians should receive a fairer return on our publicly owned resources, and yet the Australian government continues to dig in its heels. It claims that the industry already pays its fair share but uses statistics derived from the gas lobby to support these claims. It says 'our gas is keeping the lights on in Tokyo' but neglects to mention that Japan resells vast quantities of gas than it imports from Australia. And Japan makes even more money by taxing the gas that they import from us than the money we make by taxing our own exports to them. Time and time again, the government repeats lines from the gas lobby.”
“The Australian Council of Trade Unions, alongside think tanks like the Australia Institute, advocates like Konrad from Punter's Politics and so many others have worked really hard over many years to bring this issue to the fore. They've helped build this into a movement that now extends right across the country. Today, everyone knows the government gets more money from students repaying their HECS debt than from the petroleum resources rent tax. Everyone knows that the government pulls in more cash from taxing beer than from the PRRT. Everyone knows that the system is broken and isn't delivering for anyone except the gas lobby. The government knows this as well. They're just choosing to ignore it. The longer they wait, the clearer the polls become.”
“With an extra $17 billion, we could make meaningful improvements to any of these public services, or we could choose to do something else—to invest in some of the things that we all want but are so often told that we can't afford, to fund some of the nice things that other countries have, like free dental care, free university or a film and television industry that's properly supported by this government. The list of possibilities is considerable. Although $17 billion wouldn't fund everything on the list, it would allow us to fund pretty much anything and to improve countless lives across the country in the process. But that remains out of reach so long as we continue to let gas corporations off the hook.”
“This is a missed opportunity of outstanding proportions—$17 billion a year is around $50 million a day, more than $2 million an hour or $577 a second. All that revenue is flowing to corporate coffers instead of the public purse. These figures sound large, but what do they really mean in practice? What could we do with an extra $17 billion every year? Well, the budget papers make it really easy to put these numbers into perspective. A figure of $17 billion is around $1.5 billion more than the cost of the entire childcare subsidy. It's $4.5 billion more than the total federal funding for public schools. It's more money than the Commonwealth provides to the Army, the Navy and the Air Force.”
“There was a gas-tax shaped hole in the budget, a $17-billion-per-year sized hole. We could all see it. We were all disappointed by it. In the lead-up to this year's budget, Australians of all political persuasions, people across my electorate and people across the entire country were hoping that this would be the budget where we finally secured a fair return on our natural resources. These resources are owned by the public and yet they're given away often royalty-free and on minimal tax to multinationals and Australian corporations that rake in literally billions of dollars every year. Unfortunately, this budget does nothing to change that. Since 2022, the absence of a 25 per cent tax on gas exports has cost us over $70 billion.”
“Reform is absolutely necessary, but I will struggle to support this bill in its current form. Therefore, I urge the government to implement the amendments proposed by the crossbench.”
“Stakeholders, including people with disabilities, must be meaningfully involved in the design and the implementation of these reforms. Third, we must address the administrative failings of the scheme itself by introducing more flexibility, faster resolution of errors and stronger feedback loops, including recommendations from tribunal cases to facilitate institutional learnings and prevent the same mistakes from reoccurring. Fourth, any move towards automated decision-making must include robust human oversight and clear avenues for review. Finally, above all, we must ensure that no-one is left behind without support during this transition. The NDIS is supposed to support people. This is its primary goal; it's an admirable one. The government must not lose sight of that in its efforts to reform this system.”
“I ask the government to provide more information on what safeguards will exist to ensure automated decision-making and standardised assessments accurately reflect individual circumstances, including environmental factors, and on what human oversight will exist. Many NDIS participants have incredibly complex needs. The system currently uses some 18 different assessment methodologies, and no information has been provided as to how these will be streamlined and automated. We need a human eye for every critical decision. If these reforms are to succeed, several things must happen. First, there must be a genuine partnership with the states and territories, backed by adequate funding and clear accountability. Second, there must be transparency.”
“Technology can play an important role in improving efficiencies, but automated systems can entrench errors and create decisions that are difficult to challenge or undo. And, without proper oversight, they can harm the very people that they're meant to serve. We've seen this before. Need I remind everybody—robodebt showed us what happens when automation is deployed without adequate human safeguards. More recent experiences with automated aged-care assessments are similarly disturbing. If automation is to be a part of the NDIS, it must be accompanied by strong human oversight, clinical judgement, discretion and accessible review processes.”
“This is an expensive process. In the 2024-25 year, over $60 million was spent by the federal government, by taxpayers, on external law firms to fight participants at the tribunal, and yet the tribunal finds in favour of participants in around 73 per cent of cases. That tells us something important: people with disabilities are overwhelmingly trying to do the right thing and it's the system that's not working for them. The government is now proposing to restrict people's ability to have their plans reassessed, but it's unclear what the government will be doing to increase people's ability to fix clerical errors without being pushed into reassessment. There are also concerns about the increasing use of automated decision-making within the NDIS.”
“This includes one particularly egregious case, where a constituent's plan was issued without a requisite planning meeting and therefore no reference to goal setting or the latest medical evidence. Despite tens of emails, attempted phone calls, the lodging of complaints and advocacy by my office, it was somehow not possible to restart that process and have a planning meeting. Instead, after the internal review rubberstamped that initial plan, my constituent is now before the tribunal simply to get her statutory right and have a planning meeting. Sadly, cases like these are not isolated. Of the more than 100 NDIS related cases that my office has been asked to assist with, 20 have been in relation to errors or requests that should have been dealt with by commonsense review and 11 have ended up in front of the tribunal.”
“Beyond questions of funding and eligibility, we must also address the everyday experience of participants in the scheme, and this is where I hear the most frustration from my constituents. The NDIS has developed into a bureaucracy that's too rigid, that's too complex and that too often lacks common sense. People encounter administrative errors, such as incorrect plans, missing supports and simple clerical mistakes. These should be solved simply, but the system does not provide a straightforward way to fix them. Instead people are pushed into lengthy, costly and very stressful review processes. In too many cases, participants are forced to take matters to the Administrative Review Tribunal simply to correct what should have been basic administrative issues.”
“Those rules will determine who can access the scheme and what supports they receive, yet the bill imposes no minimum consultation requirements before they are made—while simultaneously granting the minister significant new authority to control scheme costs, restructure participant planning and define support eligibility. This gap exists despite the independent NDIS Review calling for deep public consultation on the proposed reforms. My amendment fills that gap by requiring that the minister publish exposure drafts, consult with people in the disability community and representative organisations over a minimum of 28 days and publish both a summary of the feedback received and a disability impact statement before making rules of this kind. I sincerely hope the government will respond constructively and implement this amendment.”
“The chaotic announcement and the continual delays in relation to the Thriving Kids program show just how difficult it is to hear and consider the range of experiences and perspectives that could help better shape a future system. For these reasons, I'm proposing an amendment to improve and ensure consultation on proposed legislative reforms to uphold the foundational mantra 'nothing about us without us'. The bill leaves critical matters, including eligibility criteria, functional capacity assessments, assessment methodology and funding rules, to the future National Disability Insurance Scheme rules.”