Division
Helen Haines by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) and (5) on sheet 1, revised 30 June 2026, as circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 1, item 34, page 12 (after line 16), after subsection 34A(1), insert: (1A) The specified group of supports must not relate to activities of daily living. (2) Schedule 1, item 73, page 26 (before line 9), before subsection 34(1A), insert: (1AA) If the CEO is not satisfied of a matter in subsection (1) in relation to a statement of participant supports, the CEO must notify the relevant participant, in writing, of the reasons for not being so satisfied. (3) Schedule 1, item 73, page 27 (lines 6 to 35), omit subsections 34(1E) and (1F). (5) Schedule 1, item 97, page 39 (lines 3 to 7), omit subsection 25B(6), substitute: (6) Before making National Disability Insurance Scheme rules declaring that a support is an alternative support for an impairment, the Minister must be satisfied that: (a) it is not appropriate to fund or provide a support for the impairment through the National Disability Insurance Scheme; and (b) the alternative support is reasonably available and accessible. I will make some brief remarks to support these amendments. They respond to key concerns raised by my constituents, the very people who will be impacted by the changes proposed under this bill. These things include the need for greater transparency and trust in decision-making and the importance of protecting approved funding for participants' basic needs. Amendment (1) would protect funding for activities of daily living from blanket funding reductions under a new ministerial power. While the government has said the new power won't be used for that purpose, there's nothing in the bill to guarantee that. In terms of amendment (2), people with a disability of course deserve certainty about funding for basic essential supports, and this amendment would provide that. It's really critical that we get this right and build that certainty for them. Amendment (2) wo
House of Representatives, 2026-07-01. negative: ayes 10, noes 66.
Question
Helen Haines by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) and (5) on sheet 1, revised 30 June 2026, as circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 1, item 34, page 12 (after line 16), after subsection 34A(1), insert: (1A) The specified group of supports must not relate to activities of daily living. (2) Schedule 1, item 73, page 26 (before line 9), before subsection 34(1A), insert: (1AA) If the CEO is not satisfied of a matter in subsection (1) in relation to a statement of participant supports, the CEO must notify the relevant participant, in writing, of the reasons for not being so satisfied. (3) Schedule 1, item 73, page 27 (lines 6 to 35), omit subsections 34(1E) and (1F). (5) Schedule 1, item 97, page 39 (lines 3 to 7), omit subsection 25B(6), substitute: (6) Before making National Disability Insurance Scheme rules declaring that a support is an alternative support for an impairment, the Minister must be satisfied that: (a) it is not appropriate to fund or provide a support for the impairment through the National Disability Insurance Scheme; and (b) the alternative support is reasonably available and accessible. I will make some brief remarks to support these amendments. They respond to key concerns raised by my constituents, the very people who will be impacted by the changes proposed under this bill. These things include the need for greater transparency and trust in decision-making and the importance of protecting approved funding for participants' basic needs. Amendment (1) would protect funding for activities of daily living from blanket funding reductions under a new ministerial power. While the government has said the new power won't be used for that purpose, there's nothing in the bill to guarantee that. In terms of amendment (2), people with a disability of course deserve certainty about funding for basic essential supports, and this amendment would provide that. It's really critical that we get this right and build that certainty for them. Amendment (2) wo
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.