Division
Monique Ryan 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. 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. 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 r
House of Representatives, 2026-07-01. negative: ayes 11, noes 44.
Question
Monique Ryan 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. 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. 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 r
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.