Division
Monique Ryan 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. 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. 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
House of Representatives, 2026-07-01. negative: ayes 10, noes 68.
Question
Monique Ryan 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. 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. 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
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.