Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

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 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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the House) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll be brief. To clarify some of the remarks from the member for Kooyong, I think she understands that IHACPA's advice on aged-care pricing is still a decision made by government in the same way that we're seeking for the pricing advice that would go through the annual pricing review, the board and the minister to also be a decision of government. I've said publicly a number of times now that I see real merit in adopting the recommendation of the NDIS review and moving pricing of the NDIS, in time, to IHACPA. The preliminary work that IHACPA has done on that confirms, particularly with our experience of aged care, that this would be a long process. In the meantime, having much more certainty around pricing on an annual basis, with advice from the board to the minister and publication—pursuant to the amendment that we supported from, I think, the member for Indi—is a huge advance on where we've been. We don't support these amendments.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendments (12) and (13) on sheet 1 be agreed to

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

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".

(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.

(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.

(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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the House) | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to address a couple of remarks there. I've indicated my appreciation for the contributions that a number of crossbench members have made to this debate and for the time they've taken to draft amendments and come to us. I think the member said there were 30-something amendments from the crossbench. A number of them do cross over; they deal with the same material. But we are supporting, I think, in total, 12 of those amendments. I'll also move 18 government amendments—when we get to that—to reflect feedback we've received. I want to reiterate how much I value the engagement, even where people have different views about the direction that we should take, in relation to this critically important social program.

I've made remarks about amendments that go to the reassessment proposals and support determinations. There'll be some further debate about that over the course of the rest of this evening. For those same reasons, we're not supporting these amendments.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendments (2) to (4), (8) and (9) on sheet 1 be agreed to.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

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.

(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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Ryan, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (9), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 34, page 12 (lines 8 to 13), omit paragraphs 34A(1)(a) and (b), substitute:

(a) a percentage for reducing funding component amounts for a group of supports specified in the determination; and

(b) the class of participants' plans to which the percentage applies, which may be:

(i) all old framework plans that commence on or after the day the determination commences; or

(ii) the class of such plans specified in the determination.

(2) Schedule 1, item 34, page 12 (after line 16), after subsection 34A(1), insert:

(1A) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a specified group of supports must be supports for one of the following:

(a) assistance with social, economic and community participation;

(b) improved daily living skills.

(1B) The determination may specify one or both groups of supports. If it specifies both, it may specify the same or a different percentage for each group.

(1C) The determination may specify a subgroup within a specified group of supports as an excluded subgroup for the purposes of subsection (2A). The excluded subgroup may consist of one or more kinds of supports.

Note: Excluded subgroups will include supports in employment and disability related health supports.

(1D) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), a class of participants' plans may be specified by reference to features of plans, features of participants, or both.

(3) Schedule 1, item 34, page 12 (line 17), omit "is in force", substitute "of a percentage is in force for a group of supports".

(4) Schedule 1, item 34, page 12 (line 18), omit "to which it applies", substitute "in the class of participants' plans to which the percentage applies".

(5) Schedule 1, item 34, page 12 (lines 20 to 22), omit "specified in the determination is taken instead to be the stated amount as reduced by the percentage specified in the determination", substitute "is taken instead to be the amount worked out under subsection (2A)".

(6) Schedule 1, item 34, page 13 (after line 6), after subsection 34A(2), insert:

(2A) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), the funding component amount for the specified group of supports is the amount worked out as follows:

      FCA—specified percentage × net FCA

     where:

      FCA means the funding component amount stated in the plan for the group of supports.

net FCA means:

(a) unless paragraph (b) applies—the funding component amount stated in the plan for the specified group of supports; or

(b) if the determination specifies an excluded subgroup within the specified group—the funding component amount stated in the plan for the group of supports minus so much of the funding component amount as is attributable to funding for the supports in the excluded subgroup.

(2B) For the purposes of paragraph (b) of the definition of net FCA in subsection (2A), the determination must specify how to determine the portion of the funding component amount that is attributable to funding for the supports in the excluded subgroup.

(7) Schedule 1, item 92, page 35 (after line 30), at the end of subsection 25A(1), add:

Note 1: For the purposes of paragraph (c), treatment is regularly undertaken or performed in Australia if public funding is available in respect of the treatment.

Note 2: Appropriate treatment does not include restrictive practices involving seclusion, chemical restraint, mechanical restraint, physical restraint or environmental restraint.

(8) Schedule 3, item 11, page 97 (after line 27), after subsection 59D(5), insert:

CEO must publish proposed instrument

(5A) At least 7 days before making a standard operating procedure instrument, the CEO must cause a copy of the proposed instrument to be published on the Agency's website.

(9) Schedule 5, item 1, page 108 (lines 25 and 26), omit subitem (5), substitute:

(5) Rules under subitem (1) relating to amendments or repeals made by Part 5 or 6 of Schedule 1 to this Act, or to Schedule 4 of this Act, must not be made after the end of the period of 12 months beginning on the day this subitem commences.

(5A) Rules under subitem (1) relating to amendments or repeals other than those mentioned in subitem (5) must not be made after the end of the period of 6 months beginning on the day this subitem commences.

The Greens will not be supporting these cruel cuts and changes to the NDIS Act. We know that these changes will make life harder for people who rely on the NDIS to live independently, participate in their communities and access education and work. I've heard these concerns directly from my constituents. I sent out a survey to people who my office has helped with the NDIS, and every single person who responded was seriously concerned either about being kicked off entirely or about cuts severely impacting their quality of life. Some said they simply weren't sure if they could keep going and keep surviving without their NDIS support.

I'm pleased that the Greens have been able to secure an additional eight weeks of inquiry into the bill. This will delay the passing of the bill and will secure more time for the disability community to have their voices heard in the inquiry. This, in turn, will build more pressure for the bill to be completely withdrawn, as it should be. As well as gaining more valuable time for participants, the amendments I'm moving today will protect NDIS participants from some of the very worst parts of this very bad bill. However, even with these amendments, the effects of this bill will still be incredibly cruel, and the Greens will continue to push the government and the opposition to withdraw their support for it.

The first area of amendment relates to support determinations. The bill as first presented allows the minister to make universal percentage cuts to funding for a category of supports. These cuts would apply to all NDIS participants. Our amendments will ensure that cuts cannot be applied to the support categories of daily living, transport, consumables, assistive technology or home modifications. We've also limited the impact of the minister's changes to support determinations relating to social, community and civic participation. The minister cannot make cuts to supports that people rely on for daily health needs, attending medical appointments or getting to work.

The second area is the definition of 'permanent disability'. The bill gives a new definition of 'permanent disability' that narrows the scope of what will be considered a permanent disability by bringing into primary legislation the concept of 'all appropriate treatment', which requires a person to undergo treatments to prove their disability is permanent before being allowed to access the scheme. The bill as it is written specifies that financial and geographical circumstances are not a consideration regarding what treatment is available. We've secured protections to ensure that treatment cannot be a restrictive practice, such as forced medication. Treatment must also be a publicly funded service available through Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme or the public health system.

Thirdly, this bill allows the use of automated decision-making for important NDIS decisions, including for the development of participant plans and the processing of claims. We have secured greater transparency on the detail of how these automated decisions will be made by requiring that decision-making frameworks for evaluative decisions be made publicly available before being implemented.

Lastly, this bill gives the minister the power to make rules that can change how parts of the NDIS Act operate without having to pass a new bill through parliament. Our amendment reduces the scope of the ministerial power by reducing the timeframe for making transitional rules to six months for every part of the bill, except for parts relating to new framework planning, reasonable and necessary supports, and plan renewals. This will significantly limit the power of the minister to change how the NDIS Act works without taking a bill to parliament, though the Greens will continue to push for this power to be removed from the bill altogether.

I want to thank everyone who has taken the time to make a submission to the inquiry on the NDIS bill. There have been over 4½ thousand people so far who have done so. You've helped us put pressure on the government to secure these changes. The Greens and I will continue to use every pathway we have to fight this bill and to push the government to scrap it entirely.

Question agreed to.

Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the House) | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all members of the crossbench and the member for Ryan for their contributions to this important piece of legislation. I now present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and an addendum to the explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (6) on sheet ST122, as circulated, together.

Leave granted.

I won't detain the House. The rationale behind these amendments is contained in the documents just presented by the government. Essentially, these six amendments clarify our original intention in relation to the revocation or suspension of plant and the process that the agency would go through for that, as well as a drafting clarification, particularly around the operation of the requirement for appropriate treatment—namely, no requirement for additional treatment where a participant has already undertaken appropriate treatment. I commend the amendments to the House and I move:

(1) Schedule 1, item 79, page 30 (after line 17), after subsection 30(1A), insert:

(1B) The CEO cannot be satisfied that reasonable attempts to contact the participant have been made as mentioned in subparagraph (1A)(a)(i) unless the CEO is satisfied that the requirements in subsection (1C) are met in relation to:

(a) unless paragraph (b) or (c) applies—the participant; or

(b) if the participant has a nominee—the participant's nominee; or

(c) if the participant does not have a nominee but has another authorised contact or representative—that other authorised contact or representative.

(1C) The requirements in this subsection are met in relation to the person mentioned in paragraph (1B)(a), (b) or (c) (as applicable) if:

(a) at least 5 attempts have been made to contact the person using the person's preferred form of contact; and

(b) the last of those attempts was made at least 3 months, and not more than 4 months, after the first of those attempts; and

(c) if the person's preferred form of contact is not in writing—at least one additional attempt has been made, during the period between the first and last of the attempts mentioned in paragraph (a), to contact the person in writing.

(1D) If the person the CEO is attempting to contact is the participant, an attempt does not count for the purposes of subsection (1C) if, before suspending the plan, the CEO becomes aware that at the time the attempt was made, the participant was in the care of a hospital or other institution, or experiencing homelessness.

(2) Schedule 1, item 83, page 31 (after line 13), after subsection 40A(1), insert:

(1A) The CEO cannot be satisfied that reasonable attempts to contact the participant have been made as mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) unless the CEO is satisfied that the requirements in subsection (1B) are met in relation to:

(a) unless paragraph (b) or (c) applies—the participant; or

(b) if the participant has a nominee—the participant's nominee; or

(c) if the participant does not have a nominee but has another authorised contact or representative—that other authorised contact or representative.

(1B) The requirements in this subsection are met in relation to the person mentioned in paragraph (1A)(a), (b) or (c) (as applicable) if:

(a) at least 5 attempts have been made to contact the person using the person's preferred form of contact; and

(b) the last of those attempts was made at least 3 months, and not more than 4 months, after the first of those attempts; and

(c) if the person's preferred form of contact is not in writing—at least one additional attempt has been made, during the period between the first and last of the attempts mentioned in paragraph (a), to contact the person in writing.

(1C) If the person the CEO is attempting to contact is the participant, an attempt does not count for the purposes of subsection (1B) if, before suspending the plan, the CEO becomes aware that at the time the attempt was made, the participant was in the care of a hospital or other institution, or experiencing homelessness.

(3) Schedule 1, item 89, page 34 (lines 15 to 17), omit paragraph 24(5)(b).

(4) Schedule 1, item 89, page 34 (line 18), omit "(c)", substitute "(b)".

(5) Schedule 1, item 91, page 35 (lines 7 to 9), omit paragraph 25(1B)(b).

(6) Schedule 1, item 91, page 35 (line 10), omit "(c)", substitute "(b)".

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

(7) Schedule 2, item 91, page 81 (lines 8 to 16), omit the definition of related party in section 9, substitute:

related party has the meaning given by subsection 73EA(2A).

(8) Schedule 2, item 93, page 81 (lines 23 and 24), omit ", or a related party of a person registered or applying to be registered,".

(9) Schedule 2, item 95, page 82 (lines 5 and 6), omit ", or is a related party of another person that is".

(10) Schedule 2, item 95, page 82 (lines 11 and 12), omit ", or is a related party of another person that is".

(11) Schedule 2, item 97, page 83 (line 7), after "person", insert "and key personnel of the person".

(12) Schedule 2, item 97, page 83 (after line 8), after subsection 73EA(2), insert:

(2A) A person is a related party of another person in any of the following circumstances:

(a) the person is a relative of the other person (within the meaning of section 9 of the Corporations Act 2001);

(b) either person is an associated entity of the other person (within the meaning of section 50AAA of the Corporations Act 2001);

(c) circumstances prescribed by the National Disability Insurance Scheme Rules for the purposes of this paragraph.

(13) Schedule 2, item 98, page 83 (lines 22 to 25), omit paragraph 73F(2)(j).

(14) Schedule 2, item 98, page 83 (line 26), omit "(k)", substitute "; (j)".

(15) Schedule 2, item 98, page 83 (line 27), omit "and any related party of the person".

(16) Schedule 2, item 100, page 84 (line 4), omit "section 9", substitute "subsection 73EA(2A)".

(17) Schedule 2, item 101, page 84 (line 31), omit "paragraphs 73F(2)(j) and (k)", substitute "paragraph 73F(2)(j)".

(18) Schedule 2, item 101, page 85 (line 1), omit "do", substitute "does".

Briefly, these amendments seek to clarify the separation that we've sought through this bill between plan manager on the one hand and providers of other services on the other. We're very determined to make significant reforms to the plan management part of this scheme. We'll be moving to a commissioned model so that plan managers will only be able to offer their services to participants when the government has been satisfied that they meet certain standards and qualifications. Our original intention was not to allow related entities—a plan manager service—to have other support services provided by a related entity.

We've taken feedback from the sector and concluded that there are very high-value services being provided by related entities—not the same service per se, but by related entities—plan management on one hand and a range of other support services on the other, and that it would be really to the detriment of participants were we to adopt a harder line in relation to this. We are making it clear that particular services are either plan managers or they're service providers of another type. Related entities will be able to provide plan management services on the one hand and other services on the other. Very strict conflict-of-interest arrangements will be put in place as a result of this bill if it passes. I commend those changes to the House.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.

Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the House) | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the third reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Milton Dick (Speaker) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the third reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.