Statute Update Bill 2026

Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (15:10): I'm not going to spend long talking about the substantive elements of the Statute Update Bill 2026. There are some grammatical changes that I think are really pressing and should be adopted, but I will deal with the amendments before the Senate. Isn't it extraordinary that, after this groundswell of opposition from veterans across the country, the repeated calls for the government to reconsider the allied health cap, we're now forced to do this, late on a Thursday, and attach critical amendments to a statute update bill to actually say: 'Make sure you give veterans the physio they need.

Make sure you give veterans the psych services they need. Make sure you give veterans the support they need'—sometimes to save themselves from some pretty tough circumstances. We're having to do this—attach it like a limpet—to the Statute Update Bill 2026.

I know this has been circulated by the coalition, but I think it would be fair to see this as the 'Senator Lambie amendment', because I just want to put on record my respect for the work that Senator Lambie does in this space. But I also cast my mind back to when we first heard about this cap. We heard about it just before we had another Senate estimates investigation of Veterans' Affairs.

I remember sitting there—and I'll give credit to Senator Scarr as well. Senator Scarr was getting his head around it—being connected with veterans and their community in Queensland—and peppering them with questions. I remember, just before that round of questioning started, also getting this avalanche of concerns coming to me from veterans, saying: 'What does this cap mean?

What's it going to mean for me? A $5,000 cap—I spent that in the first three months on psych treatment. What's this going to mean for my ability to go and get my physio?

It's the only way I can pick up my kids and play with my kids.' There was this wave of concern, because what actually happened was, without ever talking to the veterans community, running this really deceitful argument that it was all about tracking down fraud—and, to be honest, you just repeated the same thing in the NDIS space: running a fraud argument but actually stealing money from people who need the support.

You ran this totally deceitful argument that it was about fraud and dodgy providers. Don't get me wrong: I reckon there are some dodgy providers in relation to veterans, and I reckon there are a handful of dodgy providers in the NDIS, and it's government's job to put in place systems that identify them early and winnow them out. When you're talking about this kind of system—to help veterans—you want to have a really low entrance way into getting treatment, and you're going to err on the side of providing treatment rather than putting veterans through endless bloody hoops while they wait months and months or years for basic treatment.

In those circumstances, there will be some dodgy players who want to take advantage of it, and you have to accept there'll be a small amount of that in a scheme that's designed to provide timely care for veterans. But what this government did instead was point to that small element of it and say, 'The whole thing needs to be shut down.' Instead of going after the dodgy providers, they went after veterans—with nastiness towards them, without talking.

I hear what the government says—that they've got this consultation process and to let the consultation process go through. How many times have we heard it, from either this government or the previous government? 'We're going to invite you in for a cup of tea and a biscuit after we've made the decision.' There's only one answer in this space. Let's vote for this and get this through, and maybe the government will see sense and pass it through the other house.

But I'd give this invitation to the government: in this case, admit you were wrong. Admit that putting arbitrary caps on providing basic assistance to veterans is plainly wrong and say: 'Actually, we're going to pull the proposal. We're going to work with veterans on a scheme that ensures timely access to medical benefits and holds any dodgy players to account'—and that you're going to do that, walking together with veterans, over the next six months.

I'm grateful for these amendments being brought before the chamber. In One Nation's amendments, again, they're running this same unprincipled argument. Apparently they didn't read the legislation they voted for two years ago, and now they want to fix it up.

My advice to One Nation, like my advice to the coalition, is: maybe read the legislation in the first place, work out what legislation you're voting for and have voted for in the past, and don't do this—returning like a dog to its vomit.