Dai Le (Fowler, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

A local NDIS provider shared:

I got spat on by a dad the other day.

You can imagine that took me by surprise. The provider then shared that the distressed father yelled:

If my child is pushed onto Thriving Kids, is the government saying that my child no longer has autism? … it doesn't magically go away … What does this even mean for us?

That is the level of fear and confusion we are dealing with. Parents are terrified of losing support, and they're begging professionals to explain whether a change in program means their child's autism simply stops counting in the eyes of the system.

We all know that the NDIS reform is long overdue. The rorting of the NDIS has been real, it has been documented, and it has been deeply unfair. It's been unfair to the taxpayers who fund it and deeply unfair to those with genuine permanent disabilities who depend on it. For years, bad actors have exploited this scheme by inflating invoices, delivering little to no service and draining resources that should have gone to the people who needed them the most. The government is right to rein it in. I support that. I welcome the fraud and integrity measures in schedule 2. Strengthening the agency's powers to investigate and act is necessary and overdue, but those measures cannot come at the cost of fairness for the communities I represent, and I would go further: they cannot come at the cost of fairness for any Australian family navigating this system.

My concern with this bill, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, is simple: will the most vulnerable be worse off? I want to address something directly because I know it will be said. Some will argue that the answer is simple: people should just speak English and navigating a government system should not be that hard. Let me be clear. The accessibility features of the NDIS are not confined to people from non-English-speaking backgrounds. Everyday Australian families who were born here, were raised here and have English as their first and only language tell me they're overwhelmed by this system. They describe application forms that read like legal documents, assessment processes that feel adversarial, appeals they cannot afford to pursue and bureaucratic language so dense that even the most educated families struggle to understand what their loved one is entitled to.

This is not a migrant problem; this is a system design problem. The NDIS was built around an assumption that participants and their families have the time, the resources, the confidence and the literacy—in every sense of that word—to advocate effectively for themselves within a complex administrative framework. For too many Australians, that assumption has always been wrong. If you're from a multicultural background, if English is not your first language, if you're still finding your footing in this country, if cultural norms around disability mean your family has been reluctant to even seek a diagnosis, those barriers do not disappear. They compound. They stack. The result is that some of the most disadvantaged Australians are the least likely to be receiving the support they're actually entitled to.

We are a multicultural nation. Australia's diversity is not an edge case to be managed; it is the reality of who we are, and any policy that fails to account for that reality will fail a significant proportion of the people it is meant to serve. Over 63 per cent of constituents in Fowler speak a language other than English at home. Many are navigating not only the complexities of disability but language barriers, cultural differences and the deep challenges that come with building a life in a new country. I believe these communities are already underrepresented in the NDIS, not because disability does not exist in Fowler—it absolutely does—but because the system as it stands was not built with them in mind. Families have fallen through the cracks not because they lacked need but because the system lacked the cultural responsiveness to meet them where they are. This bill, in its current form, asks us to make that system harder to access. That is not reform, that is retreat.

One of the most concerning changes is the shift in how a person's functional capacity will be assessed. The bill requires the agency to focus on a person's intrinsic capacity while disregarding environmental and personal circumstances. I understand the policy intent, but in practice this creates a rigid, standardised measure that will misrepresent the lived reality of a significant number of Australians, not just those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds but anyone whose circumstances, geography or life experience means they cannot demonstrate their needs within a narrow framework. In Fowler, a language barrier is not just a personal circumstance; it is a systematic wall. By legislating for the agency to disregard these factors, we risk assessing participants as having a higher functional capacity than they actually have. We risk locking people out not because their disability has changed but because the measuring tool was never calibrated to see them clearly.

The minister has indicated that hospitals, schools, GPs and the broader health system could bear greater responsibility for those with permanent or significant disabilities before they are referred to the NDIS. I understand the intention. In principle, a properly funded and coordinated care system should be the first point of response. But the reality on the ground looks very different. Our hospital system is under enormous pressure. Emergency departments across Western Sydney are already stretched beyond capacity dealing with everyday presentations. The idea that these hospitals can absorb additional complex, ongoing care for people with significant disabilities without new funding, new infrastructure and new workforce is not a plan; it is a hope, and vulnerable Australians cannot be asked to wait to on hope.

Our GP workforce is in crisis. Western Sydney has a well-documented shortage of general practitioners. The doctors who remain are managing unsustainable patient loads. They are doing extraordinary work under extraordinary pressure. Asking them to co-ordinate complex disability care on top of that is not a solution. I agree with the principle that the NDIS should not be the first and only resort, but you cannot redirect people to systems that are already at breaking point and call it reform. Before this bill passes, the government must demonstrate that the alternative pathways in health, in schools, in community care are funded, staffed and genuinely ready.

I'm also deeply concerned about the new powers given to the minister to reduce funding across entire categories of supports—reductions of 25 per cent or more are applied across the board and not subject to Administrative Review Tribunal oversight. In a high-wealth postcode, a percentage based cut may be a budget inconvenience; in Fowler, it is a service cliff. My constituents do not have the private capital to top up their supports when the government resets the bottom line.

Based on the government's own impact analysis, participants not in supported living arrangements currently receive an average of nearly $33,000 a year for social, civic and community participation supports. Under these reforms, that would reset to approximately $26,000, an average reduction of around $7,000 per plan, with some families facing cuts up to about $15,000. The government says $200 million is being redirected to a new Inclusive Communities Fund, but guaranteed individual funding is being replaced with a general pool. We have no information on how much of that will reach communities like mine, whether it will go to the small, trusted local providers my constituents rely on or be absorbed by large national organisations without the cultural connection to serve them.

Families in my electorate are being told that Thriving Kids will be the alternative for children who no longer qualify for the NDIS. But what does that really look like in practice for a parent in Cabramatta, Liverpool or Fairfield? Will information be available in their language? Will services be culturally appropriate and locally delivered? The program is expected to roll out from October 2026, but the service model is still evolving. Parents are being asked to trust a system that has been announced but not yet built. If children are moved from NDIS before these services are visible and accessible, families will not receive alternative support. They will receive less support, and, in communities like mine where trust in government systems is hard won, a failed roll out could mean families disengage entirely. I had a parent who messaged me, saying: 'My youngest son is non-verbal and has no way of communicating. So how will he exist in society without support?'

I support reining in the rorting. I support a sustainable NDIS, and I understand the intent behind redirecting some responsibilities to the broader care system. But good intentions are not enough when the execution risks leaving the most vulnerable behind. We are a multicultural Australia. That is not a complication. It is who we are, and we have an obligation to make our public systems work for all of us—for families who have been here for generations and for families still finding their footing, for those whose first language is English and for those for whom it is not, and for everyone who needs support and does not have the private resources to go without.

The government must prove it can replace what it removes. It must fund the alternative pathways. It must provide clear, accessible, in-language information before changes take place. It must legislate genuine safeguards, including a mandate for consultation with culturally and linguistically diverse communities in the design of assessment tools.

With those requests in mind and without declining to give this bill a second reading, I commend this bill to the House, and I move:

That all words after "House" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"(1) notes that:

(a) culturally and linguistically diverse communities experience additional barriers in accessing and engaging with the NDIS; and

(b) a lack of consultation with culturally and linguistically diverse participants and service providers may result in further barriers and inequity; and

(2) calls on the Government to ensure the implementation of the reforms does not inadvertently impose additional burdens on, or further disadvantage culturally and linguistically diverse NDIS participants".

See this speech in context