Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) | Hansard source

():

… the perspectives of people with disability must be centre stage as we deliver these reforms.

There has been continuous consultation with the disability community and this will continue as we pursue our reforms.

That was former NDIS minister Bill Shorten in March 2024.

For decades, people with disability have told policymakers, ''nothing about us, without us!''.

I understand the need to ensure your voices are loud and carry weight.

As Minister I have a responsibility to ensure NDIS is not done to or for participants without their input.

That was Minister McAllister in May 2025.

That next wave of reform will—of course—involve the deepest collaboration with the disability community and participants.

…   …   …

… 'nothing about us, without us'.

That was Minister Mark Butler at the National Press Club in August 2025.

According to the NDIS Reform Advisory Committee, no disability representative organisation, funded or unfunded, was consulted on the content of the minister's Press Club speech, the budget or the preliminary drafts of this bill's text. The consultation on this crucially important bill has been utterly inadequate and utterly inaccessible. The Senate inquiry was launched on 14 May, and it initially closed two weeks later on 29 May—two weeks for submissions on legislation which will reshape the lives of 760,000 Australians with a disability.

Many people with desperately important stakes in this scheme were denied the opportunity to contribute to the inquiry. Many people with a disability were unaware of the details of this legislation at that time. Many people with a disability need assistance to access parliamentary platforms and to engage with complex legislative language. Many people with a disability rely on support workers, advocacy organisations and community networks, all of which take some time to mobilise. Slow consultation windows aren't just inconvenient. They are structurally inaccessible.

I'm glad that the government has now, under pressure, extended the Senate inquiry into this bill until 14 August, but that only happened because of a chorus of disappointment, frustration and anger from the disability community. The disability community shouldn't have to fight to be heard and consulted. Co-design and consultation should be a right and a given. The member for Bradfield's amendment would legislate a minimum 28-day consultation period for future rule making on functional capacity assessments, eligibility criteria and funding levels. It would require an exposure draft, a feedback summary and a disability impact statement for important regulations. These are sensible and principled requirements. In a better world, they would be standard practice already.

The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability found that people with disability are chronically insufficiently involved in government decision-making. This bill has repeated that pattern. Article 4.3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities requires governments to 'closely consult with and actively involve' people with disability, through their representative organisations, when developing legislation that affects them. Australia is a co-signatory to that convention. The government likes to remind us of that, but only when it suits.

The NDIS independent review action 25.2 specifically called for 'deep public consultation' with the disability community on proposed legislative reforms. Every speaker to this bill in this House has said that they want the NDIS to be sustainable. Everyone says they want it funded into the future for the people who depend on it. But genuine reform requires trust. You can't build trust with people who haven't been given a seat at the table. You can't build a better NDIS by sidelining the people it is designed to serve.

I'll finish with a quote from Jenny Macklin, former minister for disability reform and the shadow minister when the NDIS was launched: 'We need these voices to be strong. We need them to be firmly built into the consultation and policy design processes not as an optional addition to the NDIS but as an integral part of ensuring people with disability can exercise choice and take control.'

Currently, everything about this bill is without the disability community, and much of it will deny them both choice and control.

See this speech in context