Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) | Hansard source

I move amendment (4) on sheet 1, revised 30 June 2026, as circulated in my name:

(4) Schedule 1, item 92, page 35 (line 31) to page 36 (line 4), omit subsection 25A(2), substitute:

(2A) Treatment may not be appropriate treatment for a person's impairment or impairments if the person's individual circumstances restrict the person from accessing the treatment.

This bill would prevent people from accessing the NDIS until they've undertaken what the government says is 'all appropriate treatment'. The details will be dealt with in regulation, so we don't know exactly what that will mean in practice. However, the bill explicitly states that a treatment may still be considered appropriate even if a person's financial circumstances or geographical location prevent them from accessing it. Now, this is unacceptable. It completely ignores the reality of service provision outside of major cities. It could put the NDIS out of reach of rural and regional Australians, who simply don't have the local options and can't realistically access what is considered appropriate treatment.

My community are really worried about this. They're worried about the impacts of the bill. When I look at things like this, I think they have every right to be worried. My amendment would reverse this provision to clarify that a treatment may not be appropriate for a person who can't access it. It's all I've got to say about it, really, because to me this seems so obvious that I can't believe that I actually have to say it.

See this speech in context