Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) | Hansard source

I move amendment (1) as circulated in my name:

(1) Clause 2, page 3 (after line 3), at the end of the clause, add:

(3) Despite subsection (1), the provisions mentioned in items 3 to 6 of the table do not commence until the day after the Minister has caused to be tabled in each House of the Parliament a statement setting out:

(a) the status of foundational supports, including Thriving Kids, in each jurisdiction; and

(b) whether the Minister considers those supports referenced in (a) to be established, funded and operational; and

(c) the basis for that view, including consideration of the availability and accessibility of supports for persons likely to be affected by the commencement of those Parts.

The NDIS is the 'only port in the storm'. That's what the minister has said countless times. That's what he said in his press conference. But this legislation gives no assurances to the estimated 241,000 Australians that it will move off the scheme that they have anywhere to go.

The NDIS Reform Advisory Committee was set up in response to the NDIS independent review. Eight members were nominated by state and territory governments, three were appointed by a national public EOI process and two were appointed by the minister for the NDIS. The Reform Advisory Committee is a peak voice for the disability community. It was set up by this government. Its submission to the inquiry into the bill recommended that access changes and budget reductions be tied legislatively to the prior availability of foundational supports for affected cohorts. They are not alone in saying this. The NDIS independent review was unequivocal. It said:

Changes to access and budget setting processes can only be implemented once the recommended foundational supports are in place to offer support outside the NDIS.

That was page 273, for those who are looking. The government knows this. It quoted that recommendation word for word on page 258 of the explanatory memorandum to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. But here we are. We have the legislation, and it provides zero certainty to participants that they will have anywhere to go—zero certainty about foundational supports, zero certainty about Thriving Kids, zero certainty that people are not just going to fall through the cracks.

The NDIS Reform Advisory Committee's first recommendation is that this bill should not be passed in its current form. The very first heading in their submission warns that the bill will cause material harm to people with a disability. The submission goes further. It asserts that harm arising from this legislation is 'beyond dispute'. It's an extraordinary finding, but, unfortunately, it's consistent with the community feedback that I've received.

In this context, I see amendment (1) as critical. It introduces an important safeguard. It requires public transparency that the 241,000 people to be moved off this scheme will have somewhere to go. We're being asked to support a scheme change which removes people from the only guaranteed support that they currently have, and it has no enforceable mechanism to ensure that replacement supports are ready, they are accessible and they are adequate.

Reporting on the status of foundational supports and Thriving Kids should be a precondition to the commencement of relevant schedules in this legislation. That would mean that before 1 October 2026, before 1 February 2027 and before 1 January 2028—all relevant dates for when parts of this legislation are set to commence—the minister has to table three key updates to this parliament: first, a status of foundational supports, including the status of Thriving Kids in every jurisdiction; second, whether the minister considers those supports to be established, funded and operational; and finally, the basis on which the minister forms these views, including the availability and accessibility of supports for persons likely affected by the commencement of the relevant parts of this bill. It's not an unreasonable ask. It's not an undue burden. It's what the disability community deserves at the very least.

When I met with Minister Butler and Minister McAllister about this amendment, they told me that this is not their responsibility; it's the responsibility of the states, but I can't accept that. For the government to reject this amendment would mean that the government was going against its own explanatory memorandum, going against the minister's National Press Club speech, going against the disability community in the most insulting and egregious way.

See this speech in context