Dai Le (Fowler, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) circulated in my name together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (line 23), after "circumstances", insert "(other than the person's linguistic environment)".

(2) Schedule 1, item 92, page 35 (line 30), at the end of subsection 25A(1), add:

; and (d) is linguistically and culturally accessible at the person's geographical location.

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

In my second reading contribution, I raised serious concerns about how the 'appropriate treatment' provisions in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 would play out for families in communities like mine. My three amendments today go directly to those concerns. They are not an attempt to delay or derail reform. They are an attempt to make it work for the people who will be hurt most if we get this wrong. I have moved these amendments not to stop reform but to make sure reform is fair, inclusive, practical and safe for people living with disability from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and people from low socioeconomic backgrounds—people who already face additional barriers when trying to navigate a government system that is highly complicated, even for those who are well-resourced and speak English as their first language.

As I said in my second reading amendment, I support and welcome the stronger integrity measures for NDIS service providers and plan managers outlined in schedule 2 of the bill. The NDIS must be protected from fraud, rorting and misuse. Australians living with disability deserve a scheme that is trusted, well managed and sustainable. But sustainability and financial viability cannot come at the cost of fairness, and they certainly should not be achieved by pushing the most vulnerable participants into greater uncertainty or into a system of bureaucracy that is harder to understand, harder to access and even further removed from the real lives of NDIS participants in communities like Fowler.

Australia prides itself on being a nation of many languages, cultures and beliefs. As elected representatives, we have a duty and responsibility to make laws and policies that reflect that reality. That is why my first amendment makes it clear that, when we talk about a person's 'environmental circumstances', we cannot exclude their linguistic environment. The language a person speaks at home is one of the most important factors in how they express their needs, understand their rights and advocate for themselves or their loved ones. Language forms the bridge between all of us socially, culturally and emotionally. If the system ignores that, the result is very likely to be inaccurate assessments of a person's function, capacity, their needs and their access to support. The linguistic environment is not incidental; it goes to the very core of whether a person is able to equitably participate in the NDIS.

Much like the rural and regional communities who have long called out the gap between policy made in Canberra and the reality on the ground, outer suburban multicultural communities like Fowler face their own version of being left behind. Distance is not always measured in kilometres. Sometimes it is measured in language, in cultural unfamiliarity and in the absence of services that actually reflect the community they are supposed to serve.

My second amendment embeds a requirement that appropriate treatment must be linguistically and culturally accessible at the person's geographical location. This is not a minor add on. It is about whether a family in an electorate like Fowler has access to support services close to where they live and, just as importantly, whether those supports are culturally and linguistically safe.

In multicultural and multifaith communities like mine, many refugees and migrants still carry deep distrust of government systems. Service providers have told me they face the additional challenge of helping families navigate cultural taboos around trauma, neurodivergence, disability and care needs. If support is not culturally or linguistically appropriate, then, for many families, it is not truly accessible.

The current rule, which says treatment may be appropriate regardless of whether a person's individual circumstances restrict them from accessing it, is deeply concerning. It allows the scheme to describe a service as appropriate even if it is physically out of reach, linguistically inaccessible or culturally out of step with the community. For a diverse, low-income electorate like Fowler, that is a recipe for exclusion.

My third amendment removes the provision that allows the scheme to rely too heavily on generic, one-size-fits-all criteria without enough weight given to the specific needs of individuals and communities. The system must be able to respond to the lived experience of people on the ground, not just assumptions built into centrally designed guidelines.

Taken together, these amendments rest on one principle: the NDIS must be as diverse as the people it serves. Its rules and processes must be readable, reachable and relevant for all Australians, whether they speak English as their first language or their second. For many families in communities like Fowler, those challenges are even more compounded.

These amendments do not undermine the intent of reform; they strengthen it. They make sure that, in the pursuit of a more sustainable scheme, we do not create a less fair one. I urge the House to support these amendments so that reform actually achieves a better scheme, not just a better bottom line.

Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the House) | Link to this | Hansard source

While the government has a lot of sympathy with the spirit in which the member has moved these amendments, we will not be supporting them in the House. Let me say a few words about why.

The future of the NDIS is going to rest on two new approaches to eligibility, and a plan setting and plan management. The bill seeks to do what we have been advised to do now for some time, including through the NDIS review, and that is to put in place an objective system of functional capacity assessment to determine eligibility—to move from a diagnosis based system to an objective assessment of someone's functional capacity. That will be an objective test.

Once eligible, a person under new framework planning will be subjected to a support needs assessment. That support needs assessment will look at the person's functional needs and also their environmental circumstances. Their living circumstances, issues of language and cultural factors—the things that the member for Fowler has raised in her amendment—will certainly be factors that are very important in the support needs assessment of individual participants under the new framework planning.

But the functional capacity assessment is an objective assessment that looks at a person's functional capacity, and that will be developed over the coming months with the support of the technical advisory group. Those matters that the member for Fowler has raised will be accommodated in the system of support needs assessment.

For those reasons—and also in terms of the question of permanence and the question of appropriate treatment, where we will be supporting some other crossbench amendments—we're not supporting the amendments from the member for Fowler.

Andrew Gee (Calare, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to support the amendments moved by the member for Fowler. They are important amendments not only for the member for Fowler's electorate but for all electorates across this country. I think all members here want the NDIS to be as effective as possible and to actually ensure that participants have effective access to the services, and that's why these amendments are so important. They speak to the NDIS being linguistically and culturally accessible, and that is something that all of us should be supporting.

But they also speak to a person's geographical location, and I commend the member for Fowler for raising that issue in this House. In country electorates, we face the tyranny of distance in so many different ways, and that includes delivery of services like the NDIS. There just aren't as many providers in country areas, and participants and providers often have to travel long distances in order to meet and get those services delivered—and to help country Australians on the ground.

So I will be supporting these amendments. I think they are very important for the modern Australia that we live in. They encompass situations that affect all of our electorates, including the member for Fowler's, and they also have an element that recognises the barriers to accessing NDIS services that country people face. They are serious barriers, I will be supporting the amendment for those reasons, and I commend it to the House.

I would ask all members to support this because they cover not only city electorates like the member for Fowler's but also country electorates too. We should be doing anything that we can be doing to bridge that tyranny of distance—that Great Dividing Range that we call the sandstone curtain divides us in so many different ways. It divides us in health outcomes. It divides us in education outcomes. It divides us in wages and how much people earn. It also divides us in the delivery of services such as the NDIS. The member for Fowler has my backing 100 per cent on this, and I would urge all members to support these important amendments.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Fowler be agreed to.

Nicolette Boele (Bradfield, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the amendment circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 3, page 100 (after line 6), after Part 2, insert:

Part 2A — Significant NDIS rules

National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013

13A After section 209D

Insert:

209E Additional consultation requirements for certain National Disability Insurance Scheme rules

(1) This section applies to National Disability Insurance Scheme rules made for the purposes of any of the following provisions:

(a) a provision relating to functional capacity assessments or assessment methodologies;

(b) a provision relating to eligibility criteria or early intervention requirements;

(c) a provision relating to the determination of supports or the setting of funding levels.

(2) Before making rules to which this section applies, the Minister must:

(a) publish an exposure draft of the proposed rules; and

(b) allow a period of not less than 28 days beginning on the day the exposure draft is published (the consultation period) during which persons may make submissions on the proposed rules; and

(c) take reasonable steps to consult the following persons during the consultation period:

(i) people with disability;

(ii) organisations representing the disability community and disability sector, such as Disability Representative and Carer Organisations;

(iii) any other persons the Minister considers appropriate.

(3) Before making rules to which this section applies, the Minister must publish:

(a) a statement summarising the feedback received during the consultation period and the Minister's response to that feedback; and

(b) a disability impact statement setting out the expected effect of the proposed rules on participants and prospective participants.

I move this amendment to strengthen consultation requirements for the key National Disability Insurance Scheme rules. This amendment goes to a simple but fundamental principle that decisions about people with disability should not be made without them. It speaks to the profound truth contained in the slogan 'Nothing about us without us'. As this bill stands, critical aspects of the scheme, including eligibility criteria, functional capacity assessment, assessment methodologies and funding rules, are not set out in the primary legislation but left instead to future rules made by the minister. Those rules will determine who can access the NDIS, how their needs are assessed and what supports they ultimately receive. These are crucial considerations with serious implications for people's lives, and yet there is currently no minimum requirement in this bill for how people with disability are consulted before the rules are made. This is a serious gap.

The independent NDIS review released in 2025 was clear in calling for deep and ongoing consultation on reforms with people with disability, their families, their carers, representative organisations and disability service providers and workers. While the new technical advisory group will undertake consultations when developing their expert advice, the legislation does not set out how comprehensive this consultation needs to be, and, although consultation is required with states and territories, there are minimal guarantees that this will involve the kind of deep consultation called for in the independent review.

My amendment will give effect to the review's recommendation and aligns the bill more closely with the principle of inclusive co-design. It would require the minister, before making rules regarding eligibility, assessment methodologies and support determinations, to publish an exposure draft and allow at least 28 days for public submissions. It would require genuine engagement during that period with people with disability, organisations representing the disability community and sector, and other relevant stakeholders. And, importantly, it would require transparency by mandating the publication of a summary of feedback received, along with the minister's response and a disability impact statement outlining how the proposed rules are expected to affect participants and prospective participants.

As responsibilities across the disability ecosystem shift across jurisdictions, it is more important than ever that thorough, meaningful consultation is undertaken to understand and to avoid unintended consequences. A related example is the New South Wales government's recent decision to potentially lock out small businesses from providing services under Thriving Kids, by limiting tenders to non-profit providers only. I've heard from many allied health and disability small businesses in Bradfield—people with deep connections to the local community and the vulnerable children they provide services to—who fear for the future of their businesses. Equally, parents are concerned about the continuity that these vital services provide for their children. Thorough consultation can help mitigate problems such as these so they do not arise, and the changes proposed by my amendment would ensure that reforms are considered systematically and holistically and that they are informed by lived experience.

These changes, if adopted and implemented, would strengthen the quality of decision-making, and they would build trust in a system that, for many people, currently feels opaque and unpredictable. They would build a social licence for a reform process that many feel has been, frankly, too rushed and exclusionary. If we're asking people to place their confidence in these significant changes to the NDIS, then we must legislate our commitment to including them in the process with openness, with respect and in a spirit of genuine partnership. I urge the government to support this amendment.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) | Link to this | 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.

Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the House) | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Bradfield and the member for Kooyong for their comments. The NDIS has more significant consultation structures and protocols than any other social program I've dealt with, at least, and so it should. As a minister at the time we were building the NDIS, with mental health and ageing I was involved quite centrally in that design. That government set up this scheme to be very much a scheme based on the philosophy of choice and the philosophy of 'Nothing about us without us', as the member for Kooyong reminded us. There are a number of structures already in place there.

The member for Bradfield referred to the NDIS review, which recommended the establishment of deeper consultation structures, and we acted on that. The reform advisory committee has a key role in advising us about things like this, particularly the functional capacity assessment system, which was also a recommendation of the review way back in 2023. As the member for Kooyong reminds us, that committee does its job frankly and fearlessly. As both members know, and I imagine all members know as well, this particular part of the reform program will be implemented after proper advice and proper consultation—of the type I set out in my Press Club speech—through category A rules that need to be agreed with every state and territory. There are pretty clear processes for not just our government to go through but state and territory governments to also go through with their state or territory based disability representative organisations. These systems are well established.

On top of that, when tabling any of these types of instruments, particularly category A rules, section 211 of the act requires me, very clearly, to issue a consultation statement that sets out the way in which we have fulfilled that commitment that was made 15 years ago to build, implement and run a scheme that was very much done in partnership with people with disabilities.

We're very satisfied with this process, going forward, that already has involved a deep engagement of government with disability representative organisations and that will have the work of the RAC, the reform advisory committee, sitting alongside it. Obviously, as the members both indicated, it would involve engagement from the technical advisory group. We're very satisfied that this work will be done in the way I think the members want to see it done. So, on that basis, we won't be supporting this amendment.

Marion Scrymgour (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Bradfield be agreed to.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 21, page 9 (line 22), at the end of subsection 48A(1), add:

; and (e) alternatively to paragraphs (a) to(d), the participant demonstrates that:

(i) the supports are no longer available; or

(ii) the plan is insufficient to meet the participant's reasonable and necessary support needs; or

(iii) new evidence relevant to the participant's support needs has emerged.

(2) Schedule 1, item 34, page 13 (line 8), after "participants", insert ", and the reasonable and necessary supports required by participants, including those necessary for participants to undertake paid employment, volunteering and study".

(3) Schedule 1, item 34, page 13 (lines 11 to 18), omit subsection 34A(5).

(4) Schedule 1, item 34, page 13 (after line 18), at the end of section 34A, add:

I move these amendments to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 in the hope of putting forward some targeted, practical amendments that will complement the many other amendments that have been moved by my fellow crossbench members of parliament. The amendments I moved today seek to ensure that sustainability is not achieved by removing basic fairness, basic review rights or the individualised nature of the scheme. Procedural fairness should be a basic which is underwritten in this legislation. I simply fail to understand why the government and the minister are not agreeing to these practical, sensible amendments.

The NDIS was built on a simple promise that Australians with disability would have access to the reasonable and necessary supports they needed to live with dignity, participate in the community and exercise choice and control over their own lives. The NDIS must be sustainable. It must be well governed. It must be able to deal with waste, fraud and poor practice. Sustainability cannot become a slogan used to justify blunt instruments and poor legislation, especially when there are clear double standards of accountability being applied by this government. Rather than fix the system, the government is choosing to leave vulnerable Australians behind.

Reform must not mean that participants lose supports without a proper pathway to challenge the decision. Reform must not mean that people are locked into plans that no longer meet their needs. Reform must not mean that people are pushed away from work, study or volunteering because the supports that make participation possible have been overlooked by a system that has become more and more automated.

The first amendment deals with plan reassessment. As the bill stands, there are limited circumstances in which a participant can seek a reassessment of their plan. My amendment would make clear that reassessment should also be available where supports are no longer available, the plan is insufficient to meet the participant's reasonable and necessary support needs or new evidence about the participant's support needs has emerged. The second amendment goes to reasonable and necessary supports, including those required for paid employment, volunteering and study. The NDIS should not only be about keeping people alive or keeping people at home; it should be about giving people with disability the support they need to contribute, learn, work, volunteer and engage in their communities. We all benefit from that. For many participants, support to work or study is not optional; it is core to their wellbeing. When people are supported to work, study and participate, it is not a cost to be begrudged. It is an investment in independence, dignity and contribution. Again we all benefit from that.

Participants should not have their funding significantly reduced through a mechanism that avoids proper accountability. That is all these amendments are seeking to do: ensure there is proper scrutiny where assessments have clear faults. If a decision has a practical effect of cutting a participant's support, then it should be treated as it is: a decision that affects that participant. Put simply, if your funding is significantly cut, you should have review rights.

The third amendment deals with the review rights where funding is significantly reduced. It removes proposed subsection 34A(5), which risks allowing funding reductions to occur without a clear individual review pathway. It replaces that with a safeguard that, if a determination significantly reduces the funding available under a participant's plan, the participant is taken to be affected by a reviewable decision. This is just logic. If there is going to be a significant cut to a plan, it can be properly assessed as to what the real impact will be and whether everything has in fact been taken into account.

These amendments don't prevent the government from reforming the NDIS. They don't prevent the government from managing costs and they don't prevent the government from improving sustainability, but they do ensure that participants can seek reassessment when their plan no longer meets their needs. They ensure that reasonable and necessary supports continue to recognise the importance of work, volunteering and study, and they ensure that, if a participant's funding is significantly reduced, the participant has a clear right to review. As we reform the scheme, we must be careful not to strip away the very principles that made it so important in the first place. So I urge the government—rather than the campaign that, at the moment, is demonising this scheme—to actually come to the table with rational, practical support for these amendments.

Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the House) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not sure whether the member was suggesting the government was seeking to demonise this scheme. The government certainly is not seeking to demonise the scheme that, as the builders of the scheme, we're very proud of, and everything we are doing here is directed at securing the future of this scheme for the long term. Members might reasonably disagree on details about that, but, frankly, I quite clearly object to any suggestion that we are demonising a scheme which we see as a proud legacy of the Labor Party and of this parliament. I wholeheartedly reject that.

In relation to amendments dealing with support determinations, we don't support the amendments put forward by the member. There are other amendments from the crossbench around support determinations that we will be supporting.

As to amendment (1) of the four amendments moved by the member, around unscheduled reassessments, we have very carefully set out the circumstances where a participant or their nominee or their guardian is able to request a reassessment. We think that covers the circumstances, whether they relate to the person's functional capacity or general circumstances, that would justify an unscheduled reassessment.

There is also effectively a safety net of the NDIA chief executive being able to request a reassessment if the CEO or the agency is concerned that a participant might be at risk. We think that that very much deals with the circumstances that are reasonable to ground an unscheduled reassessment, so we won't be supporting these amendments.

Marion Scrymgour (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Warringah be agreed to.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) | Link to this | 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.

Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the House) | Link to this | Hansard source

Very quickly, we won't be supporting this amendment, but we are dealing with some of the issues raised by the member for Indi in another amendment that we will be supporting.

Marion Scrymgour (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment as moved by the member for Indi be agreed to.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) and (5) on sheet 1, revised 30 June 2026, as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 34, page 12 (after line 16), after subsection 34A(1), insert:

(1A) The specified group of supports must not relate to activities of daily living.

(2) Schedule 1, item 73, page 26 (before line 9), before subsection 34(1A), insert:

(1AA) If the CEO is not satisfied of a matter in subsection (1) in relation to a statement of participant supports, the CEO must notify the relevant participant, in writing, of the reasons for not being so satisfied.

(3) Schedule 1, item 73, page 27 (lines 6 to 35), omit subsections 34(1E) and (1F).

(5) Schedule 1, item 97, page 39 (lines 3 to 7), omit subsection 25B(6), substitute:

(6) Before making National Disability Insurance Scheme rules declaring that a support is an alternative support for an impairment, the Minister must be satisfied that:

(a) it is not appropriate to fund or provide a support for the impairment through the National Disability Insurance Scheme; and

(b) the alternative support is reasonably available and accessible.

I will make some brief remarks to support these amendments. They respond to key concerns raised by my constituents, the very people who will be impacted by the changes proposed under this bill. These things include the need for greater transparency and trust in decision-making and the importance of protecting approved funding for participants' basic needs.

Amendment (1) would protect funding for activities of daily living from blanket funding reductions under a new ministerial power. While the government has said the new power won't be used for that purpose, there's nothing in the bill to guarantee that.

In terms of amendment (2), people with a disability of course deserve certainty about funding for basic essential supports, and this amendment would provide that. It's really critical that we get this right and build that certainty for them. Amendment (2) would require a statement of written reasons where requested supports are not funded. One of the biggest concerns I hear from NDIS participants is that they're not told why recommended supports haven't been approved. My amendment would give them greater clarity about why decisions have been made and how the evidence they've provided has been used. Again, I hear consistently from people in my electorate that they want to understand the 'why'; they truly do. Written reasons, I think, are fundamental to giving that confidence to people—or an explanation and that understanding.

Amendments (3) and (5) make additional sensible improvements to ensure that evidence is considered on its merits. Currently, as it's drafted, the bill is looking to a hierarchical level of evidence. I want to make sure through this amendment that evidence is considered on its merits and that ministerial decisions about alternative schemes include consideration of whether those schemes are actually available and actually accessible. With those brief remarks, I will leave it to the minister to respond.

Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the House) | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Indi for her remarks. A number of the matters that she has canvassed, particularly around support determinations, are picked up by other amendments from the crossbench that we will be supporting. Other amendments we don't support.

Marion Scrymgour (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendments (1) to (3) and (5) on sheet 1, as moved by the member for Indi, be agreed to.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

(6) Schedule 3, page 101 (after line 12), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 4 — Whistleblower protections

National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013

18 After subsection 73ZA(2)

Insert:

(2A) The disclosure of the information by the discloser qualifies for protection under this Division if it is made for the purpose of seeking assistance, advice, treatment or counselling in relation to the disclosure and is made to:

(a) a legal practitioner; or

(b) a medical practitioner or psychologist; or

(c) a union or professional association.

Again, I will make a brief remark. This amendment ensures whistleblowers are able to make disclosures in the context of seeking support for themselves—for example, in seeking support from a legal or a medical practitioner. Now, the government's recently made improvements to NDIS whistleblower protections, and I really welcome those. But I think many Australians, in fact all Australians, would be very surprised to learn that, under this legislation more broadly across the NDIA and NDIS, whistleblowers may not legally be allowed to talk about their own situations to their own doctor or lawyer. I've been on the record very strongly in this place calling for whistleblower reforms to be strengthen. Under this particular situation, we need to make sure that every protection is afforded to people who are whistleblowers through the NDIS system. So I put this to the minister, and I hope the government can support me on this really important amendment.

Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the House) | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Indi is right in saying that she has a deep interest and deep understanding of this area. We consider ourselves a government that has tried to work with the member for Indi and others in improving supports for whistleblowers across government programs, including the NDIS. I'm quite attracted to the idea behind this amendment. The advice I've received is that we would need to do quite a bit more work. There are some very complex issues the member's amendment raises that really flow from the nature of this scheme. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to support this amendment today, but I am keen to, if the member is interested, keep working with the member on ways in which we can continue to improve supports for whistleblowers in this critically important scheme.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendment (6) on sheet 1, as moved by the member for Indi, be agreed to.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the amendment on sheet 2, as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 3, item 4, page 91 (after line 2), after subsection 45C(16), insert:

(16A) If the Agency provides advice to the Minister under subsection (14), the Agency must at the same time provide a summary of the advice to the Minister.

(16B) The Minister must cause a copy of advice provided to the Minister under subsection (14), or the summary of the advice provided under subsection (16A), to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 5 sitting days after the Minister makes the determination to which the advice relates.

Constituents in Indi have made it clear to me that it matters whether the minister follows NDIA advice. More than 90 per cent of Indi constituents who responded to my survey regarding the NDIS changes said transparency of ministerial pricing decisions is really important.

My amendment would strengthen transparency by requiring the minister to table NDIA advice, or a summary of that advice, within five sitting days of making that determination. The summary must be provided by the NDIA itself at the same time as the advice. I really thank the government for working with me on this particular amendment and for working with me, more broadly, on trying to find ways to improve this legislation.

Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the House) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. We agree.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment on sheet 2, as moved by the member for Indi, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) | Link to this | 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.

Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the House) | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for her amendment. I thank the member for the advice that she gave as part of the committee inquiry that the member for Macarthur chaired, of which she was deputy chair, in relation to Thriving Kids. It was valuable advice. I value her deep understanding of some of these areas of need, particularly for children, but more broadly than that.

I don't think I did say to the member for Ryan that this was the responsibility of states. It is a responsibility that we share with states. It's a joint responsibility of the Commonwealth and all state and territory governments.

Let me make this point. When we built the NDIS, out of the Productivity Commission report and all of the debate that preceded it and was around it, it was intended effectively to be a tier 1 system of supports for people with disability, particularly those with permanent and significant disability. It was never intended to cover the field, as the member rightly knows. There are a range of other, different systems of support that people with disability rely upon every single day—in health, in education—and the idea of foundational supports as a central recommendation of the NDIS review was essentially a recognition that that second tier of supports, which was a fundamental recommendation of the Productivity Commission, had never been actioned.

All governments are accountable for fixing that and for redressing what is, I think, that missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle that didn't happen over the last decade or so. All governments, Commonwealth and states and territories, are accountable for that, but it's not appropriate that we be accountable through an act that is set up to provide NDIS supports. These are not NDIS supports, so we will not be supporting these amendments.

I look forward very much to continuing to engage with the crossbench about the development of foundational supports. Thriving Kids is effectively the first cab off the rank, but we've got a lot of work to do for kids over nine, which the member would understand better than most in this House. We have a ton of work to do for people with psychosocial disability, who are not receiving, really, any support. The unmet needs analysis that was put together as part of the bilateral agreements that we have on mental health and suicide prevention, which the assistant minister at the table has been an important part of, found that 230,000 or so Australians right now, today, with severe and chronic mental illness are effectively getting no support whatsoever.

This is a complex area. The member understands that. This is not an area that I seek to duckshove to states, as the member suggested in her remarks. I see this very much as a joint responsibility between the Commonwealth and the states, but not one that will be discharged through this particular piece of legislation.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Kooyong be agreed to.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I move amendment (5) as circulated in my name:

(5) Schedule 1, item 34, page 12 (after line 16), after subsection 34A(1), insert:

(1A) A determination under this section may specify classes of participants to whom the determination applies or does not apply. A class of participants may be identified by reference to any one or more of the following:

(a) a characteristic of participants (including their circumstances);

(b) the nature or type of supports provided under a plan;

(c) the support needs (as assessed) of participants.

I move amendment (5) with the support of the Justice and Equity Centre, Inclusion Australia and Down Syndrome Australia. The ministerial support determination proposed by this bill is a blunt instrument. It reduces funding without significant regard to individual circumstances or to the way that people actually use supports in their daily lives.

I, along with Inclusion Australia and Down Syndrome Australia, am particularly concerned about its potential impact on the small number of NDIS participants who need support every hour of every day. These are the people with permanent and profound disability that the NDIS was established to support. This includes people with down syndrome and people with intellectual disability who have very high support needs. Many are amongst the most marginalised Australians. Some have spent their entire lives in state run institutions or group homes, and they rely on that 24/7 continuous support to live safely and with dignity.

Applying a blanket 50 per cent reduction to their community and participation supports without recognising those quite unique circumstances could have profound implications for those individuals. Firstly, it creates a real risk that people who require 24-hour support will not receive funding in a way that reflects how those supports are delivered. Their support needs don't fit neatly within a standard funding model, and neither should this legislation. Secondly, it risks confining vulnerable people to their homes. For many participants who have a really significant intellectual disability, support to access the community is not an optional extra. They can't get out into our public spaces, they can't engage with normal life, unless they have that support. It is fundamental to their participation, to their inclusion and to their physical and mental safety. The disability royal commission made this clear: isolation increases the risk of abuse, neglect, exploitation and violence. We shouldn't be creating legislative settings that inadvertently increase that risk.

I appreciate that the government recognises this issue. It understands that it needs to be addressed. But recognition and intentions are not enough. This amendment ensures that participants will be identified by their individual circumstances and by the nature of the supports that they receive and that their assessed support needs will be taken into account when the minister makes a determination. It provides a clear legislative basis for protecting those participants whose circumstances need a different approach. Rather than leaving this matter to future discretion, we need to provide certainty now. Doing so will reassure Australians who have a significant and lifelong disability, and the families and carers who support them, at a time when those people already have significant fear and uncertainty about the potential impacts of these reforms.

I acknowledge that the amendment secured by the Greens in the Senate to exclude particular categories of supports, including disability employment and health related supports, from the operation of support determinations was an important improvement to this bill. But, if we can recognise that some supports should be treated differently, we should also recognise that some participants need to be treated differently. This amendment complements the work undertaken in the Senate by ensuring that the legislation can appropriately account for those participants whose support needs are exceptional and who would otherwise be disproportionately affected by the legislation currently before the House. And so I commend this amendment to the House.

Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the House) | Link to this | Hansard source

We won't be supporting amendment (5) or (6). As the member indicated—first of all, I've set out very clearly our reasoning around support determinations, but we have also decided to agree to another amendment in relation to that aspect of the reform package.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendment (5) on sheet 1 moved by the member for Kooyong be agreed to.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I move this amendment because it provides an important safeguard for NDIS participants. This amendment is straightforward. It provides that a support determination under proposed subsection 34A(4) may relate only to supports for social and community participation. It'll force the government to put its money where its mouth is. The government has represented that section 34A will be used to cut social and community participation supports. But the bill, as drafted and confirmed by the explanatory memorandum, empowers the minister to reduce funding across almost any support category. That includes daily living, transport, assistive technology, specialist disability accommodation and more.

My amendment (6) asks the government to explicitly limit support determination powers in section 34A to social and community supports only. The purpose of this amendment is simple. It is to stop the broad determination-making power in this bill being turned into a back door used through delegated legislation to quietly strip away essential disability supports while no-one is watching. There is real, raw fear in the disability community right now about how this ministerial power might be wielded—perhaps not by this minister but by subsequent governments, for example, those perhaps administered by One Nation, which has indicated it would abolish the NDIS.

People aren't imagining things. They fear that this legislation could be used to hollow out the everyday living supports that they rely on to get through the day. Let me be blunt. I disagree with the proposed 50 per cent cut to social and community participation supports. I disagree with most of section 34A of this bill. I believe it's a blunt instrument, and I think that it will land hard on the lives of people with a disability. But this amendment goes further than that disagreement. It would build a wall around something which is even more important. It would ensure that the support determination power could never be turned against those supports that hold people's daily lives together, that it couldn't be used to whittle away the core supports that let people eat, dress, communicate, move safely, access therapy or just stay healthy and independent. These aren't luxuries. They're not nice-to-haves sitting at the margins of public policy. They are the floor beneath people's feet. They are the fundamental supports that make disabled people's participation in society possible at all. This amendment is a measured and proportionate response to that fear. It is supported by the National Legal Aid, which has suggested repeatedly that supports should not have broad or scheme wide application.

I note that the government has struck a deal with the Greens in the Senate which will confine support determinations to the improved daily living skills component of capacity building supports and social, economic and community participation. But that improved daily living skills component of capacity building supports is something that should be protected as well from support determinations. So in that way, this amendment goes further than the agreement reached in the Senate. This amendment will draw a clear line in the sand and it will say, 'Whatever else this bill does, it cannot be used to cut the supports that people cannot live without.' I commend the amendment to the House, and I move amendment (6) as circulated in my name:

(6) Schedule 1, item 34, page 13 (after line 10), after subsection 34A(4), insert:

(4A) The determination may relate only to supports for social and community participation.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I move amendment (11) on sheet 1, as circulated in my name:

(11) Schedule 1, item 92, page 36 (after line 12), after subsection 25A(3), insert:

(3A) A person is not required to undertake treatment that is:

(a) unreasonably inaccessible or unavailable; or

(b) not clinically appropriate; or

(c) associated with unreasonable risk.

Among the most concerning provisions in this bill is the new definition of 'permanent' disability for eligibility purposes. Under the bill, an impairment will only be considered permanent—and therefore make the applicant eligible for NDIS support—if all appropriate treatment options have been exhausted; no further treatment is likely to materially improve, reverse or alleviate the impairment; and the impairment is likely to persist for a lifetime. Applicants must have tried all treatments commonly available in Australia, regardless of whether or not they can afford them or whether the treatments are accessible where they live.

Persons in rural and regional Australia might not be able to access specialist treatment that is theoretically available in a capital city. The House Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Disability is looking into this issue at this very time. A person with limited income may not be able to afford treatments. Even though the government has assured me that 'appropriate treatments' means those listed on the PBS, many items on our Medicare schedule still have associated out-of-pocket costs, are not readily available at times and may be out of reach for some individuals. What the government is trying to do in legislating this definition is to overturn the Federal Court's previous decision in Davis, which established the precedent that financial circumstances must be considered when determining if treatment is available. Whether a person can afford a treatment will form part of the factual circumstances that a decision-maker may need to examine in deciding if a treatment is one that an individual can, in reality, access.

The Federal Court applied the ordinary meaning, which is a fair meaning, but the exemptions in this bill are too narrow; that's my proposition today. Proposed section 25A(3) excuses a person from treatment only for medical reasons, not because of cultural or personal belief or bodily autonomy. The Justice and Equity Centre has told this parliament already that 'this approach unjustifiably interferes' with a person's 'right to bodily autonomy'. It's not enough to leave this to the rules to be made later by the minister. They are rules that don't even require agreement from the states and territories. That is not going to reassure vulnerable individuals.

Because permanence is part of both the disability and the early intervention access criteria, the government's bill directly affects eligibility to entry to the NDIS and continued access when a person's status is reconsidered. There is a profound and unresolved circularity here. For many people with a disability, accessing the NDIS is precisely how they can access ongoing treatment. Without the NDIS, they may well not be able to do that. The bill proposes to deny access to support until treatment has been exhausted, without acknowledging that the capacity to access treatment may itself depend on having NDIS support. For example, if a treatment might result in improvements over many years but the person would still have substantially reduced functional capacity, they may be prevented from accessing the NDIS in the meantime. The bill could also make it harder for people with progressive conditions to access the NDIS, even where treatment only slows but cannot reverse the deterioration of their functional capacity. The government assures me that these examples won't eventuate, but the government is unwilling to provide that express safeguard in this legislation.

The Australian Human Rights Commission has submitted that the definition of 'appropriate treatment' in the new section 25A will 'significantly restrict access to the NDIS and undermine a rights based approach to disability supports'. Amendment (11), which I have moved today, addresses these concerns. It expressly provides that a person is not required to undertake treatment that is unreasonably inaccessible or unavailable, is not clinically appropriate or is associated with inappropriate or unreasonable risk.

The government has framed this bill as a matter of sustainability for our economy. Sustainability can't just be achieved by narrowing the gate. If we define permanence in a way that excludes people who lack the financial or geographic means to access treatment, we're not securing the NDIS; we are rationing it according to circumstance and financial status.

Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the House) | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I thank the member for Kooyong for her thoughtful consideration of this bill and contributions to this House. I have not framed this bill as a question of sustainability for the economy. I have framed this bill as securing the future of what I think is one of our most important social programs for decades to come. That remains my driving mission behind this bill. As I think the member knows, we are supporting other amendments in relation to section 25A, which is the section of the bill that the member is seeking to amend with amendment (11), and for that reason we won't be supporting this particular amendment.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendment (11) on sheet 1, as moved by the member for Kooyong, be agreed to.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.