Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Choice in Childcare and Early Learning) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKim has submitted a proposal, under standing order 75, today, which has been circulated and is shown on the Dynamic Red:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the government to invest in the services and supports disabled people need instead of handing over hundreds of billions of dollars to Trump for AUKUS, at a time when disabled people are fighting for the NDIS supports they need and families are facing increasing cost of living pressures.

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

At the request of Senator McKim, I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the government to invest in the services and supports disabled people need instead of handing over hundreds of billions of dollars to Trump for AUKUS, at a time when disabled people are fighting for the NDIS supports they need and families are facing increasing cost of living pressures.

In this motion, the Greens ask the parliament to join with us in supporting two key propositions. First is that Australia and the Australian community should not be drawn into an ever-closer relationship with the Trump administration, one that makes us dependent on Donald Trump, locked in to the United States for our so-called defence and security. Whatever you may think of the concept of us funding defence and security in our region by shackling ourselves to the United States, nobody can seriously argue that it is a good idea for us to be guided in our foreign and defence policy by Donald Trump.

The Australian taxpayer, the Australian public, should not be asked to spend over $368 billion buying what seems to be, among other things, a bunch of used nuclear submarines from Donald Trump. I've heard of the art of the deal. This government is a bunch of suckers. They are allowing themselves to be ripped off by one of the world's most prolific con artists. What else could we do with that money? We could fund the NDIS. Scrap AUKUS, and there is no need in the world for these cuts. Tax the gas companies, and we'd have even more to provide to the community. Let us choose disabled people and our families. Let us put disabled folks and our needs first. Let's chuck AUKUS in the bin and fund the NDIS.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move an amendment to the urgency motion moved by the Greens. (Quorum formed)

Leave not granted.

Per the notice standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving an amendment to the motion.

We saw yesterday another example of how easily the Greens, at the other end of the chamber, can be bought, and I genuinely feel sorry for Senator Steele-John, who has been working so hard on this NDIS issue, as he actually got rolled. Quite frankly, the decision yesterday to do a dirty deal of which the Leader of the Government in the Senate said 'the terms of the agreement'—they're quite happy to admit that there was an agreement between the Labor Party and the Greens to move some of the most substantial and egregious tax increases to Australians. The Greens were prepared to provide their support for that in return for an extension to a committee inquiry into the NDIS bill that they know that they are still going to vote against.

While we're standing here today under a guillotine that has been conjured up in the terms of the agreement between the Labor Party and the Greens to do a dirty deal on these tax changes that are going to see Australians paying more and more tax, we have got a situation where the NDIS bill, which we know the Greens have said they will not be supporting—let's be clear here. Nothing will change between now and when this bill comes back in a couple of months time. Why can't this bill be dealt with now? We have sought, through many means, to have this bill dealt with simply because why can't certainty be provided to Australians in relation to this bill?

If I thought that the Greens decision to have this bill, the NDIS bill, further investigated was going to change anything, then we would have a completely different situation, but nothing is going to change. You're still going to vote against this bill, so why don't you just give some certainty to all of the Australians who, right now, do not know what is going on? Force the government to actually go into committee on this bill—going to committee on a bill, that would be a novel thing!—that actually matters to the Australian public and actually tell Australians what you are intending to do on the NDIS bill.

Today, we have a motion here that's been put forward by Senator McKim in relation to the NDIS. If you are so concerned about this particular issue, why didn't you put it in your dirty deal that you did with the Labor Party yesterday? You're not particularly good negotiators if all you got out of your deal with the government in relation to this were these absolutely egregious tax changes that they told the Australian public, over 50 times before the last election, they weren't going to bring in. Why didn't you get it negotiated? It just goes to show how incredibly poor your negotiation skills are, and poor Senator Steele-John is the one who has to wear it.

Why don't you just allow us to get on with it? Why don't you allow us to get on with it and get some scrutiny? Today, we tried to get scrutiny on the bills in relation to the tax changes that you're going to make, but, no, you all ganged up and didn't allow any scrutiny. You wouldn't let us go into committee today on the tax bills. So if you really are genuine about doing what you have all said you came into this place for—which was to provide greater transparency, greater accountability and greater scrutiny—why won't you let the Australian public be able to see what is going on with these two incredibly important bills? 'No, we're much happier to just do dirty deals behind closed doors.'

The reason why it was important for us to suspend on this is that I think that there has to be some sunlight shone on the fact that the two parties that sit on the other side of this chamber are prepared to completely trash the conventions of this chamber that have stood the test of time. You have got no control of the chamber unless you gang up. You deny Australians the opportunity to see what's going on with a bill as important as the NDIS bill and the tax bills. You deny Australians from having the line of sight to hold you accountable for what you're about to do and what you've done in the last two days. You deny Australians the opportunity to have us, on this side of the chamber, scrutinise what you are doing.

The thing that probably is the most laughable about what we have seen happen in the last 24 hours is that the Greens have rolled over on some of the most serious tax increases to the Australian public that we have seen in generations and in the process of doing that have failed to get anything at all for their efforts, apart from an extension on a bill that they're not going to change their position on, no matter how long it stands out there for.

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

Folks, let's just take a breath. There's a lot of political noise going on at the moment in this place. Let me step out very clearly what is occurring in this moment. The Liberal Party, for the last six weeks or so, has been engaged with me in a Senate inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. The members of that committee—ably contributed to by Senators Liddle, Askew, Kovacic and others—have heard directly from the disabled community and our families, as well as allied health professionals, service providers, disability experts, legal advocates and the Disability Discrimination Commissioner.

The evidence has been overwhelming; the verdict has been unanimous. The bill in its current form should not pass. The bill in its current form will enable multibillion-dollar cuts not to the fraudsters and the big providers, not to those massive corporations that are ripping people off and not to the criminal CEOs and the abusive service providers that are responsible for so much of the pain that is experienced by disabled people. The bill doesn't really touch them. The bill cuts, over the next four years, nearly $40 billion from the vital supports needed by disabled people and provided under the NDIS. These are the supports that enable you to go outside, go into the sun, help your kids get to school and be part of your community.

This bill grants sweeping powers, we heard, to the minister of the day to take control over a disabled person's life and to dictate what accessible supports they may be able to utilise. It enables the government to subject people to medical interventions before they enter the scheme, regardless of the waitlist for those interventions. Therefore, how long might they be asked to sit in the dark and wait for the supports?

As committee members, we were pretty much of a unanimous view that this bill is something, in its current form, that should be chucked in the bin or shredded and that there should be an additional inquiry. The disabled community and our families very clearly said to this chamber, to this parliament, the bill shouldn't pass in its current form. The Greens and I, with me being the only physically disabled person in this chamber, talked with everybody in this place to achieve the best outcome for the community.

What we saw announced yesterday was an additional two months for the inquiry in order to allow more evidence to be gained and more pressure to be built on this government to chuck their bill in the bin and, if they won't do that, to persuade the Liberal Party—who, up until that point, had been listening with great concern to the experiences of disabled people—to join with us in chucking that bill in the bin.

That's where I thought we were some 48 hours ago, and now we have this motion from the Liberal Party, which asks the chamber to pass these reforms in this sitting fortnight. These reforms, this bill, will put disabled lives at risk. You're now 'team ram it through in the next fortnight', are you? This is not a serious proposal. This is not a serious party in this moment. I am not sure, quite frankly, what's going on here, folks. Some could say that you're a little bit mean in this moment. I reckon some of you, on an individual basis, are better than that. I hope to be proven right in the next few weeks. (Time expired)

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity to be able to follow up on this particular matter, the urgency motion moved by the Greens. I won't take up my full time so that the Greens can have some of their time back. I think I've made my point very clear in my contribution on the suspension. It seemed almost hypocritical, at the other end of the chamber yesterday, that they were prepared to do a dirty deal in relation to the taxation changes that the Labor Party wants to push through this place without appropriate scrutiny. The Prime Minister and his government promised Australians on more than 50 occasions, prior to the election, that there would be no changes to the tax arrangements on CGT and capital gains. But how—

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ruston, I hate to interrupt. Senators, if you're not sitting in silence, particularly at the back of the chamber—the noise is carrying to the front while Senator Ruston is on her feet. Please either leave the chamber—

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

Come on. Calm down. Pick on someone else. Do your job.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Thorpe, Senator Ruston has the call and she is on her feet. Either leave the chamber or sit in silence while the debate continues. Senator Ruston, you have the call.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Acting Deputy President. The incredible hypocrisy of what we are seeing here with this motion is that, somehow, the Greens now think it is tremendously important that we make all this investment when it comes to the NDIS, and yet we were the ones who were putting forward the support for the Greens to be able to have an inquiry. They gave it all away yesterday, but now they want it all back today. It is quite incredible.

The reality is that this particular motion that has been put forward by the Greens completely and utterly denies the fact that yesterday they were prepared to do a deal and use this very important piece of legislation as the bargaining chip for that deal. That deal will see most Australians worse off as a result of the legislation that they're going to see forced through this chamber, but it's the Greens who have to go and explain to their constituency why they are stopping young Australians getting ahead. They profess to be the party that supports young Australians, and yet it will be young Australians who are denied opportunities because of the dirty deal that they did yesterday. Apparently, as part of that deal, they weren't able to secure the deal that they want to put on the table today as a matter of urgency. If it was that urgent, why didn't you put it in the deal yesterday? Weren't you able to get anything better than a two-month extension on the NDIS bill in return for stitching up every single Australian, including the young Australians who you profess to be the champions of?

I would say that what we have here is, once again, the Greens somehow virtue signalling to try and cover up the fact that they have stitched up every single Australian with their dirty deal. I'm sure, over time, as the terms of the agreement that have been put in place between the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens to get this particular deal underway so that we can get these bills forced through this place so Australians can end up with a situation where their taxes will be increased—despite this government promising not to make any changes to these particular tax arrangements before the election, they've been ably abetted by you down the other end of the chamber.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call Senator Ananda-Rajah, I will advise the chamber that this debate will conclude at 6 pm.

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The NDIS is a vital piece of social infrastructure. It was born of a simple but powerful idea that people with disability deserve to live in dignity and security and participate in wider society. Prior to the NDIS, for families and participants, it was a living hell. They were effectively segregated and lived in the shadows, so the NDIS has indeed been transformative for thousands of participants and their families. It has brought them relief from carer stress and the rigours of looking after people with disability.

However, in order to protect the NDIS for future generations and the current generation, we must confront some hard truths. Growth has been unsustainable, the scheme is riddled with fraud and it has suffered from mission creep beyond permanent and significant disability, with particular growth seen in autism spectrum disorder. It has far too much variation because it lacks consistency, standards and quality.

On the topic of costs, costs have ballooned. The scheme now costs $50 billion for 760,000 participants. This contrasts, for example, with Medicare, which costs $40 billion for 28 million people. The scheme is at genuine risk of losing social licence amongst the Australian public because costs are accelerating out of control.

On the topic of diagnostic inflation, autism is the fastest-growing category on the NDIS. Currently, there are around 300,000 participants with autism. I'm concerned about this overmedicalisation we've seen of neurodiversity, and it turns out I'm not alone. Prominent neuroscientist Professor Uta Frith also raised similar issues and concerns around autism diagnosis. Reported in the Times recently, she said:

The spectrum has become so accommodating that I fear that it has now been stretched so far that it has become meaningless and is no longer useful as a medical diagnosis.

As a former medical professional, I know that orthodoxy is often challenged when new evidence emerges in medicine. This orthodoxy that has been present and which has seen this diagnostic inflation and massive growth in self-diagnosis of autism has been challenged now by the very person who did the seminal research and work on autism. This means that we all need to sit up and pay attention. We all need to sit up and pay attention. That's one aspect—diagnostic inflation.

Then we have all the other issues, including fraud. Those issues have been well described and are due to systemic design failures in the scheme. The reforms in this bill for the NDIS are designed to address these gaps. They will fight fraud and stop the rorts, slow the rapid acceleration in cost and apply clear, standardised eligibility criteria that will be grounded in functional capacity so that we move away from this overmedicalisation of disability and we move away from medical diagnosis as an entry, a gateway, to the NDIS. As a doctor, I am staunchly against overmedicalising anything, and I think this is what I mean—this is what I speak of when I talk about mission creep.

We're also aiming to deliver better-quality services to participants. These reforms are not about winding back the NDIS. To the contrary, they are all about strengthening the NDIS.

On the issue of eligibility, we'll be standing up a technical advisory group that will bring together clinical, allied health, disability and lived-experience expertise to help thrash out what assessment and thresholds around functional capacity look like.

On the issue of social and community participation changes, these are also very contentious, and we heard a lot about this from people during the hearings. But, again, this particular aspect of the scheme has seen rapid, rapid growth—a tripling in just the last five years. We will be constraining that and moving away from this individualised support to a more inclusive program that is embedded in the community. We will also be setting up a $200 million communities fund in order to integrate disability with mainstream society—and that is really important. These reforms are much needed and they are long overdue.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

There's no doubt that the NDIS has changed lives. The original design and premise of this scheme was one of Labor's, and is one of the most amazing and significant social reforms in this country ever. But I fear that a lot of the conversation is not based on reality. It's not based on all the fine details of the facts of the matter. We have seen very clearly, through the hearings, people telling us about situations they're experiencing right now—not situations they might experience in the future via the nature of the NDIS bill but challenges they are having today and have had in recent times.

One of the things that we know will change fundamentally with the NDIS bill is that it won't matter which assessor you go and see; you'll get a fair outcome. There will be a fair standard. There will be a fair way of engaging so that everybody gets the same treatment in terms of how their assessments are done. It's not based on how much money you've got, how many reports you can afford or who you luck out with that's doing your assessment. That's one of the big things there, and the changes to how the plans are going to be reviewed will give us consistency. It means that people will know what it is that they have into the future. They'll understand what supports are there.

Unfortunately, the entire essence of this urgency motion is based on the wrong premise. The notion that you can fund all the rorts and the fraud that we know are writ large in the NDIS—'Yes, no worries, don't worry about it, just keep funding it,' say the Greens. No, that's not alright. This is taxpayer money. This is money that wants to go towards doing the right thing for people in our society who are living with disability and who deserve the care, support, independence and all the structures they need to live a full life. The idea that we would just keep on keeping on is ridiculous. That's not what this is about. The social licence of the scheme is already under strain because of the amount of fraud, because of the challenges people face. It is not structured appropriately. There needs to be change. We are putting forward a raft of changes to improve the scheme, to put it back on track to its original intent and to ensure that those people who need the supports get those supports.

Yes, it's true, some people will no longer qualify for the scheme—people for whom a permanent and significant disability isn't where they're at. There are supports within the health system and within the social services system that are better placed for them. But, just to be clear, those people who have permanent and significant disability will get the support they need. They will get the structures in place that they need to live a good and fulfilling life; that's the important point. What has happened through this scheme is that so many other supports that people may need with different challenges in their lives do not necessarily fit with the NDIS, but they still need support—medical support or social support or whatever it might be. This is about rightsizing the scheme, taking it back to its original intent. The premise that we would just keep throwing as much money at it as it can possibly absorb, and then start carving out our defence forces to pay for it, is quite frankly ridiculous. We won't be supporting this.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, that's Labor all over in 2026—actually ignore the issue. Their budget plans to take tens of billions of dollars out of the NDIS, funnel it into AUKUS and give it to Donald Trump, putting a US president ahead of people with disability.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for this debate has now expired. The question is that the urgency motion as moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.