National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the Ndis for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Helen Haines

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

Thank you. We agree.

Lisa Chesters

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

Question agreed to.

Monique Ryan

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

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

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