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

Dr HAINES (Indi) (12:24): 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.