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

Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (13:09): I want to start by acknowledging the work of my colleague Senator Steele-John. I know he hasn't been doing this alone, but in this chamber, in some regards, he's been doing it alone—the person with the lived experience who understands what these cuts will mean for people with disability in this country, who is deeply connected with the millions of Australians who try to get by every day in a system that wants to exclude them and marginalise them.

But I've got to tell you this: my colleague Senator Steele-John has done this work with immense courage, immense dignity and immense strength. Our party is grateful for the leadership that he has shown, but imagine if that leadership had been shown by the Prime Minister. Imagine if that leadership could be shown by whoever the hell is leading the coalition today.

Imagine if that leadership could be shown by the government. What would that leadership mean? That leadership might mean that those gas lobbyists, who are wandering through these halls, would get stopped at the door of the Prime Minister's office for once.

Maybe they would be turned around and get sent out through the security screens and into the cold of a Canberra winter. Instead of getting a warm cup of tea and a private meeting with the Prime Minister, maybe those gas executives would get an export tax—maybe they would get a 25 per cent gas export tax, like my colleague Senator Hodgins-May has been pushing for.

Those gas execs could go out into a cold Canberra winter, sad that their donations didn't get them what they wanted and that they'd be paying a third of what Norway's gas exporters pay in tax. Maybe after those people got shown the door, people with disability could have been brought into the Prime Minister's office, like they go into Senator Steele-John's office and come into my office.

Maybe, when they went in, if there'd been that leadership, the Prime Minister would have said to them: 'I made a choice today to tax the obscene fossil fuel profits that are blood soaked from a war in Iran. We're spending that money on the support you and your kids need.' Imagine if that kind of leadership had been shown. Could you imagine what that would demonstrate to this country right now, at a time when politics is considered to be utterly demeaned by corporate money, running to short-term polls and running to the lowest common denominator?

Could you imagine what a different pathway would be open if that's how our politics worked? The gas lobbyists, the fossil fuel lobbyists, the gambling lobbyists, the defence industry lobbyists—imagine if they had the door shut on them and the people who need help in this country had the door opened. Could you imagine how much it would inspire people by what politics could do if they actually saw these decisions being connected?

Then, instead of a set of talking points or an endless political fight on 'melongate' or half promises or gaslighting of the disability community, people could say: 'I was really despondent about politics. I was really worried that it was just here for vested interests, but I've watched the government, and they've redirected money from arms manufacturers into Medicare.

Bloody hell! My kid got to see a doctor just like that, and it didn't cost me anything. Politics is good.' Or imagine if people with disability suddenly had these cuts removed and were told, 'This is happening because politics finally stood up to these big, vested interests and the donors—the gambling interests and the fossil fuel interests—and we taxed them, we put them in their place and we found the money for you because you need it for your life.' Imagine how different politics would be if there was that kind of leadership.

Instead, this week, millions of people across this country, fearful of what these cuts will mean for them, their families, their loved ones, their neighbours and their work colleagues, are watching a different kind of politics—the politics they're so used to now. They're watching an ugly Canberra deal between these two political parties that keep pretending they're fighting: the coalition and Labor.

They keep pretending they're fighting, but they just have the same interests. These two parties—no doubt with the cheering support of their One Nation mates—are coming in here and saying: 'Don't look at the gas companies and the billions and billions and billions of dollars they're stealing from the public by selling our public resources at war time for record profits and paying no tax.

Don't look at them. Look at people with disability. They're the people who are attacking our budget.

We can't afford to keep supporting people with disability. Did you see how much the NDIS cost the other day? Gee, it almost costs as much as the gifts we're giving the gas lobby.' Labor and the coalition, cheered on by One Nation, have been meeting in dark rooms in this place to cut the deal to drive 160,000 people off the NDIS, and to take billions and billions of dollars away from support that the people with disability use to go shopping, to a have a weekend break, to get the help from the physio when they need it and to be a part of our society.

That's what's being ripped away here. The fact that it's being done in a grubby deal—no doubt they're going to roll in a bit of gambling grubbiness into the deal as well to bundle it together as some kind of sensible, essential financial reform. They're going to try to sell it to the public by saying: 'We needed to do this because we can't afford to help people with disability.

The NDIS thing's got out of track. It's got out of whack. It turns out there are more people who need help than we thought, and we're not going to do it.' This bill, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, is legislation that, at its core, smashes human rights.

It just smashes human rights. That's why I'm going to move a second reading amendment that omits all words after 'That' and instead has the question before this house as follows: (a) notes that: (i) there are serious concerns that this bill undermines the rights of disabled people, (ii) the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights warned that 'the cumulative impact of the measures in the bill may constitute a significant interference with the rights of persons with disability, the rights of the child and the rights to an adequate standard of living, equality and non-discrimination, health, privacy and social security', (iii) the Australian Human Rights Commission's submission to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry expressed that 'this bill is regressive in the protection and realisation of the rights of people with disability, which is contrary to Australia's obligation regarding the principle of non-retrogression' under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), and (iv) this bill also grants sweeping new powers to the Minister, reducing parliamentary oversight of key NDIS changes and limiting the ability of individuals to challenge or change decisions that affect them; and (b) calls on the Government to withdraw the bill".

What did the Australian Human Rights Commission say about this bill from a rights perspective? First of all, they pointed out that the government's statement of compatibility—with legislation like this, the government has to put in place a statement about how this legislation is compatible with human rights. There is that statement in this legislation.

There's quite a long statement, which has no doubt been drafted by bureaucrats in the department with active ministerial oversight. I'll tell you what that statement is: it's gaslighting. It is absolute gaslighting.

This is what the Australian Human Rights Commission says about it: The Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights … does not adequately assess the human rights impacts of the Bill and fails to capture its regressive effect on the rights of people with disability. While the Statement identifies relevant rights, including those under the CRPD, it largely frames the Bill as advancing these rights through aims such as sustainability, fraud prevention and consistency in decision-making.

This framing is incomplete and misleading, as it does not meaningfully engage with the cumulative impact of the proposed amendments on the rights of people with disability. In particular, the Statement does not address how the combined measures in the Bill may limit the realisation of rights, including personal autonomy, the right to independent living, participation and inclusion in the community.

As a result, there is insufficient evidentiary basis to support the conclusion that the Bill is compatible with human rights. Without an outcomes framework that incorporates human rights indicators, it is and will continue to be difficult to assess whether the NDIS is meeting its human rights objectives, or whether the proposed cost-control measures amount to impermissible retrogressive human rights impacts.

Well, that's a polite way of the Human Rights Commission saying that the government is lying when it says that this supports human rights. This legislation attacks human rights. It attacks some of the most fundamental rights—the right to autonomy, the right to independent living and the right to participation and inclusion in the community.

That's what this legislation takes away. When governments come in here with legislation that savages people's rights and put this tosh in it—this statement that pretends it's consistent with human rights—it degrades faith in government. Have the guts to say it.

Show at least a small shred of integrity by not coming in here and saying that you're doing this because you care about people with disability or that you're attacking fraud because you care about people with disability. If you cared about people with disability, you would attack fraud. When I meet with the community, the strongest advocates for attacking fraud are people with disability, who hate to see money set aside for the NDIS going to any kind of dodgy operators.

They are the government's best and most willing supporters in attacking fraud. But you developed this package without even talking with them, without even discussing it with them. If you really wanted to attack fraud, do you know what you'd do?

You'd go and meet with people with disability and say: 'Tell me what's happening. Explain to me how the services are being provided. Let's co-design a system so that the money goes to you when you need it.' This was not co-designed.

This was imposed on the community because the government knew that it was never about helping people with disability. We see the fraud thing being trumpeted in the media too. The media are doing the government's dirty work by frontlining fraud claims and trying to avoid the actual discussion about what it means to drive 160,000 people off the scheme.

If the government were serious about fraud, they'd be funding the independent commission that's meant to be tracking down and prosecuting fraud. But, no, they don't fund that. There are bugger all prosecutions happening there.

You use the fraud argument as a 'watch my hand' scenario: 'Watch the fraud over here while we literally steal support from people with disability over there.' Politicians come in and gaslight, and they gaslight the community, by saying, 'This is all about fraud and integrity,' when it's not about fraud and integrity at all. This is about a budget bottom line to take money out of the pockets of people with disability and to take away their support services so that this government can find more money to spend on weapons, AUKUS submarines, killing and whatever Donald Trump has asked them to do.

They're making that choice between people with disability and Trump's killing toys because they're too scared to take on the gas lobby, the gambling lobby and corporate Australia, which is taking a record share of our country's wealth in the form of corporate profits. We see you, and, increasingly, the community sees you. When they see politics like that, is it any wonder that faith in politics is so low?

I want to thank my colleague Senator Steele-John again. We need more of that leadership in this place. That's what we need.