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

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) (13:14): One of the observations I've made in debating this bill is that it is important for us to deal with what is actually in the bill rather than with what people fear may be in the bill or in some future bill. Regrettably, it has not always been the case that everyone's observed that in the way that they have discussed provisions in the bill.

Many of the things Senator Steele-John has set out just now are not features of the bill. I want to step through what is actually proposed, in terms of both the policy intent and what's in the legislation. I think the first thing to say is that, from the very outset, the NDIS was never intended to replace the health system—nor, in fact, was it intended to replace the education system or the transport system.

All of these other systems run by governments ought to be available to people with disability. They ought to be inclusive. Governments did not establish the NDIS so that they could walk away from their responsibilities in other systems.

So health systems should be available as a matter of course to people with disability, and they should be safe and inclusive. The impact analysis for the bill draws a really important distinction about some of the health conditions that afflict people. It draws the distinction between a condition that is irreversible and produces a permanent functional impairment, and a condition that's enduring.

Where a person has an enduring condition that is treatable, we would like them to be treated. The NDIS has always been there for people with permanent disability, and it has always been the case that a person seeking access to the NDIS had to demonstrate that their impairment was permanent. This isn't a new feature of the scheme.

But it is the case that the process by which that permanency is assessed wasn't made clear in the legislation. So this bill provides greater legislative clarity about how permanency will be assessed. It elevates into the act a principle that is already in the NDIS rules.

As I indicated in my earlier contribution, it is part of the normal architecture of a government social program. The criteria to become a participant in the NDIS should be clear so that people can navigate those arrangements with clarity. This was an observation also made by the independent review of the NDIS, which told us that people with disability, families and advocates wanted greater certainty around the access process.

We also heard that people were often seeking additional diagnoses or specialist reports, sometimes at significant personal cost, to demonstrate that they met access criteria. So the independent review recommended strengthening and clarifying the legislative framework around permanency, and that is what is happening in the bill that is before this chamber. Senator Steele-John indicated in his contribution that a person who's already on the scheme might be required to obtain subsequent treatment.

That is not what the legislation requires; it is prospective only. So a person seeking access would need to demonstrate, if there were a treatment that would reduce their impairment such that they didn't meet the access test, that they had pursued it. But that doesn't apply to people who have already gained access to the scheme.

We've also been clear that advice would be sought from a treating medical professional, including advice about whether there's a medical reason that a particular person cannot undertake a medical treatment that might otherwise be appropriate. In developing the rules for implementation of this provision, we would intend to closely consult with people with disability, representative organisations and the broader disability community.

Senator Steele-John indicated, I think, a level of cynicism—perhaps I could say—about the process of rule making in this parliament. For people listening, rule making under legislation is a serious business. When a disallowable instrument is made, it is brought before this chamber and it's possible for this Senate to debate it and to void it.

The rules that Senator Steele-John considers inadequate would be scrutinised by this parliament. There has been a lot of concern and misinformation in the community regarding the possibility that this legislation would enable the use of restrictive practices. Page 68 of the revised explanatory memorandum clarifies that 'appropriate treatment does not include restrictive practices involving seclusion, chemical restraint, mechanical restraint, physical restraint or environmental restraint'.

It also makes clear that an available treatment would be one that is funded through public health arrangements such as the MBS. I simply want to return to the basic principle that a scheme of this kind and this importance needs to have clear guidelines around it in terms of who is eligible for the scheme and also the supports that are available to them. The provisions that are in the bill around permanence elevate existing policy settings into the legislation to create that clarity for participants and also for the general community.