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) (19:52): Senator Steele-John's substantive contribution was really seeking further information about the approach to permanence. I did note that Senator Steele-John spoke at some point about spooking people, and it would be important not to spook people when we talk about a reform to a scheme as significant as this scheme is to the lives of people with disability.

The point, which I've made repeatedly, that I'll now confirm for Senator Steele-John by way of reading from the explanatory memorandum, is that the requirement for a disability to be permanent is already a feature of the scheme, and it is already a feature of the NDIS rules. For example: The National Disability Insurance Scheme (Becoming a Participant) Rules 2016 … set out … how to determine whether an impairment should be considered permanent, or likely to be permanent.

Rule 5.4 provides that an impairment is, or is likely to be, permanent only if there are no known, available and appropriate evidence-based clinical, medical or other treatments that would be likely to remedy the impairment. The independent NDIS review recommended to us that we clarify the arrangements for access, including in relation to permanence. The EM says of part 8 of the bill: This Part inserts an approach to assessing permanence of impairments when determining whether a person meets the disability requirements or early intervention requirements.

The intent … is to provide a clear definition of permanence including what constitutes appropriate treatment. Amendments also include circumstances which cannot be considered when determining whether a prospective participant has undertaken all appropriate treatment. The explanatory memorandum goes on to talk about some of the principles that underpin this: The NDIS was never intended to replace health, rehabilitation and treatment services which play a critical role in preventing lifelong disability.

I think that matters, senators. We ought not concede that, if a treatment is available and appropriate, and could substantially remedy or alleviate an impairment, we shouldn't seek to pursue that. The government is making very, very substantial investments in our national public health system to make sure that Australia's excellent public health system is improved further and that people can access the treatments they require.

Senator Steele-John's second part of his contribution and questions asserted that there's something wrong with the government thinking about the fiscal sustainability of a scheme of this kind. It implied that it was somehow grubby to consider public finances or to consider whether the scheme is sustainable. I think it speaks to the difference between our political parties.

When the NDIS independent review made its report, it quoted from some of the evidence it had received. I'll paraphrase it because I can't remember the exact quotation, but it was something like this: 'A human right that cannot be sustained is a right that is effectively denied.' The government's concern is that a scheme that has too much fraud, is much larger than it was ever intended to be, is projected to cost more than $100 billion a year by the middle of next decade and doesn't always deliver the quality of service we would expect for people with disability is a scheme that is at risk of losing its social licence.

We have research that indicates Australians are worried about this. That's in a context where, actually, Australians are pretty proud of this. Australians fought for the NDIS to be created, and they were good allies to the disability community who campaigned in an amazing way for the establishment of this scheme.

The government thinks that that fight was worth it, and that it is worth making these reforms to secure this scheme for the future. I have said this often publicly, but I mean it so sincerely: I was alive as an adult before the NDIS, and I met with people who lived with disability and felt so keenly the absence of support in their lives. That was an emotional experience; it wasn't just a material one.

It was a sense of exclusion and abandonment. I remember thinking at the time that if we won an election—and it's a while ago now—we had to do something about it. I was so proud when an earlier Labor government did do something about it.

But it falls to a Labor government again to make sure that this scheme is around for the long term. Back in April, Minister Butler went to the Press Club and laid out our proposed approach. We did that deliberately well ahead of the budget so that the disability community and the broader community would have time to engage with our proposals.

We tried to explain the challenges, as we saw them, honestly to Australians and to set out our solutions. We tried to say that we thought that, under our reforms, the scheme would continue to grow, would continue to offer supports, would continue to offer choice and control, and would continue to be the second-largest social program in Australia after the aged pension.

We asked people to engage with that. In the months since, there has been a lot of discussion and debate about our reforms. I am yet to hear a person say that they think $100 billion a year is a good number, or a sustainable number, for a program of this kind.

I'm also yet to hear any credible alternative proposition to restore this scheme to a sustainable level of growth. It's on that basis that the government concludes that the reforms we are bringing forward are the right ones. We've thought about them carefully, we intend to implement them carefully, and, most importantly, we intend to implement them in close consultation and engagement with the disability community.