Bill Debate · Consideration in Detail
House of Representatives · Wednesday 1 July 2026
Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia
Crossbench members moved numerous amendments to address concerns regarding eligibility, consultation, and transparency, while the government, represented by Mark Butler, opposed most changes but moved amendments to clarify suspension procedures and refine regulations. Several crossbench amendments requiring independent reviews and limiting ministerial powers were passed, whereas others were defeated alongside many government proposals. The debate highlighted tensions between sustainability measures and participant protections as the House considered various procedural and definitional adjustments. Ultimately, the bill was agreed to after the passage of specific amendments and the defeat of others.
The bill was agreed to and the third reading was made an order of the day.
Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.
Opened the debate
Le moved three amendments to ensure the NDIS remains accessible for culturally and linguistically diverse communities. Le argued that linguistic environment must be considered in assessments and that appropriate treatment must be accessible geographically and culturally. Le contended that the current bill risks excluding vulnerable participants by ignoring these barriers.
Government response
Butler stated the government would not support Le's amendments, noting that functional capacity assessments would be objective while support needs assessments would consider environmental factors. Butler argued that the proposed framework already accommodates the concerns raised and that other crossbench amendments would be supported instead.
Gee supported Le's amendments, highlighting the importance of linguistic and cultural accessibility. Gee also emphasised the tyranny of distance facing rural electorates and urged support for the amendments to bridge service delivery gaps.
Boele moved an amendment requiring mandatory consultation for key NDIS rules, including exposure drafts and disability impact statements. Boele argued that decisions affecting people with disability must involve them, citing the principle of inclusive co-design.
Ryan criticised the government's consultation process as inadequate and inaccessible. Ryan argued that the bill repeated patterns of excluding people with disability from decision-making, contrary to international conventions and previous ministerial commitments.
Steggall moved amendments to protect review rights and ensure supports for work, study, and volunteering are recognised. Steggall argued that sustainability should not come at the cost of fairness or individualised support, urging the government to accept practical safeguards.
Haines moved amendments to clarify that treatment is not appropriate if inaccessible due to financial or geographical circumstances. Haines also proposed protections for activities of daily living, written reasons for funding decisions, and enhanced whistleblower protections.
Claydon interrupted the debate in accordance with standing order 43, noting that the debate could be resumed at a later hour.
Watson-Brown moved amendments to limit support determinations, protect specific support categories, and restrict ministerial rule-making powers. Watson-Brown argued the bill was cruel and would severely impact participants, urging its withdrawal despite secured improvements.
minister
Butler presented supplementary explanatory memoranda and moved government amendments to clarify the process for revoking or suspending participant plans. Butler explained that the amendments ensured reasonable contact attempts were made before suspension, including specific requirements for contacting participants or their nominees. Butler also moved amendments to clarify the separation between plan managers and other service providers, responding to sector feedback. Butler stated that while strict conflict-of-interest rules would apply, related entities could provide different types of services to avoid detriment to participants.
Georganas formally put the question that the bill, as amended, be agreed to. No further substantive arguments were presented by Georganas in this segment.