Matter of Public Importance

National Disability Insurance Scheme

Senate · Wednesday 24 June 2026

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

The Senate debated a matter of public importance regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. The Australian Greens argued that the government should prioritise NDIS funding over AUKUS defence spending and opposed the bill, citing evidence from a committee inquiry that the reforms would cut nearly $40 billion in supports. The Liberal Party criticised the Greens for negotiating a delay to the bill in exchange for supporting tax changes, arguing this denied certainty to Australians. The Labor Party defended the reforms as necessary to address fraud, diagnostic inflation, and unsustainable costs, asserting the changes would strengthen the scheme's social licence. The motion was not passed after divisions were held.

Outcome

The motion was not passed following two divisions.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Opened the debate

Jordon Steele-John (WA) (Australian Greens) Greens

Steele-John moved the motion, arguing that the government should invest in NDIS supports rather than funding AUKUS, which the Greens characterised as an expensive dependency on the United States. The senator cited overwhelming evidence from a committee inquiry indicating that the current bill would cut nearly $40 billion from vital supports over four years without addressing fraud by large providers. Steele-John contended that the reforms granted excessive ministerial power and subjected participants to medical interventions regardless of waitlists. The Greens sought to delay the bill to allow for further inquiry and to persuade the Liberal Party to oppose the legislation in its current form.

Government response

Anthony Chisholm (Assistant Minister for Regional Development; Assistant Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; Assistant Minister for Resources) ALP QLD

Chisholm moved that the question be put, effectively ending the debate on the motion without offering a substantive policy response in the transcript provided.

Opposition response

Anne Ruston (Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Liberal SA

Ruston criticised the Greens for negotiating a two-month extension to the NDIS bill inquiry in return for supporting Labor's tax changes, describing the arrangement as a deal that denied scrutiny. The senator argued that the Greens' opposition to the bill was unchanged and that delaying legislation provided no certainty to Australians. Ruston asserted that the government and Greens were bypassing parliamentary conventions by forcing bills through without committee examination. The shadow minister maintained that the urgency motion was hypocritical given the Greens' recent agreement to support tax increases.

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (VIC) (Australian Labor Party) ALP support

Ananda-Rajah argued that the NDIS required reform to address unsustainable growth, fraud, and diagnostic inflation, particularly regarding autism spectrum disorder. The senator cited the scheme's cost of $50 billion for 760,000 participants and noted concerns from experts about the overmedicalisation of disability. Ananda-Rajah stated that the reforms would establish standardised eligibility criteria based on functional capacity and create a $200 million communities fund to improve social participation. The senator maintained that these changes were necessary to protect the scheme's social licence and ensure long-term sustainability.
Karen Grogan (SA) (Australian Labor Party) ALP support

Grogan defended the NDIS reforms as essential for ensuring fair and consistent assessments, regardless of a participant's financial resources. The senator argued that the current system suffered from fraud and lacked appropriate structure, threatening the scheme's social licence. Grogan stated that the reforms would rightsize the NDIS to focus on permanent and significant disabilities, while directing other needs to health or social services. The senator rejected the premise that defence funding should be diverted to cover NDIS costs, asserting that the changes would restore the scheme to its original intent.
David Shoebridge (NSW) (Australian Greens) Greens oppose

Shoebridge criticised the Labor government for prioritising AUKUS funding over the NDIS, arguing that tens of billions of dollars were being removed from disability supports. The senator asserted that this approach placed the interests of the United States president ahead of people with disability in Australia. Shoebridge used the brief contribution to highlight what the Greens viewed as a fundamental failure of the government to protect vulnerable communities.

Votes during this debate

Division 6: National Disability Insurance Scheme Not passed 18–32 Division 7: National Disability Insurance Scheme Not passed 10–31

Opened by

Jordon Steele-John (WA) (Australian Greens)

Greens

Speeches

9 speeches, 3 other contributors

Topics

Budget & Economy Defence & AUKUS NDIS & Disability Tax

Debate Knox Class Action (Facilitation) Bill 2026; Second Reading Bill Debate, 16 Sep 2026 · Shared topics: NDIS & Disability, Tax
Debate Answers to Questions Take Note Debate, 16 Sep 2026 · Shared topics: Budget & Economy, Tax
Question Time House Question Time 19 Aug 2026 · Shared topics: Budget & Economy, Defence & AUKUS
Question Time Senate Question Time 19 Aug 2026 · Shared topics: Budget & Economy, Defence & AUKUS

About Senate debates

The Senate debates bills, motions, matters of public importance and the answers given in Question Time. Senators from all parties and the crossbench take part, and a minister or the minister representing them usually replies for the government. Summaries are in reported speech, not transcripts; always check the official record before quoting.