HAINES: I move amendment (4) on sheet 1, revised 30 June 2026, as circulated in my name:

(4) Schedule 1, item 92, page 35 (line 31) to page 36 (line 4), omit subsection 25A(2), substitute:

(2A) Treatment may not be appropriate treatment for a person’s impairment or impairments if the person’s individual circumstances restrict the person from accessing the treatment.

This bill would prevent people from accessing the NDIS until they’ve undertaken what the government says is ‘all appropriate treatment’. The details will be dealt with in regulation, so we don’t know exactly what that will mean in practice. However, the bill explicitly states that a treatment may still be considered appropriate even if a person’s financial circumstances or geographical location prevent them from accessing it. Now, this is unacceptable. It completely ignores the reality of service provision outside of major cities. It could put the NDIS out of reach of rural and regional Australians, who simply don’t have the local options and can’t realistically access what is considered appropriate treatment.

My community are really worried about this. They’re worried about the impacts of the bill. When I look at things like this, I think they have every right to be worried. My amendment would reverse this provision to clarify that a treatment may not be appropriate for a person who can’t access it. It’s all I’ve got to say about it, really, because to me this seems so obvious that I can’t believe that I actually have to say it.

HAINES: by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) and (5) on sheet 1, revised 30 June 2026, as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 34, page 12 (after line 16), after subsection 34A(1), insert:

(1A) The specified group of supports must not relate to activities of daily living.

(2) Schedule 1, item 73, page 26 (before line 9), before subsection 34(1A), insert:

(1AA) If the CEO is not satisfied of a matter in subsection (1) in relation to a statement of participant supports, the CEO must notify the relevant participant, in writing, of the reasons for not being so satisfied.

(3) Schedule 1, item 73, page 27 (lines 6 to 35), omit subsections 34(1E) and (1F).

(5) Schedule 1, item 97, page 39 (lines 3 to 7), omit subsection 25B(6), substitute:

(6) Before making National Disability Insurance Scheme rules declaring that a support is an alternative support for an impairment, the Minister must be satisfied that:

(a) it is not appropriate to fund or provide a support for the impairment through the National Disability Insurance Scheme; and

(b) the alternative support is reasonably available and accessible.

I will make some brief remarks to support these amendments. They respond to key concerns raised by my constituents, the very people who will be impacted by the changes proposed under this bill. These things include the need for greater transparency and trust in decision-making and the importance of protecting approved funding for participants’ basic needs.

Amendment (1) would protect funding for activities of daily living from blanket funding reductions under a new ministerial power. While the government has said the new power won’t be used for that purpose, there’s nothing in the bill to guarantee that.

In terms of amendment (2), people with a disability of course deserve certainty about funding for basic essential supports, and this amendment would provide that. It’s really critical that we get this right and build that certainty for them. Amendment (2) would require a statement of written reasons where requested supports are not funded. One of the biggest concerns I hear from NDIS participants is that they’re not told why recommended supports haven’t been approved. My amendment would give them greater clarity about why decisions have been made and how the evidence they’ve provided has been used. Again, I hear consistently from people in my electorate that they want to understand the ‘why’; they truly do. Written reasons, I think, are fundamental to giving that confidence to people—or an explanation and that understanding.

Amendments (3) and (5) make additional sensible improvements to ensure that evidence is considered on its merits. Currently, as it’s drafted, the bill is looking to a hierarchical level of evidence. I want to make sure through this amendment that evidence is considered on its merits and that ministerial decisions about alternative schemes include consideration of whether those schemes are actually available and actually accessible. With those brief remarks, I will leave it to the minister to respond.

HAINES: by leave—I move:

(6) Schedule 3, page 101 (after line 12), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 4 — Whistleblower protections

National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013

18 After subsection 73ZA(2)

Insert:

(2A) The disclosure of the information by the discloser qualifies for protection under this Division if it is made for the purpose of seeking assistance, advice, treatment or counselling in relation to the disclosure and is made to:

(a) a legal practitioner; or

(b) a medical practitioner or psychologist; or

(c) a union or professional association.

Again, I will make a brief remark. This amendment ensures whistleblowers are able to make disclosures in the context of seeking support for themselves—for example, in seeking support from a legal or a medical practitioner. Now, the government’s recently made improvements to NDIS whistleblower protections, and I really welcome those. But I think many Australians, in fact all Australians, would be very surprised to learn that, under this legislation more broadly across the NDIA and NDIS, whistleblowers may not legally be allowed to talk about their own situations to their own doctor or lawyer. I’ve been on the record very strongly in this place calling for whistleblower reforms to be strengthen. Under this particular situation, we need to make sure that every protection is afforded to people who are whistleblowers through the NDIS system. So I put this to the minister, and I hope the government can support me on this really important amendment.

HAINES: I move the amendment on sheet 2, as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 3, item 4, page 91 (after line 2), after subsection 45C(16), insert:

(16A) If the Agency provides advice to the Minister under subsection (14), the Agency must at the same time provide a summary of the advice to the Minister.

(16B) The Minister must cause a copy of advice provided to the Minister under subsection (14), or the summary of the advice provided under subsection (16A), to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 5 sitting days after the Minister makes the determination to which the advice relates.

Constituents in Indi have made it clear to me that it matters whether the minister follows NDIA advice. More than 90 per cent of Indi constituents who responded to my survey regarding the NDIS changes said transparency of ministerial pricing decisions is really important.

My amendment would strengthen transparency by requiring the minister to table NDIA advice, or a summary of that advice, within five sitting days of making that determination. The summary must be provided by the NDIA itself at the same time as the advice. I really thank the government for working with me on this particular amendment and for working with me, more broadly, on trying to find ways to improve this legislation.