AU Parliament
Sign in
◆ Bill · its whole journey
← The Floor ·
Bill · HouseFailed 10–72
Disability · NDIS eligibility and funding overhaul

Add crossbench safeguards to the NDIS overhaul — back it or block it?

The government's bill reshapes the NDIS: moving eligibility to an objective test of a person's functional capacity, requiring people to have tried "all appropriate treatment" before qualifying, letting the minister set funding rules and reduce some support categories, and tightening integrity checks on providers.

During the detailed stage, crossbench MPs moved many amendments to soften the impact on vulnerable participants. The government rejected most, arguing existing processes already cover the concerns, and agreed to one transparency change. Ten separate votes on the amendments were all defeated (roughly 9–11 in favour against 44–72 opposed). The debate ran about 131 minutes before being interrupted.

🗳 A public mood-check, not a scientific poll. Vote to reveal how the chamber voted.
🗳 be the first to weigh in🏛 2h 11m debated
📄 House Hansard, 1 Jul 2026 — National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026; Consideration in Detail
In progress · before its first chamber

⚖ The case each way

For · Crossbench (Le, Gee, Ryan, Steggall, Haines, Boele)They argued sustainability must not come at the cost of fairness: assessments should account for a person's language, culture and geographic access; treatment shouldn't count as "available" if someone can't afford or reach it; participants need clear review rights and protection for round-the-clock and daily-living supports; rule-making should require genuine 28-day consultation with people with disability; and changes shouldn't start until replacement "foundational supports" like Thriving Kids actually exist.
Against · Government (Labor)Minister Mark Butler said the concerns are already handled — language, culture and living circumstances feed into the separate support-needs assessment, consultation structures and category-A rules requiring state agreement are well established, and reassessment safety nets exist. He said foundational supports are a shared Commonwealth-state responsibility not properly delivered through this Act. The government agreed to one amendment requiring the minister to table NDIA pricing advice, and flagged support for some other crossbench changes.
Day by day
· House
Amendments debated — consideration in detail
“That the amendments moved by the member for Fowler be agreed to.” — 10 to 72, rejected.
“That the amendment moved by the member for Bradfield be agreed to.” — 11 to 70, rejected.
“That the amendments moved by the member for Warringah be agreed to.” — 10 to 70, rejected.
“That the amendment as moved by the member for Indi be agreed to.” — 11 to 66, rejected.
“That amendments (1) to (3) and (5) on sheet 1, as moved by the member for Indi, be agreed to.” — 10 to 66, rejected.
“That amendment (6) on sheet 1, as moved by the member for Indi, be agreed to.” — 9 to 61, rejected.
“That the amendment moved by the member for Kooyong be agreed to.” — 10 to 49, rejected.
“That amendment (5) on sheet 1 moved by the member for Kooyong be agreed to.” — 9 to 50, rejected.
“That the amendment be agreed to.” — 10 to 57, rejected.
“That amendment (11) on sheet 1, as moved by the member for Kooyong, be agreed to.” — 11 to 44, rejected.
House · recorded
📄 Hansard, 1 July 2026 ↗
· House
Final vote — third reading
House · recorded
📄 Hansard, 2 July 2026 ↗
Why does a bill need both chambers? How Parliament works →
Every step links to that day's Hansard. This is what no newspaper shows you.