Division
Dai Le by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) circulated in my name together: (1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (line 23), after "circumstances", insert "(other than the person's linguistic environment)". (2) Schedule 1, item 92, page 35 (line 30), at the end of subsection 25A(1), add: ; and (d) is linguistically and culturally accessible at the person's geographical location. (3) Schedule 1, item 92, page 35 (line 31) to page 36 (line 4), omit subsection 25A(2). In my second reading contribution, I raised serious concerns about how the 'appropriate treatment' provisions in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 would play out for families in communities like mine. My three amendments today go directly to those concerns. They are not an attempt to delay or derail reform. They are an attempt to make it work for the people who will be hurt most if we get this wrong. I have moved these amendments not to stop reform but to make sure reform is fair, inclusive, practical and safe for people living with disability from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and people from low socioeconomic backgrounds—people who already face additional barriers when trying to navigate a government system that is highly complicated, even for those who are well-resourced and speak English as their first language. As I said in my second reading amendment, I support and welcome the stronger integrity measures for NDIS service providers and plan managers outlined in schedule 2 of the bill. The NDIS must be protected from fraud, rorting and misuse. Australians living with disability deserve a scheme that is trusted, well managed and sustainable. But sustainability and financial viability cannot come at the cost of fairness, and they certainly should not be achieved by pushing the most vulnerable participants into greater uncertainty or into a system of bureaucracy that is harder to understand, harder to access and even furt
House of Representatives, 2026-07-01. negative: ayes 10, noes 72.
Question
Dai Le by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) circulated in my name together: (1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (line 23), after "circumstances", insert "(other than the person's linguistic environment)". (2) Schedule 1, item 92, page 35 (line 30), at the end of subsection 25A(1), add: ; and (d) is linguistically and culturally accessible at the person's geographical location. (3) Schedule 1, item 92, page 35 (line 31) to page 36 (line 4), omit subsection 25A(2). In my second reading contribution, I raised serious concerns about how the 'appropriate treatment' provisions in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 would play out for families in communities like mine. My three amendments today go directly to those concerns. They are not an attempt to delay or derail reform. They are an attempt to make it work for the people who will be hurt most if we get this wrong. I have moved these amendments not to stop reform but to make sure reform is fair, inclusive, practical and safe for people living with disability from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and people from low socioeconomic backgrounds—people who already face additional barriers when trying to navigate a government system that is highly complicated, even for those who are well-resourced and speak English as their first language. As I said in my second reading amendment, I support and welcome the stronger integrity measures for NDIS service providers and plan managers outlined in schedule 2 of the bill. The NDIS must be protected from fraud, rorting and misuse. Australians living with disability deserve a scheme that is trusted, well managed and sustainable. But sustainability and financial viability cannot come at the cost of fairness, and they certainly should not be achieved by pushing the most vulnerable participants into greater uncertainty or into a system of bureaucracy that is harder to understand, harder to access and even furt
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.