Division
Monique Ryan I move this amendment because it provides an important safeguard for NDIS participants. This amendment is straightforward. It provides that a support determination under proposed subsection 34A(4) may relate only to supports for social and community participation. It'll force the government to put its money where its mouth is. The government has represented that section 34A will be used to cut social and community participation supports. But the bill, as drafted and confirmed by the explanatory memorandum, empowers the minister to reduce funding across almost any support category. That includes daily living, transport, assistive technology, specialist disability accommodation and more. My amendment (6) asks the government to explicitly limit support determination powers in section 34A to social and community supports only. The purpose of this amendment is simple. It is to stop the broad determination-making power in this bill being turned into a back door used through delegated legislation to quietly strip away essential disability supports while no-one is watching. There is real, raw fear in the disability community right now about how this ministerial power might be wielded—perhaps not by this minister but by subsequent governments, for example, those perhaps administered by One Nation, which has indicated it would abolish the NDIS. People aren't imagining things. They fear that this legislation could be used to hollow out the everyday living supports that they rely on to get through the day. Let me be blunt. I disagree with the proposed 50 per cent cut to social and community participation supports. I disagree with most of section 34A of this bill. I believe it's a blunt instrument, and I think that it will land hard on the lives of people with a disability. But this amendment goes further than that disagreement. It would build a wall around something which is even more important. It would ensure that the support determination power could never be tu
House of Representatives, 2026-07-01. negative: ayes 10, noes 57.
Question
Monique Ryan I move this amendment because it provides an important safeguard for NDIS participants. This amendment is straightforward. It provides that a support determination under proposed subsection 34A(4) may relate only to supports for social and community participation. It'll force the government to put its money where its mouth is. The government has represented that section 34A will be used to cut social and community participation supports. But the bill, as drafted and confirmed by the explanatory memorandum, empowers the minister to reduce funding across almost any support category. That includes daily living, transport, assistive technology, specialist disability accommodation and more. My amendment (6) asks the government to explicitly limit support determination powers in section 34A to social and community supports only. The purpose of this amendment is simple. It is to stop the broad determination-making power in this bill being turned into a back door used through delegated legislation to quietly strip away essential disability supports while no-one is watching. There is real, raw fear in the disability community right now about how this ministerial power might be wielded—perhaps not by this minister but by subsequent governments, for example, those perhaps administered by One Nation, which has indicated it would abolish the NDIS. People aren't imagining things. They fear that this legislation could be used to hollow out the everyday living supports that they rely on to get through the day. Let me be blunt. I disagree with the proposed 50 per cent cut to social and community participation supports. I disagree with most of section 34A of this bill. I believe it's a blunt instrument, and I think that it will land hard on the lives of people with a disability. But this amendment goes further than that disagreement. It would build a wall around something which is even more important. It would ensure that the support determination power could never be tu
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.