Australian Greens Dissenting Report
1.1The Australian Greens are deeply grateful for the advocacy, submissions, time and expertise contributed to this inquiry by disabled people, their family members and representative organisations. We also wish to extend this gratitude to the many academics, legal experts, professional peak bodies, care workers and advocates who did the same.
1.2The work undertaken by witnesses and via submissions to the inquiry was remarkable and provided the committee with invaluable information. The Australian Greens acknowledge that providing this evidence to the committee was a daunting experience for many, requiring significant preparation, vulnerability and emotional labour.
1.3The Australian Greens appreciate the incredible and tireless work of the Committee Secretariat. This inquiry was only possible because of their efforts.
1.4Fairness and equality are values which are cherished by the Australian community.
1.5When these values are violated the Australian community demands action from those they place in positions of power.
1.6The National Disability Insurance Scheme sits alongside Medicare as the two most significant national programs created in response to this community demand.
1.7Together, these programs have helped so many to live healthy and happy lives; and as a result they are supported by the vast majority of the Australian community.
1.8Both programs require significant amounts of public money to run and in return they are two of largest sources of employment in the nation and one of the most significant drivers of economic activity.
1.9As such, governments seeking to cut these programs, restrict access to them or remove people from them should naturally expect that their proposals will be subjected to the highest possible scrutiny.
1.10Despite this, at every stage of development the Albanese Labor government has sought to avoid or limit scrutiny of a Bill which would enable cuts, restriction of access, and removal of participants from the NDIS.
1.11As the community calls for this inquiry grew louder the government remained adamant that further inquiry was unnecessary and would not result in new information or valuable evidence.
1.12In direct response to the prospect of this inquiry the NDIS Bill Shorten stated:
There’s no good reason on God’s Green Earth to have another eight weeks of review … there won’t be a whole lot of new submissions come in, there won’t be some brand new arguments not considered.[1]
1.13The vital evidence gathered through this inquiry totally contradicts the above claims. Despite Labor’s extensive efforts to prevent this inquiry, many new concerning aspects of the bill were uncovered through the testimony of the witnesses who participated. Key information revealed throughout this inquiry:
1.14There were concerns raised during the inquiry about the ability of the states and territories to conduct the work needed to support the outcomes of this Bill. The Council for the Australian Federation, representing the states and territories, expressed that they do not feel that they have been adequately consulted on this Bill and have not been given adequate time to develop the supports and systems that would be necessary to support implementation of the legislation.
The pace of the reform schedule is not allowing time for meaningful consultation with the disability community, or with states and territories … The amendments are complex, and will alter the operation of the NDIS before broader improvements are made to the disability ecosystem, including Foundational Supports, creating a risk of emerging service gaps for people with disability.[2]
1.15These concerns were repeated by disability representative organisations, who also flagged the likelihood of a service gap if this Bill passes, due to supports no longer being able to be accessed through the NDIS but also not yet able to be accessed through state and territory programs.
States and territories have not been able to meaningfully respond with a definition and explanation of what these new [foundational] supports would look like.[3]
1.16During 2024/25 Budget Estimates it was revealed the NDIA had awarded two contracts, one in February 2023 and one in September 2023 with a total value of $400,000, to Redbridge Group for the purpose of conducting focus groups and message testing to identify how to best frame the changes proposed in the NDIS Bill.
1.17This research, conducted prior to the release of the NDIS Review, includes focus group findings specifically related to policy changes which subsequently appear as recommendations within the NDIS Review final report.
1.18The research also includes suggested messaging, again based on focus group findings, designed to counter community opposition to these specific policy changes and elicit a level of ‘qualified tolerance’ for the changes. This suggested messaging appears within sections of the NDIS Review Final Report which are framed as providing the justification for recommended changes.
1.19For example, Redbridge Report 4 states:
... we were able to elicit a degree of qualified tolerance for reformsthat would restrict either eligibility for the Scheme (raising the threshold for children with developmental delay) or the amount of support high-need participants would receive (moving to a 1:3 care model for Supported Independent Living participants). Respondents do not like these reforms but they may be willing to tolerate them where there are/is:
Carve-outs for exceptional circumstances (i.e. we’re not forcing everyone into the same box, and the most in need are still fully supported);
Initial goodwill generated by the measures to humanise the Scheme and to protect participants (and the Scheme) from exploitation. Conversely, there is a strong resistance to any discussion of costs alone as a driver of reforms; and
Alternative or ‘offsetting’ benefits in place. For example, in relation to the threshold for developmental delays, there is more (but not outright) acceptance once respondents had been treated with the idea of investing in mainstream supports for children (through schools/kinders/etc) to enable earlier intervention and improve the safety net. In relation to the Supported Independent Living (SIL) changes, these become more acceptable when couched in benefits around reducing social isolation and ensuring people don’t fall through the cracks.[4]
1.20Recommendation 8, Action Item 8.1 of the NDIS Review Final Report states:
Funding for participants requiring 24/7 living supports should typically be on the basis of those supports being shared. In general, reasonable and necessary funding should be based on an average shared support ratio of 1:3.[5]
1.21In justifying this recommendation, the report states:
While single living arrangements with no sharing of supports are needed in specified circumstances, they can lead to isolation and poor outcomes for participants.[6]
1.22Examples like one this raise questions about the extent to which the results from these government commissioned focus groups influenced findings of the NDIS Review. These questions are critical because the Government has repeatedly assured the public that the NDIS Review would be independent and evidence driven.[7]
1.23During this inquiry, the Chair of the NDIS review, Bruce Bonyhady, revealed that he had received a briefing of the Redbridge Report before the NDIS Review recommendations were published.
We did get a briefing on [the Redbridge report] during the course of the review, yes.[8]
1.24He also stated that the reports:
did not influence what we recommended. It was an independent review.[9]
1.25In response to requests by committee members for specific details about this briefing Mr Bonyhady provided, on notice, a written statement , which stated:
The Agency [The National Disability Insurance Agency] organised on-line briefings by Redbridge for its own purposes and also invited the Co-Chairs. I have checked my records and these invitations were for 16 March, 5 October, 9 October and 1 November 2023.[10]
1.26After finally confirming, for the first time on the public record, that the NDIS Co-Chairs were repeatedly invited to briefings on the Redbridge Research Reports throughout 2023, Mr Bonyhady then claims a lack of recollection of the details of these briefings.
1.27Firstly, Mr Bonyhady claims that he 'cannot recall how many of these verbal briefings I attended'. He then claims that:'I do not have a record or clear recollection of the content of any briefings I attended.'
1.28It is his final claim that causes the Australian Greens the most significant concern. Mr Bonyhady reiterates the claim that 'as I said in my evidence last week, the Redbridge research did not influence the NDIS Review recommendations.'
1.29Mr Bonyhady claims that he cannot recall the content of the Redbridge reports nor does he have records of content but is able to state repeatedly that content he can't recall had no influence on the outcomes of the NDIS Review. The evidence presented above showing the similarity between content in the Redbridge reports and the NDIS Review Final Report raises serious questions about the independence of the NDIS Review.
1.30The concern is that these findings show that the Government had the opportunity to influence the Review in order to manufacture consent for this harmful Bill.
1.31Considering the NDIS Review is being claimed by the Government as the basis for this Bill, the Australian Greens urge the Government to clarify how findings from the Redbridge Report ended up in the NDIS Review and how that aligns with the characterisation of the NDIS Review as independent.
1.32It was confirmed by the Department of Social Services that the Government did ask stakeholders to sign a confidentiality agreement as a condition of being consulted on the legislation prior to release.
The department, in consulting with a small group of stakeholders before the bill was introduced into the parliament, did ask participating stakeholders to sign a deed of confidentiality.[11]
1.33Under questioning, the NDIA denied requesting non-disclosure agreements from participants in co-design processes related to proposed government reforms. They did, however, confirm that members of the Participant Reference Group are asked to sign confidentiality agreements. The Committee learnt, in an answer to a Question on Notice, that ten members of the current co-design working groups are also members of the Participant Reference Group , meaning that they would remain under confidentiality agreements while participating in co-design processes.
1.34During this inquiry, the Committee learnt that consultation on the transitional guidelines has begun, and that these transitional guidelines will come into effect 28 days after Royal Assent is granted to this Bill. Consultation and development on particular Rules, including the list of NDIS supports, has also begun, with a public feedback period currently underway. If these Rules are entered into legislation by the Minister, they come into immediate effect and participants will only be able to use funds on supports that are included in the list.
On commencement of the instrument… those things which are not NDIS supports will not be able to be purchased from that point by participants.[12]
1.35There are serious concerns about the pace of this change, and the small window of public consultation that is being offered. If these rushed Rules are implemented, it will result in participants no longer being able to access essential supports that have previously been assessed as reasonable and necessary.
Within 28 days after the legislation receives royal assent, there needs to be this transitional rule in place, from my understanding, and the proposal is to do that via lists of what is and what is not an NDIS support. I think the challenge we have is: how does something that needs to be developed in that tight timeframe interact with the need for an appropriately co-designed solution here? I think that's the tension that we need to be able to manage. I understand that it is a transitional rule, but how long will it be in place? How long will it take to get the category A [rules] agreed with the states and territories?[13]
1.36Disability advocates and lived experience led organisations continued to express concerns that the culture driving this reform is fundamentally paternalistic and will result in disabled people losingagency over their own lives. An element of the bill that is emblematic of this concern is the proposal within the bill to grant the power to the federal NDIS minister to categorise disabled people into classes.
1.37During the inquiry a Department of Social Services representative defended this proposal by 'saying that it is not intended to have offensive characteristics'. It is the view of the Australian Greens that empowering a government minister to divide disabled people into ‘classes’ is inherently offensive and dehumanising and has no place in modern legislation.
1.38When questioned about community concerns relating to the bill’s proposal of needs assessments being non-reviewable, another Department of Social Services representative claimed that this was necessary so as not to cause inconvenience to participants. This disregards the agency of participants and their ability to make their own judgements about what is best for them.
While that process is ongoing, people do not actually have a budget and cannot be accessing supports. Were the proposition [that disabled people be able to review their needs assessment] to be adopted, while somebody is going through the internal and external appeal process to challenge their needs assessment [...] they would actually not be getting any support. The desire is to come to a decision, with the opportunity for the participant to be able to see their needs assessment before it's finalised and to request a reassessment [...]that request may be adopted in full, or it may not, but the intent is to try and get a timely decision for people.[14]
1.39In a media release,[15] Minister Bill Shorten claimed that there were participants incorrectly claiming supports, and listed examples of mobile phones, bonds for cleaning fees, theme park passes, treadmills, TV antennas, and bird seed. During the course of the inquiry the following response from the NDIA was provided to questions by Senator Steele-John:
The NDIA is aware of a participant who has claimed all the items specifically listed by Senator Jordon Steele-John including 'mobile phones, rental bonds, cleaning fees, theme park passes, treadmills, TV antennas and birdseed'.[16]
1.40The fact that so many of the examples of ‘fraudulent’ claims used by the Minister to justify this Bill actually can be traced back to a single participant is shocking and infuriating.Many news outlets, in particular the Australian,[17] took this claim and ran with it, publishing stories that used this example to condemn NDIS participants and promote the Labor narrative that fraud is rampant within the NDIS.
1.41In the period of time leading up to this inquiry, Labor Ministers engaged in odd (and sometimes odious) stunt-based tactics, seemingly intended to distract from growing community concern about many elements of the bill.
1.42These areas of concern that have been continuously expressed by the community included but weren't limited to, the removal of participant choice and control, categorisation of disabled people into ‘classes', abolishment of reasonable and necessary supports, weakening participants rights to appeal decisions and increasing powers for the NDIA to suspend or remove participants from the scheme.
1.43 The above-mentioned tactics included:
1.44Minister launched a web page titled ‘out of touch with cost of living,’[18] positioning the resulting delay to the ‘Getting the NDIS Back on Track’ bill, passing through the Senate, as ‘a billion dollar waste of taxpayer money’. The irony of this stunt is that it demonstrated clearly the depth and breadth of the cuts Labor intends using this Bill. The Australian Greens are proud to have prevented Labor from cutting $1b worth of support funding from disabled people and their families.
1.45Minister Shorten drove a large bus with the message; 'Save the NDIS: Put participants first, senators'[19] around Canberra airport on a Thursday night - when most MP’s and Senators typically fly home after a Parliamentary sitting week. The truck was also driven around the perimeter of Parliament House the week of the Senate’s deliberation of the bill.
1.46This partnership was first demonstrated to the public when Labor’s web page was released[20], sparking concerns for the intent of the bill based on Hanson’s past derogatory and ableist statements directed at disabled adults[21] and children.[22]
Most of the time the teacher spends so much time on them [disabled andautistic children] they forget about the child who is straining at the bit and wants to go ahead in leaps and bounds in their education. [...] It is about the loss for our other kids. [...]It is no good saying that we have to allow these kids [disabled children] to feel good about themselves and that we do not want to upset them and make them feel hurt.
1.47This partnership coincided with the release of a new episode of Senator Hanson’ s animated web series Please Explain titled, NDIS: The Movie.[23] The cartoon does not comment on the contents of the bill or attempt to explain how blocking it, or how passing it would assist or harm disabled people. Notably, past episodes of the web series such as ‘The NDIS’ have been criticised heavily for mocking disabled people.[24]
1.48This announcement resulted in immediate backlash from the disability community, demonstrated within a joint statement[25] released by peer led organisations Scarlett Alliance (Australian Sex Workers Association) and not for profit organisation Touching Base. The announcement was discussed across many media platforms. Much of this public discussion revolved around debating whether disabled people should have the same rights to intimacy and sexual expression as non disabled people. NDIS participants and disabled sex workers were prosecuted by the media throughout this period[26] and disabled advocates were largely required to discuss their sexuality, intimate lives and access needs on public media platforms, in order to be part of the conversation.[27]
The reality is I’ve got one or two examples I’m aware of that it’s ever happened, ever. It’s just not a sustainable proposition […] We will rule it out… it doesn’t pass the test, does it? [...] I will take a packet of Tim Tams, uh, coffee, and tea over to any Liberal office to go through the issues.[28]
The government has since released a draft NDIS supports list, detailing items which will and won’t be considered an NDIS support if Labor’s bill is passed. Sex work and sex toys are listed as ‘supports that are not NDIS supports’ under the ‘lifestyle related’ category in the draft list.[29]
1.49The Australian Greens continue to have deep concerns about the content of multiple sections of this Bill. Many of these concerns were raised in our dissenting report to the previous inquiry[30] and remain unaddressed. Those listed below are based on new information gathered over the course of this inquiry.
1.50The current NDIS Act allows the Agency to pursue debts against participants where they do not spend funds in accordance with their plans.
1.51This Bill expands those debt raising powers both by tightening the restrictions about how participants must spend their funds, and by introducing harsh consequences for participants that fail to meet those requirements.
1.52Changes to Section 46 introduce the requirement that a participant only spend their funds on NDIS supports and in accordance with their plan. This is a marked change to the NDIS, as the strict definition of NDIS supports and the ability for any conditions to be included in a participant’s plan (as per Section 32H) create a significantly more difficult system for participants to navigate.
1.53Concerns were raised during the hearings to this inquiry about whether debts that were caused by the actions of a third party or resulted from situations of coercion, abuse or neglect could be imposed on a participant. In particular, concerns were raised about whether debts issued for funds paid to a third party for supports could be raised to a participant, forcing the participant to pay back money that they have never had.
Is there duress here? Did we as an agency generate a legitimate expectation that the person could spend the support in this way? Did a third party, through their actions, unconscionable pressure or duress, shape what the person did? And the bill could be clearer on when the debt will go against the third party and when the debt will go against the people who everyone wants to help.[31]
1.54Furthermore, under the current Act participants are not able to appeal the existence of a debt raised against them. With expanded debt raising powers included in this Bill, this is a significant concern.
In robodebt, at least people could seek a review of their debt… It's hard to see how you could get anywhere near an independent reviewer in relation to a debt raised under this act.[32]
1.55The Agency, in the hearing to this inquiry on 25th July, said that in situations of neglect or coercion the debt would instead be owed by the person responsible, but the inability of a participant to appeal a debt raises the question of how the Agency could be alerted that the debt came out of a case of coercion.
1.56The current NDIS Act says that the Agency may waive a debt because of special circumstances, but there is very little clarity about what those special circumstances may be, only that disability and financial hardship are not able to be considered as special circumstances, which is highly alarming.
1.57This Bill should be amended to include specific clarification that:
No debts can be pursued against participants for funds paid to third parties, or for any debts accrued as a result of abuse, neglect, coercion or exploitation
Debts are subject to appeal
Special circumstances under which debts can be waived should include both financial hardship and the disability of the debtor
1.58Since the previous inquiry, there have been amendments presented by the Government in response to concerns about the proposed needs assessment. In particular, they addressed the concerns around the needs assessment not being ‘whole-of-person’. In practice, this means that the current version of the Bill requires that the reviewer only consider support needs that arise from the disability that meets Scheme access requirements. This is determined at the time of the needs assessments, so the disability that initially gains a participant access to the Scheme may not necessarily be considered in the needs assessment if access requirements change.
1.59The changes proposed by the amendments would remove this requirement, so that the needs assessment may consider environmental factors and other disabilities. However, this would not result in the participant receiving funding for all the support needs identified in the needs assessment. The plan budget, which will be calculated via an unknown method based on the needs assessment report, will now include the requirement that it only consider support needs that arise from the disability that meets Scheme access requirements.
1.60The impact of multiple disabilities and environmental factors is highly complex, and cannot be neatly divided in the way that this Bill requires. In essence, this amendment has made no material change to participant outcomes and will not achieve the ‘whole-of-person’ support provision that disabled people have clearly stated they need.
1.61The reviewability of needs assessments was raised again in this hearing, with questions directed to the Agency about why the decision was made not to make the needs assessment reviewable. The Agency specified that they made the decision to include review rights only as part of a later appeal of the budget to make it a 'quicker, simpler, easier process'. This admission revealed the deep, paternalistic nature that is at the centre of these reforms. The Government and the Agencybelieve that they know what’s best for disabled people, despite the many disabled people expressing repeatedly and in detail that these reforms will harm them.
1.62The Committee heard requests from witnesses at the inquiry to make needs assessments reviewable and to provide greater transparency to participants around their plan development.
We think there is still some further progress that needs to be made in terms of obtaining a replacement needs assessment and the ability to challenge a needs assessment, as a separate item to the full plan and budget for a participant. We would also like to see—and this is something that the sector has been calling on for a number of years—that, as part of that process, draft copies of the needs assessment report and plans are provided to participants before they're finalised.[33]
1.63The Australian Greens renew our call for the Government to make the needs assessment directly reviewable.
1.64There were concerns raised during the course of this inquiry about the impact that this Bill would have on women, in particular. It was communicated to the Committee that this would occur because of the carer role that women take on at higher rates.
We hold significant concerns about the bill and the impact it will have on women, in particular unpaid carers, who are mostly women, and who will be the ones forced to supplement deficient support funding with unpaid care work, forced to quit their employment and forgo financial independence to support their disabled loved ones because supports will be reduced with this bill.[34]
1.65The issue of deficiencies in Government services having a disproportionate impact on women engaged in unpaid care work is not limited to the NDIS, but it is of particular concern where it relates to this Bill. The cuts to supports that will result from this Bill will affect women engaged in unpaid care work, as will the expanded debt raising powers and limited review rights, both of which will require significant emotional and administrative support for participants. The service gap created by removing NDIS funded supports before foundational supports are operational will especially impact on those women undertaking unpaid care work for their disabled loved ones.
1.66The Australian Greens urge the Government to consider the impact this Bill will have on women and not pass this legislation until the identified harms have been sufficiently mitigated.
1.67It is the strong belief of the Australian Greens that this Bill should not pass in its current form, which includes the amendments passed by the House of Representatives which did not go nearly far enough, and the amendments that have been tabled but are yet to be voted on in the Senate. The above sections of this report detail some of the specific criticisms that have been raised during the course of this inquiry and the previous inquiry. We are increasinglyconcerned that even with all of these issues addressed there would still be remaining aspects that would seriously harm disabled people.
What's happened in this situation is that we've been given legislation that says, 'We're going to take away what you've got now and we're going to put in place something different.' But that other thing doesn't exist yet. So it's impossible for us to feel confident that that solution will work for us. The legislation raises many concerns that we have not seen the answers to, and we need to see the answers. This is about our lives. This is about our survival. This is so important to us and we need to be treated in a way that respects how serious this is for our lives, and I don't feel that that has happened, in this case.[35]
Recommendation 1
1.68Australian Greens Senators recommend that the Bill not be supported.
Recommendation 2
1.69Australian Greens Senators recommend that the government ensure foundational supports be comprehensively defined and implemented in states and territories
Recommendation 3
1.70Australian Greens Senators recommend that the Government deliver a formal response to the NDIS Review.
1.71Once these actions have been undertaken, the Government can return to the question of amending the NDIS Act but with a commitment to true, authentic co-design with disabled people to achieve change that will meaningfully improve the lives of the many people who rely on the NDIS.
Senator Jordon Steele-John
Senator Penny Allman-Payne
Footnotes
[1]https://ministers.dss.gov.au/transcripts/15046
[2]Council for the Australian Federation, Submission 106.1, p. 3.
[3]Marayke Jonkers, People with Disabilities Australia (PWDA), Hearing 24 July
[4]Redbridge Report 4 https://dataresearch.ndis.gov.au/media/3966/download?attachment, page 4-5.
[5]NDIS Review Final Report , page 144
[6]NDIS Review Final Report, page 139.
[7]NDIS Review Final Report, page 139.
[8]Bruce Bonyhady, Hearing 24 July.
[9]Bruce Bonyhady, Hearing 24 July.
[10]Bruce Bonyhady, Answer to Question on Notice.
[11]Ms Robyn Shannon, Deputy Secretary, Disability and Carers Stream, Department of Social Services
[12]Mr Matthew Swainson, Acting Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Governance, Risk and Legal, National Disability Insurance Agency , Hearing 25 July
[13]Darryl Steff, Down Syndrome Australia, Hearing 24 July
[14]Robyn Shannon, Deputy Secretary, Disability and Carers Stream, Department of Social Services , Hearing 25 July
[15]https://ministers.dss.gov.au/media-releases/14816
[16]Question on notice, Budget Estimates
[17]https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/new-ndis-laws-needed-to-stop-claims-for-bird-seed-cuddle-therapy-shorten/news-story/fb4f256a7bbf0b1f6ec76799c7c8f4cc
[18]‘Cost of the taxpayer of the Liberal and the Greens delays of NDIS Reform. www.outoftouchwithcostofliving.com
[19]S. Wright, ‘Sex toys, taxidermy and Pauline Hanson: Inside Shorten’s rogue campaign’, in The Sydney Morning Herald. July 2024, www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/sex-toys-pauline-hanson-shorten-goes-rogue-with-insurgent-campaign-20240705-p5jrcz.html
[20]P. Marlborough, ‘Shorten teaming up with Hanson on the NDIS tacitly endorses her views of disability’, in Crikey. July 2024, www.crikey.com.au/2024/07/08/labor-bill-shorten-pauline-hanson-disability-ndis/
[21]B. Keane, ‘Hanson’s lock ‘em up disability strategy two decades old’, in Crikey. June 2017, www.crikey.com.au/2017/06/22/hansons-lock-em-up-disability-strategy-two-decades-old/
[22]J. Norman & e. Borrello, ‘Pauline Hanson under fire for ‘bigoted’ call to remove children with disabilities from mainstream classrooms’, in ABC News. June 2017. www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-21/pauline-hanson-under-fire-repulsive-bigoted-comments-autism/8640328
[23]NDIS: The Moviehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsHQQjVvPhg
[24]D. Lu, ‘One Nation video mocking NDIS condemned as ‘vile’ by disability advocates’, in The Guardian. April 2023, www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/apr/08/one-nation-video-mocking-ndis-condemned-as-vile-by-disability-advocates
[25]‘Scarlet Alliance and Touching Base statement on exclusion of access to sex work services under the NDIS’, in Scarlett News. July 2024, https://scarletalliance.org.au/scarlet-alliance-touching-base-statement-re-exclusion-of-access-to-sex-work-services-under-the-ndis/
[26]https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13500169/amp/NDIS-sex-worker-estelle-lucas-guide-access-funding.html
[27]J. Evans, ‘William uses NDIS funding to see sex workers. He says before that, isolation left him in ‘absolute despair’, in ABC News. July 2024, www.abc.net.au/news/2024-07-22/ndis-participant-sex-work-ban-fears-isolation/104085898
[28]NDIS Minister Bill Shorten, speaking to Sky News on Labor’s announcement of their plan to ban access to sex work services on the NDIS.
[29]Department of Social Services, ‘NDIS supports list - Supports that are not ‘NDIS supports’, August 2024, p.12. engage.dss.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/2024-08-02-draft-ndis-support-lists.pdf
[30]Australian Greens Dissenting Report
[31]Dr Darren O’Donovan, Hearing 24 July
[32]Miles Browne, Victorian Legal Aid, Hearing 24 July
[33]Darryl Steff, Down Syndrome Australia, Hearing 24th July
[34]Belinda Kockanowska, Intrepidus Law, Hearing 24 July.
[35]Dr George Taleporos, Every Australian Counts, Hearing 24 July
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024.
Senate
House of Representatives
Get informed
Bills
Committees
Get involved
Visit Parliament
Website features
Parliamentary Departments