National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding) Bill 2025; Second Reading

Holzberger supported the bill, noting the government had reduced NDIS growth from 22 per cent to a target of eight per cent. Holzberger criticised the previous government for mismanaging the scheme's expansion and highlighted anecdotal evidence of predatory provider behaviour, such as offering cashbacks. Holzberger argued that the current government was reviewing more fraud claims daily than the previous administration did in a year, attributing this to increased investment in systems and staff.

Ryan supported the strengthening of the NDIS Commission's powers but expressed concern over the bill granting the NDIA CEO power to vary participant plans without reassessment. Ryan argued this administrative discretion lacked sufficient procedural safeguards and transparency, potentially disadvantaging participants. Ryan also raised concerns about the new I-CAN assessment tool, questioning whether reducing complex needs to binomial scores would ensure fair and consistent outcomes.

France argued the bill addressed a profound lack of compliance measures inherited from the previous government, which had left the scheme vulnerable to fraud and abuse. France highlighted the establishment of the Fraud Fusion Taskforce and the introduction of tougher penalties and banning orders for auditors and consultants. France stated the reforms would move the regulator from a reactive to a preventive stance, protecting participants and restoring public trust in the scheme.

Wilson welcomed the bill but argued it was insufficient to address the scale of fraud and corruption, estimating up to $5 billion in losses. Wilson criticised the centralised design of the NDIS for failing to detect fraud effectively and highlighted the role of community watchdogs in identifying suspicious providers. Wilson contended that the government was not taking organised crime targeting the scheme seriously enough and linked this to broader fiscal concerns.

Cook supported the bill, citing a significant increase in fraud enforcement actions, including warrants and prosecutions, compared to the previous government. Cook argued that moderating scheme growth did not mean cutting individual plans, noting that reassessed plans were more likely to increase than decrease. Cook emphasised that the reforms would create a high-tensile steel wall against scammers while protecting honest local providers.

Pike stated the coalition would support the bill but highlighted concerns about the scheme's sustainability, with growth at 10.3 per cent against a government target of eight per cent. Pike noted that a large proportion of his casework involved participants whose plans had been cut, contradicting claims that overall plan values were rising. Pike argued that the government needed a realistic plan to bring costs under control to ensure the scheme's long-term viability.