National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026; Second Reading

Berry supported the bill, arguing it was necessary to return the NDIS to its founding purpose of assisting those with permanent and significant disability. Berry cited the scheme's unsustainable growth and fraud issues, noting that spending on community supports had tripled to $12 billion annually. Berry highlighted that the reforms were based on independent reviews and aimed to strengthen provider registration and NDIA investigative powers to combat noncompliance. Berry emphasised that securing the scheme's future was essential to protect it for generations to come.

Pike opposed the bill, criticising the government for allowing costs to drift before implementing blunt cuts that would remove approximately 160,000 participants. Pike expressed concern that the functional capacity reassessments lacked detail and that the bill did not sufficiently tackle fraud or address pricing issues. Pike advocated for a tiered registration system and suggested recycling previous coalition work on digital payments rather than starting anew. Pike urged stakeholders to submit to the Senate inquiry, noting the coalition would propose amendments to ensure reforms were implemented correctly.

Georganas supported the bill, describing it as a vital step to restore the NDIS's integrity and sustainability. Georganas argued that without reform, the scheme risked collapse, which would undermine the support available to people with disability. Georganas highlighted the bill's focus on clearer eligibility, stronger governance, and improved planning frameworks to ensure fairness and accountability. Georganas stressed that the reforms were designed to protect the scheme from misuse while maintaining its core promise of dignity and independence for participants.

Haines expressed mixed views, supporting fraud measures but raising concerns about the bill's impact on regional access and ministerial powers. Haines intended to move amendments to prevent funding reductions for daily living activities and to ensure alternative supports were genuinely accessible. Haines criticised the lack of transparency in pricing advice and automated decision-making processes, arguing that the bill did not adequately address the realities of service delivery in rural areas. Haines urged the government to consider constructive amendments to ensure the scheme remained responsive to participant needs.

Briskey strongly supported the bill, attributing the NDIS crisis to previous Coalition stewardship and highlighting the government's efforts to reduce cost growth from 22 per cent to 10 per cent. Briskey outlined five key areas addressed by the bill: access and eligibility, fraud reduction, planning improvements, governance and pricing, and transitional arrangements. Briskey argued that securing the NDIS was essential for cost-of-living relief and economic stability, ensuring the scheme remained sustainable for future generations. Briskey commended the bill as a responsible step to protect the rights and dignity of people with disability.

Boele argued that while reform was necessary for sustainability, the bill risked shifting costs to unprepared state systems and lacked sufficient transparency. Boele expressed concern that removing approximately 160,000 people from the scheme would not eliminate their needs but transfer them to families and health services. Boele moved an amendment requiring minimum consultation periods and disability impact statements before new rules were made, citing the need to uphold the principle of 'nothing about us without us'. Boele also highlighted administrative failures, noting that over $60 million was spent on tribunal cases where participants won 73 per cent of the time, and warned against automated decision-making without robust human oversight.

Neumann supported the bill, stating that the NDIS had grown to nearly four times its initial projected cost and required urgent reform to prevent further blowouts. Neumann highlighted the role of the Fraud Fusion Taskforce in identifying criminal activities and argued that stricter provider registration and civil penalties were essential to deter fraud. Neumann noted that social and community participation funding had tripled in five years, necessitating a reset to ensure the scheme remained focused on significant and permanent disabilities. Neumann emphasised that $6 billion was being allocated to rebuild local community supports and that changes would be implemented in consultation with states and territories.

Le supported integrity measures but argued the bill failed to account for the barriers faced by culturally and linguistically diverse communities. Le contended that the new functional capacity assessments, which disregarded environmental factors, would disadvantage those with language barriers or complex circumstances. Le expressed concern that redirecting people to health and school systems was unrealistic given existing pressures on hospitals and GPs. Le moved an amendment calling on the government to ensure reforms did not impose additional burdens on culturally and linguistically diverse participants, noting that guaranteed individual funding was being replaced by a general pool with unclear distribution.

Coker argued the bill was essential to safeguard the NDIS from fraud, non-compliance, and exploitation, citing evidence from the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS. Coker highlighted that the government had invested over $1.35 billion in integrity measures, including a digital payment system and strengthened investigative powers. Coker noted that unscheduled plan reassessments were a major driver of cost growth and that the bill would clarify eligibility and the definition of reasonable and necessary supports. Coker emphasised that these reforms were designed to ensure the scheme remained sustainable and focused on its original intent of supporting those with permanent and significant disabilities.

Chaney stated that while reform was necessary, the bill as drafted failed to ensure sustainability without removing genuine support. Chaney highlighted community concerns about the new functional capacity assessments, particularly regarding episodic conditions and masking, and the risks of automated decision-making without adequate human oversight. Chaney moved an amendment calling for a legislative framework for automated decision-making, citing the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme's recommendations. Chaney argued that cuts to social and community participation funding were scheduled before foundational supports were operational, creating a gap in care.

Belyea supported the bill, arguing it addressed serious issues of fraud, administrative burden, and market imbalance between registered and unregistered providers. Belyea noted that compliant providers were struggling against unregistered operators who faced lower costs and less oversight. Belyea emphasised that the reforms aimed to restore the scheme to its original purpose of supporting those with permanent and significant disabilities. Belyea acknowledged the fear and confusion among participants but stressed that clear communication and consultation were critical to ensuring the reforms succeeded and maintained public confidence.

Aldred acknowledged the NDIS as a significant social reform but raised concerns about the shift to functional capacity assessments and the lack of clarity on alternative supports for those removed from the scheme. Aldred highlighted the strain on regional health services and the difficulty families faced in navigating the complex system. Aldred noted that nearly one in three constituents contacting her office sought help with NDIS-related issues, reflecting widespread anxiety about future support. Aldred argued that while integrity measures were necessary, the government needed to provide reassurance that supports would remain available and that regional communities would not be disadvantaged by the reforms.

lead

Miller-Frost argued that the bill secures the NDIS for future generations by addressing unsustainable cost growth and systemic fraud. Miller-Frost stated that the reforms would reduce projected 2030 expenditure from over $70 billion to $55 billion and limit participant numbers to 600,000, aligning with the scheme's original purpose. Miller-Frost highlighted the introduction of functional capacity assessments to replace diagnosis-based eligibility and the establishment of the Thriving Kids program for children with low to moderate support needs. Miller-Frost emphasized new safeguards, including mandatory registration for high-risk providers, digital payment systems to prevent cash kickbacks, and stricter criteria for unscheduled plan reassessments to stop exploitation by intermediaries.

Jordan-Baird argued that the reforms address unsustainable growth and fraud by clarifying eligibility and limiting unscheduled reassessments to prevent funding inflation. Jordan-Baird highlighted the Thriving Kids initiative to support children with developmental delays who were not the original target of the NDIS. Jordan-Baird emphasized that the bill strengthens participant safety by expanding mandatory provider registration and increasing penalties for misconduct, ensuring the scheme remains viable for future generations.

Sharkie described the NDIS as a policy disaster plagued by fraud and an excessive number of unregistered providers. Sharkie supported integrity measures but argued the government should focus on tendering services to reputable organizations rather than cutting participants. Sharkie expressed concern that the new functional capacity threshold would render many ineligible without adequate alternative supports, noting that the previous government had also attempted independent assessments.

Zappia argued that the scheme had been badly administered under the previous government, leading to participant numbers doubling the original projections. Zappia supported the bill's measures to define functional capacity, register providers, and grant the NDIA stronger investigative powers to combat fraud and malpractice. Zappia stated that these changes were necessary to ensure financial sustainability and clarity for all parties involved in the scheme.

Chaffey argued that the bill's funding cuts would harm vulnerable participants in regional areas, citing specific cases where reduced social participation funding threatened independence. Chaffey criticized the lack of detail in the new assessment process and the potential for automated decision-making without human oversight. Chaffey stated that while integrity measures were necessary, the government should target scammers rather than reducing support for legitimate participants and providers.

Holzberger commended the Labor government's efforts to get the NDIS back on track after years of alleged mismanagement by the Liberal Party. Holzberger highlighted the high number of participants in his electorate and the difficulties families face in accessing services. His speech was interrupted before he could elaborate further on the bill's provisions.