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

Ryan opposed the bill, arguing that the reforms were unfair and would disproportionately impact vulnerable Australians. Ryan criticised the shift to functional capacity assessments, noting that the assessment tool did not yet exist and that the 2021 trial had failed. Ryan highlighted concerns about the new definition of permanent disability, which required exhausting all treatments, and the removal of consideration for comorbidities. Ryan moved an amendment to refer the bill to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, citing inadequate consultation timeframes.

France supported the bill, emphasising that the NDIS required structural change to remain safe, equitable, and sustainable. France argued that the current system was riddled with fraud and inequity, particularly in regional areas where providers were scarce. France highlighted that the bill addressed recommendations from the disability royal commission and independent reviews, including clearer definitions of reasonable and necessary supports. France noted that the reforms would introduce civil penalties for fraud and improve regulation of plan managers and support coordinators.

Price opposed the bill, citing the anxiety and uncertainty caused by the lack of clarity and consultation. Price shared the story of a constituent whose son relied on the NDIS, highlighting the stress families faced due to bureaucratic delays and potential changes. Price argued that the administrative burden of reassessing over 760,000 participants between 2028 and 2030 would be overwhelming. Price called for genuine consultation and a transition plan that did not leave people in limbo, warning that fiscal targets must not overshadow participant wellbeing.

Claydon supported the bill, describing the NDIS as one of Australia's greatest social reforms that required protection for future generations. Claydon argued that responsible reform was necessary to maintain public confidence and address issues such as fraud and inconsistent administration. Claydon emphasised that the reforms were based on evidence from the independent review and disability royal commission. Claydon urged parliamentarians to avoid politicising the issue and to focus on preserving the scheme's social licence and sustainability.

Small opposed the bill, arguing that it did not go far enough to address fraud and that savings had already been spent without clear implementation details. Small cited examples of families struggling to access supports and facing legal battles with the NDIA. Small expressed concern that the new eligibility criteria lacked operational detail, causing fear among participants about their future access. Small warned that the government's failure to meet previous growth targets made the proposed two per cent growth rate unlikely, risking intergenerational fairness.

lead

Freelander supported the bill, arguing it secures the NDIS for future generations by addressing inconsistent access and unsustainable costs. Freelander highlighted the importance of clarifying functional capacity assessments and resetting funding for specific support categories to prevent cost blowouts. Freelander expressed concern about a single assessment tool potentially missing nuances in rural areas but remained confident in the scheme's long-term viability. Freelander emphasised the need for evidence-based policies and stronger oversight to combat fraud and ensure transparency in pricing.

Thompson argued that recent changes have caused service closures, such as the AEIOU school in Townsville, leaving families without early intervention supports. Thompson stated that his daughter’s NDIS plan had been cut, forcing him to fund additional support privately, and warned that delays in reviews cause children to regress. Thompson called for targeting fraudsters rather than cutting services and advocated for reducing bureaucratic burdens, such as requiring annual reports for permanent conditions. Thompson emphasised the need for human oversight in automated decisions and clear communication about transitional programs like Thriving Kids.

Byrnes supported the bill, stating it returns the NDIS to its original intent by addressing fraud, unsustainable cost growth, and unclear eligibility. Byrnes noted that spending is projected to blow out by $13 billion over four years without reform, risking community confidence. Byrnes highlighted investments in foundational supports, including a $6 billion commitment and the Thriving Kids initiative, to complement NDIS reforms. Byrnes argued that mandatory registration for high-risk providers and clearer definitions of reasonable and necessary supports would improve safety and integrity.

Webster stated that while the coalition supports the NDIS, the current system is unsustainable and requires accountability. Webster highlighted workforce shortages in regional areas and cases where participants faced eviction or inadequate support ratios due to funding gaps. Webster argued that 94 per cent of unregistered providers poses a risk and called for mandatory registration and auditing. Webster suggested expanding early intervention programs like Miracle Babies NurtureGroup to reduce future NDIS demand and prevent families from reaching crisis points.

Wallace argued that the NDIS has drifted from its original intent, with costs rising to $50 billion annually and participant numbers exceeding projections. Wallace noted that many constituents report fraud and bureaucratic burdens, while some providers are leaving the sector due to excessive red tape. Wallace warned that without structural reform, the scheme could become unaffordable, potentially leading to its collapse. Wallace emphasised the need to crack down on fraud without making it impossible for legitimate providers to operate, particularly in rural areas.

Venning argued that the NDIS financial trajectory is unsustainable, with costs spiralling due to fraud and exploitation by providers. Venning stated that the government has failed to manage the budget effectively, ignoring warning signs and delaying decisive action. Venning supported the bill’s intent to restore integrity and target funding to those most in need but called for stronger enforcement and resources. Venning emphasised the need to integrate the NDIS with mainstream services to reduce reliance on the scheme for all support needs.

Landry stated that the coalition supports the NDIS but criticised the government’s management and lack of clarity on eligibility changes. Landry highlighted concerns that reassessments from 2028 could leave participants without support if alternative services are not adequately developed. Landry noted warnings from providers that brief assessments may not capture complex psychosocial disabilities and that plan changes could harm vulnerable individuals. Landry argued that reforms must target fraud without penalising honest participants and providers, ensuring sustainability does not come at the expense of care quality.

McCormack criticised the budget's impact on veterans, noting the Department of Veterans' Affairs would limit allied health expenditure to $5,000 for each veteran every year from July 2027. McCormack argued this change, bundled with fee increases to NDIS rates, left veterans uncertain and unsupported. McCormack described the NDIS as chaotic and called for a full audit to target fraudsters rather than cutting supports for vulnerable participants.

Watson-Brown opposed the bill, citing $37.8 billion in cuts and changes to the definition of permanent disability that require exhausting all medical treatments first. Watson-Brown warned that 160,000 participants could be removed from the scheme with unclear alternative supports. Watson-Brown argued the bill enabled broad funding reductions for social and community participation, harming mental health and workforce participation, and failed to adequately target fraudulent providers.

Rebello supported the principle of the NDIS but argued the bill did not go far enough to restore integrity or address fraud, which he estimated cost between $2.9 billion and $4.8 billion annually. Rebello highlighted the lack of clarity in new assessment frameworks and the stress reassessments cause for families. Rebello called for stronger reform to tackle waste and fraud without abandoning participants, urging the government to reconsider its approach.

Birrell expressed concern that the bill introduces new eligibility thresholds and reassessment processes without defined rules, creating uncertainty for participants. Birrell warned that restricting supports to primary impairments could shift costs to the health system and that ministerial powers to reduce funding categories risked undermining independence. Birrell supported integrity measures but cautioned against automated decision-making and broad transitional rule-making powers, advocating for a Senate inquiry.

Penfold acknowledged the need for sustainability but argued the bill failed to adequately target organised fraud and criminal networks. Penfold raised concerns about ministerial powers to set funding caps and ratios, which she likened to rationing, and highlighted the distress caused by the Melmeth family case. Penfold warned that changes to the permanence test and reassessment rules lacked flexibility for changing circumstances and called for caution regarding broad rule-making powers.

Wilkie shared concerns from carer Clare Waiss regarding the medicalisation of disability access, arguing participants might be forced to pursue invasive treatments to prove permanence. Wilkie warned that cuts to social and community participation supports would isolate people with disability and harm the female-dominated workforce. Wilkie criticised the narrative around plan management fraud and argued the reforms risked shifting the scheme from inclusion to cost containment.

Violi highlighted the anxiety among constituents facing reassessments and funding cuts, noting the NDIS cost had risen to approximately $50 billion annually. Violi supported measures to address fraud, such as provider registration and digital payment controls, but argued the bill lacked detail and consultation. Violi called for a Senate inquiry to scrutinise the changes and ensure states were ready to provide alternative supports like the Thriving Kids program.

Scamps recognised the need for sustainability but argued core issues like ministerial powers to cut supports and unclear rules must be addressed first. Scamps cited examples of participants losing essential physiotherapy and community access funding, warning that broad ministerial discretion could lead to disastrous outcomes. Scamps called for more time to resolve legislative uncertainty and ensure alternative supports are funded and ready before removing participants from the NDIS.

Willcox affirmed coalition support for the NDIS but criticised the government's approach to cuts, arguing they risk hurting genuine participants. Willcox highlighted the scheme's unsustainable cost trajectory, estimating it would hit $70 billion by the decade's close, and raised concerns about the new functional capacity eligibility criteria causing anxiety among families. Willcox emphasised the need to combat fraud and provider exploitation, noting that unregistered operators were draining funds from vulnerable participants, while warning that exiting participants could overwhelm already strained health systems.

Steggall supported necessary reforms such as fraud controls and provider accountability but argued the bill moved too fast without adequate infrastructure or independent modelling. Steggall raised serious concerns about the I-CAN automated assessment system, calling for transparency, qualified assessors, and human override mechanisms to prevent algorithmic errors. Steggall warned that foundational supports like the Inclusive Communities Fund were underfunded compared to the scale of participants being transitioned, and she announced three amendments to broaden reassessment triggers, require ministerial consideration of individual impacts, and make funding reductions reviewable.

Kennedy shared a constituent's story to illustrate the human impact of potential cuts to community access supports, arguing that such supports are essential for wellbeing, not luxuries. Kennedy agreed that fraud and provider exploitation must be stopped but insisted that reforms should target bad actors rather than restricting flexibility for families with profound disabilities. Kennedy questioned the timing of the reforms, suggesting they were designed to improve budget estimates ahead of an election, and expressed concern that the government had not yet developed the detailed eligibility rules, leaving families in uncertainty.

Spender acknowledged the urgent need for reform due to the scheme's unsustainable cost growth but expressed significant concerns about implementation risks. Spender highlighted the lack of ready alternative services for those exiting the NDIS, particularly for children transitioning to Thriving Kids and adults with psychosocial disabilities. Spender raised issues with automated decision-making, the requirement for participants to undergo all available treatments before access, and the adequacy of consultation, arguing that rushed processes erode trust. Spender stated she would support the principles of reform but would closely monitor the rollout to ensure participants are not abandoned.

Hamilton argued that the NDIS had lost public confidence due to spiralling costs and design flaws, noting that he had previously warned about unsustainable growth rates. Hamilton supported the government's reform efforts, stating that a law-and-order approach was needed to combat fraud and misuse of funds. Hamilton acknowledged the anxiety among constituents but expressed willingness to work with the government to address concerns, emphasising that without reform, the scheme would collapse and fail those it was intended to help.

Joyce described the NDIS as completely unsustainable, arguing that it had expanded far beyond its original intent to support catastrophic disabilities. Joyce called for a strict budget cap and severe cuts to bring the scheme under control, warning that continued growth would lead to financial collapse. Joyce criticised the lack of bipartisan cooperation in the past and argued that compassion must be balanced with fiscal responsibility, urging the government to make hard decisions to protect the scheme's future.

Leeser shared a constituent's story to highlight the importance of adequate support for children with severe disabilities and urged the disability community to participate in the Senate inquiry. Leeser broadly supported the bill's aim to ensure sustainability but criticised the government's track record of missing growth targets and the lack of detail in the new eligibility rules. Leeser warned that exiting participants could overwhelm the health system and called for stronger action against fraud, stating the coalition would support the bill but hold the government accountable for implementation.

minister

Butler acknowledged the shared pride in the NDIS as a monumental reform enacted over a decade ago. Butler recognised the deep community concern that the scheme had deviated from its original track and required substantial change to be secured for the long term. Butler thanked members for their contributions and noted that personal stories shared during the debate must remain central to the ongoing parliamentary discussion.

shadow minister

Tehan emphasised the coalition's bipartisan support for the NDIS while stressing the urgent need for financial sustainability. Tehan noted that participant numbers had grown from an expected 410,000 to over 760,000, driving unsustainable expenditure. Tehan welcomed the bill's shift from diagnosis-based to functional capacity-based eligibility and restrictions on unscheduled plan reassessments, but urged the government to ensure future regulations protected genuine participants while removing bad actors.

Gee argued that while the NDIS needed to be sustainable and free of fraud, the proposed changes raised serious concerns among constituents. Gee cited letters from participants with conditions such as Spina Bifida and Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, who feared that shifting to functional capacity assessments would deny them essential support due to the dynamic nature of their disabilities. Gee urged the government to listen to lived experiences and ensure genuine participants were not disadvantaged by the reforms.

Wilson criticised the government for allowing the NDIS to become a target for fraud and organised crime, arguing that the bill targeted participants rather than addressing corruption. Wilson shared constituent concerns about reduced support, lack of leniency, and poor communication from the NDIA, including issues with interpreter services for refugees. Wilson asserted that the government's approach prioritised cutting costs for vulnerable Australians while failing to adequately tackle systemic fraud.

Caldwell highlighted the unsustainability of the NDIS, noting that costs had risen significantly and growth targets had not been met. Caldwell cited the closure of the AEIOU Foundation's Gold Coast centre as an example of the funding model's failure to support worthy recipients. Caldwell supported the bill's measures to strengthen safeguards against fraud, noting that nearly 94 per cent of providers were currently unregistered, and affirmed the coalition's commitment to working with the government to ensure the scheme's long-term viability.

McKenzie detailed the bill's provisions to strengthen fraud controls, including civil penalties and expanded information-gathering powers. McKenzie shared constituent stories illustrating systemic inefficiencies, such as delays in approving essential equipment for a child with cerebral palsy, and highlighted reports of significant fraud and overcharging by providers. McKenzie argued that while the bill attempted to curb bad actors, more robust mechanisms were needed to protect public confidence and ensure taxpayer funds reached those in genuine need.