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

Cox argued that the bill was necessary to address persistent gaps in safeguarding and enforcement, citing findings from the Community Affairs Legislation Committee. Cox stated that the legislation strengthened the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission's powers, introduced higher civil penalties, and created new criminal offences for egregious conduct. Cox highlighted the introduction of anti-promotional orders and a 90-day waiting time for those wishing to leave the scheme as key protections.

Steele-John stated that the Greens supported the bill but moved amendments to strengthen whistleblower protections, allowing anonymous disclosures and expanding coverage to former workers and participants. Steele-John proposed that the NDIA must consider privacy when requesting information from participants or providers. Steele-John also moved an amendment to restore the 'reasonable and necessary' supports definition, arguing that the current yes/no list was too restrictive, though noting this amendment was unlikely to be supported.

Thorpe moved an amendment to repeal changes made in 2024 that prevented individuals with certain criminal convictions from managing their own NDIS plans. Thorpe argued that these provisions disproportionately affected Aboriginal women and people with intellectual disabilities, stripping them of agency and contradicting the scheme's goals of self-management. Thorpe stated that the 2024 amendments entrenched a lack of second chances for criminalised people and forced reliance on institutional care.

Askew reaffirmed the Coalition's support for the NDIS and the bill's direction, particularly the increased penalties and anti-promotion powers. Askew expressed concern that the bill did not regulate the 94 per cent of unregistered providers, leaving a significant gap in fraud prevention. Askew supported the Coalition's amendment to restrict withdrawal requests to participants or plan nominees, arguing that the current draft undermined participant autonomy.

Mulholland argued that the government had restored integrity to the NDIS by investing in the Fraud Fusion Taskforce and increasing scrutiny of claims. Mulholland cited statistics showing a significant increase in warrants executed and prosecutions commenced under the current government compared to the previous administration. Mulholland stated that the bill introduced stronger penalty frameworks and banning orders to protect participants from violence, abuse, and neglect.

Hanson stated that One Nation supported the reforms as long overdue but argued that much more needed to be done to stop fraud and corruption. Hanson called for stricter eligibility limits, particularly regarding autism diagnoses, and criticised high pay rates for NDIS workers as unsustainable. Hanson argued that the government had not gone far enough in shutting down fraud, citing the large number of unregistered providers and the potential cost to taxpayers.

McKim requested that it be recorded that Senator Payman supported parts (a) and (f) of the Coalition's second reading amendment but opposed parts (b), (c), (d), and (e).