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

Waters condemned the bill as cruel and argued that the government was raising revenue by cutting supports for disabled people rather than taxing corporations or export gas. Waters highlighted the risk of permanent isolation for participants due to cuts in social and community participation funding, which she described as life-giving support. Waters urged the Liberal Party to vote against the bill and called on the government to withdraw it immediately, stating that the legislation was unfixable and harmful.

Pocock acknowledged the need for reform and sustainability but criticized the bill for granting ministers unprecedented power to cut funding with minimal safeguards. Pocock raised concerns about the impact of cuts to social and community participation on the safety of isolated individuals, citing the case of Ann Marie Smith. Pocock argued that the bill lacked adequate scrutiny and that state and territory governments were not yet prepared to provide alternative supports. Pocock called for an extended inquiry to properly assess the unintended consequences of the reforms.

Liddle expressed concern that the bill would remove 241,000 people from the NDIS without clear details on who would be affected, particularly in remote areas like Groote Eylandt. Liddle criticized the government for failing to address fraud effectively and for imposing arbitrary cuts to community supports that caused fear among participants. Liddle argued that the legislation lacked sufficient consultation and that the government had failed to control the scheme's growth despite previous promises. Liddle called for an extended inquiry and urged the government to rethink the approach to ensure sustainability without harming vulnerable people.

Allman-Payne supported the motion to withdraw the bill, arguing that it prioritized budget savings over the well-being of disabled people. Allman-Payne drew parallels with issues in aged care, suggesting that cuts would lead to increased hospital admissions and poor mental health outcomes. Allman-Payne criticized the government for using fraud narratives to manufacture consent for cuts and for granting ministers unfettered power to reduce supports in the future. Allman-Payne urged the coalition not to support the bill and called for genuine co-design with the disability community.

minister

Green moved that the question be put immediately. The motion was agreed to by the Senate, concluding the debate.

Pocock argued that the bill would remove services from approximately 241,000 disabled people, causing a loss of independence and increasing pressure on carers, particularly women. Pocock stated that the government had alternatives to funding these cuts, such as taxing gas corporations, closing loopholes for wealthy investors, and addressing corporate tax avoidance by large firms like KPMG. Pocock cited evidence from Senate inquiries and constituent stories to illustrate the severe personal and economic impacts of the proposed changes.

McKim described the legislation as the largest single cut to a Commonwealth program in history, asserting it would force reassessments that could remove life-saving supports from around 240,000 participants. McKim argued that the government had chosen to prioritise AUKUS submarine funding and avoid taxing the wealthy and fossil fuel companies over supporting disabled Australians. McKim called on the Liberal Party to join the Greens in voting down the bill, emphasising the positive contributions disabled people make to society.