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

Ananda-Rajah argued that the NDIS is vital social infrastructure but requires reform to ensure long-term sustainability, citing projected costs of $100 billion by 2035. Ananda-Rajah explained that the bill shifts eligibility from diagnosis to functional needs to reduce inconsistency and diagnostic inflation. Ananda-Rajah highlighted new integrity measures, including mandatory registration for high-risk providers and stronger powers for the NDIA to combat fraud. Ananda-Rajah also introduced the Thriving Kids program and the Inclusive Communities Fund as alternative supports for those exiting the scheme.

Steele-John strongly opposed the bill, arguing it betrays the disability community by prioritising corporate interests over participant needs. Steele-John claimed the reforms remove core principles such as reasonable and necessary supports, individualised care, and choice and control. Steele-John asserted that the government could fund the scheme by taxing gas exporters rather than cutting supports. Steele-John warned that the changes would return disability support to a postcode lottery and increase isolation and risk for vulnerable people.

Liddle affirmed coalition support for the NDIS but criticised the bill for giving the minister sweeping powers to reduce funding without sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. Liddle argued that the government has failed to meet previous growth targets and that the bill’s fraud measures are inadequate compared to the scale of the problem. Liddle highlighted concerns from state ministers about the lack of consultation and the risk of participants falling through the cracks if alternative supports are not ready. Liddle called for transparent criteria for ministerial determinations and stronger action against provider fraud.

Whiteaker defended the bill as necessary to protect the NDIS’s future, noting that growth has been reduced from 22 per cent to around 10 per cent. Whiteaker detailed new integrity measures, including a panel for plan managers and enforceable maximum prices to prevent overcharging. Whiteaker explained that eligibility changes aim to create fairer, more consistent access based on functional capacity, with implementation delayed until 2028 to allow for proper consultation. Whiteaker emphasised that the bill includes safeguards, such as protecting daily living supports and ensuring participant safety remains paramount.

Waters opposed the bill, arguing it risks significant harm by cutting supports without adequate alternative programs in place. Waters highlighted the disproportionate impact on women with disabilities, noting that reduced community participation increases isolation and vulnerability to violence and abuse. Waters criticised the government for failing to apply gender impact analysis to these cuts and for shifting unpaid care burdens onto families. Waters called for the government to tax gas exporters instead of reducing NDIS funding.

Cox commended the bill, stating that Labor is taking responsibility for ensuring the NDIS remains strong and sustainable. Cox argued that reforms are needed to combat fraud and ensure funding reaches genuine participants rather than dishonest operators. Cox highlighted specific initiatives in Western Australia, including the Joint Work Program and assistive technology pilots, to support participants. Cox emphasised that the bill clarifies eligibility and strengthens integrity measures to protect the scheme’s social licence.

Pocock expressed broad support for the bill’s intent to ensure sustainability but raised major concerns about the 50 per cent cut to social and community participation funds. Pocock argued this cut is arbitrary and unnecessary for achieving growth targets, citing analysis that shows growth could be controlled without it. Pocock also criticised the inclusion of automated decision-making powers, warning of the risks of algorithmic errors and lack of appeal rights. Pocock called for safeguards to be in place before these provisions commence and highlighted concerns about the readiness of foundational supports.

Faruqi argued the bill was cruel and would cause harm to disabled people by cutting social participation funding and imposing strict treatment exhaustion requirements. Faruqi claimed the government prioritised corporate donors and defence spending over disability care, ignoring warnings from the Senate inquiry. Faruqi stated that the cuts would shift costs to the healthcare and justice systems and undermine the independence of participants.

Allman-Payne criticised the lack of co-design with the disability community and the use of automated assessments, drawing parallels to issues in aged care. Allman-Payne argued that the cuts would force family members, particularly women, out of the labour market to provide unpaid care, costing 94 million hours annually. Allman-Payne foreshadowed a second reading amendment opposing automated decision-making and stated the bill removed dignity and choice from participants.

Pocock described the bill as dangerous and unnecessary, noting it would remove 241,000 people from the scheme by 2031 and risk 51,641 jobs in the support sector. Pocock highlighted concerns from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Australian Human Rights Commission regarding rights violations. Pocock foreshadowed an amendment calling for the bill's withdrawal, arguing that gas export taxes could fund the scheme without cutting supports.

Hodgins-May argued the bill abandoned children and families by removing supports before alternative services like Thriving Kids were ready. Hodgins-May contended that the concept of parental responsibility was being expanded to cover intensive care needs, disproportionately impacting women. Hodgins-May foreshadowed an amendment to discharge the bill, stating that only 13 per cent of savings came from fraud measures while the rest reduced participant budgets.

Shoebridge moved a second reading amendment calling on the government to withdraw the bill, citing serious human rights concerns and the lack of co-design. Shoebridge argued the government's statement of compatibility was misleading and that the bill granted sweeping ministerial powers while reducing oversight. Shoebridge claimed the fraud narrative was a distraction from budget cuts driven by corporate interests and defence spending.

McKim emphasised the voices of disabled people and their parents, who warned that cuts would lead to isolation and institutionalisation. McKim argued the bill was a political choice to punch down on vulnerable groups rather than taxing the wealthy or reducing AUKUS spending. McKim foreshadowed a second reading amendment, stating the legislation would reverse progress made by the NDIS.

Thorpe argued the bill would disproportionately harm First Nations people with disability by ignoring kinship networks and cultural safety. Thorpe stated that requirements to exhaust treatments and strict contact rules would exclude remote communities lacking resources. Thorpe foreshadowed an amendment, claiming the bill breached human rights and failed to consult adequately with First Nations organisations.