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

Colbeck noted that the committee was considering the amendments moved by Senator Steele-John. Colbeck did not provide further substantive argument in this segment of the transcript.

McCarthy affirmed the government's commitment to the long-term sustainability of the NDIS, distinguishing between the cost of the scheme and the value of disabled people. McCarthy argued that honest conversations about challenges were necessary to maintain the scheme's social licence and ensure it remained a viable human rights achievement.

Pocock supported the intent of the reforms for sustainability but opposed the indiscriminate 50 per cent cut to social and community participation funding, citing risks of isolation and abuse. Pocock questioned how the government would assess safety impacts and whether reassessments would remove older participants from the scheme. Pocock also raised concerns about the transparency of automated decision-making algorithms, referencing the robodebt royal commission recommendations.

minister

Senator McAllister argued that the reforms ensure the scheme's long-term sustainability and social licence, noting that current projections suggest costs could reach $100 billion annually. McAllister clarified that functional capacity assessments would be developed with expert advice and that pricing powers are standard for major social programs, aiming to align NDIS rates with other sectors. Regarding immunity, she stated the amendments protect participant privacy while allowing regulators to compel providers to produce documents during fraud or safety investigations. McAllister maintained that the permanence requirement already exists in current rules and that the bill merely clarifies that appropriate treatments must be pursued before accessing the scheme.

Senator Steele-John argued that the proposed functional capacity assessment ignored environmental and social contexts, effectively masking a process to reduce funding. Steele-John criticised the grant of pricing powers to the minister, warning that it threatened the viability of small allied health businesses and ignored recommendations for an independent price-setting body. Steele-John contended that the bill's permanence rules failed to account for individual circumstances and personal choice regarding medical treatments, using his own experience with cerebral palsy as an example.

Senator Roberts questioned the government amendment IC116 revised, which inserted immunity provisions for certain officials and providers. Roberts expressed concern that these provisions could prevent Senate estimates from seeking information or documents, thereby reducing accountability for fraud or misconduct. Roberts asked whether the immunity applied to personal details only and whether redaction processes could be used instead to maintain openness while protecting privacy.