Jo Briskey (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In 2023, the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability delivered its final report after four years of hearings. More than 8,000 people gave evidence to the commission. What it documented was not a story of a compassionate nation falling short in isolated cases; it was a systemic account of how Australians with disability had been, in the commission's own words, too often treated as though their lives mattered less. It heard from people who had been restrained, secluded and medicated into compliance. It heard from families who had fought year after year for basic supports that should never have been in question. It heard from people with disability who said with striking consistency that the NDIS, for all its imperfections, had been the first time the system that had looked at them and said, 'Your life has value and your needs are worth meeting.' That testimony is the foundation on which this bill rests. That foundation is the voices of people with disability who told a royal commission what it means to have a scheme that works and what it costs in human terms when it does not.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 is built on Labor values of fairness, sustainability and an unshakeable belief that Australians with permanent and significant disability deserve more than good intentions and motherhood statements. They deserve a scheme that will be there for them in 10, 20 or even 30 years time.

The truth of what the coalition left behind explains everything about why this bill is needed and is before the House today. For nearly a decade, the coalition presided over an NDIS in crisis—a crisis that was manufactured by them. They were handed one of the most significant social reforms in Australia's history, and then they ran it into the ground. The Gillard Labor government built the NDIS on a simple moral conviction that disability should not determine destiny. The coalition inherited that conviction and treated it as an inconvenience.

Under those opposite, NDIS annual growth cost reached 22 per cent—not 22 per cent over a decade, but 22 per cent per year—with no coherent plan to slow it, with no serious action on fraud, with no credible workforce strategy and, crucially, no accountability for the billions of dollars flowing to a largely unregistered, largely unregulated provider market. That uncontrolled growth meant the scheme was increasingly captured by bad actors—providers charging for services not delivered and support workers with no qualifications and no checks. It gave rise to complex financial arrangements designed to extract money from vulnerable people rather than support them. The fraud was not at the margins. According to the National Disability Insurance Agency's own assessments, billions of dollars were lost to rorting and waste.

Yet—this is the part that should shame every member opposite—the coalition did almost nothing. They commissioned reviews that they did not implement. They announced crackdowns that they did not enforce. They stood in this chamber and spoke of their commitment to people with disability while the scheme they were responsible for was being looted in broad daylight. Meanwhile, participants, people in my community, were stuck in planning processes that took months. They were fighting decisions that defied reason and receiving supports that often fell far short of what they needed.

The coalition talked about the NDIS. Labor built it. And now, with this bill, Labor is securing it for every Australian who will need it in the decades to come. When we came to government in May 2022, we made an immediate commitment that we would fix the NDIS—not dismantle it, not hollow it out, but fix it—because it is too important and the Australians who depend on it are too important to do anything less.

We established the independent review into the NDIS, led by Bruce Bonyhady and Lisa Paul. We commissioned it not as a stalling exercise but as a genuine reckoning, an honest look at what had gone wrong and what needed to change. The review consulted with thousands of people with disability and their families, carers, providers and advocates. Its findings were sobering, but its recommendations were clear. At the time the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability delivered its final report, a devastating account of systemic failures that had gone unaddressed for far too long, we committed to acting on its recommendations, and we are.

We have already brought NDIS cost growth down from 22 per cent to 10 per cent. This is the result of serious, deliberate work, cracking down on fraud, improving processes, strengthening compliance and beginning the hard work of building a better regulated market. At the January 2026 National Cabinet meeting, all governments agreed to work together to bring growth down further to between five and six per cent or lower. This is an historic commitment because it means the states and territories, for the first time ever, are genuinely invested partners in the NDIS's long-term success.

We have done all of this while simultaneously delivering the largest investment in foundational disability supports in Australia's history. It's because we understand that the NDIS works best when it sits within a broader ecosystem of community services and early intervention. We are building that ecosystem. The coalition never bothered to try.

I want to dwell on something that sometimes gets lost in the technical debate about the scheme's sustainability: securing the NDIS is cost-of-living relief. It is also good for our economy. When the NDIS works as it should, as it is intended, it does not just support the person with a disability. It means a mum can return to work because her child support is funded. It means a carer does not have to choose between their own health and their parent's dignity. It means a family does not spend their savings, their superannuation or their retirement on care costs that should be covered by the scheme that they have paid taxes into their entire working lives.

The cost pressures Australian families are facing right now are tough. We know this, and that is why our government has been relentless in delivering real cost-of-living relief, like cheaper medicines, more bulk-billing and tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer. The NDIS is part of that broader relief package. A scheme that works for the people who rely on it, that is funded sustainably for its long-term future and that delivers quality, tailored support is cost-of-living relief for tens of thousands of families across this country who are holding things together because the NDIS is there for them. But a scheme that collapses under unsustainable growth or, worse, a scheme that is gutted by future governments because the politics of fiscal repair demand it would be a catastrophe not just for people with disability but for every family that depends on it. That is why this bill matters. It is our responsibility to ensure the future of the NDIS is one grounded in care and support and one that is sustainable.

This bill is the next major step in our plan to secure the NDIS for future generations. It has been carefully constructed and is evidence based. It has been developed in close consultation with people with disability and the disability community because Labor understands that nothing about the NDIS should be done without consulting those who rely on it.

The bill addresses five key areas. The first is access and eligibility. The bill clarifies the criteria by which Australians can access the NDIS, restoring the scheme to its original purpose: supporting people with permanent and significant disability. This is not about restricting the scheme; it is about ensuring that the people who need it most can always access it, and that the scheme is not drawn into areas better served by other parts of our health and social services system. Clearer eligibility means fairer outcomes.

The second is tackling fraud and rorting. The bill strengthens provider registration requirements, increases compliance powers and establishes stronger accountability frameworks across the market. We are sending a clear message here: if you are in the NDIS to exploit vulnerable people and extract public money, this government will find you, and you will face the consequences. The fraud and rorting that flourished under those opposite ends here.

The third is planning. The bill introduces new framework planning arrangements that put participants at the centre of their own plans—plans that are more responsive and more focused on outcomes. Planning should not be an ordeal; it should be a genuine conversation about what a person needs to live a good life. My office has heard from people in my community on the NDIS that often contact us because the red tape is just too much to juggle along with caring arrangements, and, for many, they just reach their limit. This bill seeks to make their lives easier.

The fourth is governance and pricing. The bill improves the governance arrangements around pricing decisions within the scheme, ensuring that pricing is transparent, fair and drives quality. Providers who deliver excellent support should be rewarded; providers who deliver poor support at inflated prices should not be.

The fifth is transitional arrangements. The bill includes careful provisions to manage the transition to a new framework, protecting existing participants and ensuring no-one falls through the cracks as reforms are implemented. Despite what others have said, we are not pulling the rug out from under anyone. We are building a stronger floor.

I want to return to where I began—to the royal commission, to more than 8,000 people who gave their testimony, often at great personal cost, because they wanted to make a difference. That commission found systemic failures across governance, across institutions and across decades, but it also found something else: Australians with disability are not asking for sympathy, they are simply asking for a system that works, one that is there when they need it, with support that is real, not promised, and a future that they can plan for.

Labor built the NDIS. We built it because we believe in a country where the circumstances of your birth, including the presence of disability, should not determine or limit your life. We built it because we believe in an Australia that is grounded in fairness and kindness, and we are reforming the NDIS now, with this bill, because that belief carries with it responsibility not just to build something good but also to protect it, to make sure it lasts, to make sure it is still there, stronger, better and fairer for the next generation of Australians who will need it. The coalition had their chance to be stewards of this scheme. They squandered it. This government will not make the same mistake. We are making the tough decisions that the moment demands and with the care that Australians with disability deserve. I commend the bill to the House.

Nicolette Boele (Bradfield, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this bill to reform the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The NDIS is not just another government program. It is critical social infrastructure. It keeps vulnerable Australians safe, enables community participation and strengthens our social fabric. It is also one of the issues that I hear most about from my constituents—families, carers and participants in my electorate rely on the NDIS every single day. Unfortunately, many of them are struggling to navigate it. Yet, despite these challenges, Australians overwhelmingly value the NDIS. It reflects something fundamental, I think, about who we are—that Australia does not leave people behind.

Some reform is absolutely justified. The scheme is not operating as it was originally intended. It's designed to support people with significant and permanent disabilities. Over time, it has expanded beyond that remit. If we do nothing, we do risk undermining the financial sustainability and the social licence of the scheme, and that would be a bad outcome for current participants and for future generations who will depend on it. So the government is right to act to place the NDIS on a more sustainable footing and to refocus it on those with the greatest and most enduring needs. But acknowledging the need for reform does not mean we accept every aspect of how these reforms are being designed or implemented. It does not mean the government should sacrifice what makes the NDIS so valuable in the first place in the name of the cost savings.

The question for this parliament is how to reform the NDIS fairly, transparently and without causing harm. Along with my colleagues on the crossbench, I share significant concerns about some of the specific reforms proposed in the bill. We're proposing a number of amendments to this bill, derived through consultation with NDIS participants, experts and disability organisations. The member for Kooyong, Dr Monique Ryan, has demonstrated particular leadership on this issue, and I commend her for her work. I urge the government to work constructively to implement these changes.

One of the central concerns with this bill is that it risks shifting costs rather than addressing them. Reducing the number of people on the NDIS does not reduce the level of disability in Australia. It does not remove people's needs. It simply transfers those needs elsewhere—onto families, onto the health system and onto the state and territory governments. We're told that about 160,000 people may be removed from the scheme, but those individuals don't simply disappear because of changes to NDIS eligibility rules. They still require support. Now, it may well be appropriate for some people to receive that support through other less costly and more efficient systems. But these systems, these foundational supports, must actually exist, and there are real doubts about whether that is currently the case.

Over the past decade, many state based disability services were scaled back or dismantled after being replaced by the NDIS. Now we are asking those same systems to absorb thousands of people once again. Stakeholders including peak body People with Disability Australia have raised serious concerns that states and territories are not equipped to do this. There has been an announcement of joint funding from state and federal governments to help rebuild this capacity, but there's still very little detail about how it will operate, whether it's sufficient or how responsibilities will be formally shared. We cannot simply handball people from one system to another and hope for the best. These are not administrative units. These are Australians with complex needs deserving dignity and with lives which will be directly affected by the decisions that we make in this place. The government needs to ensure that the foundational supports and the services outside of the NDIS are fully designed, fully funded and operational before people are transitioned out of the scheme. In other words, it must ensure that no-one falls through the cracks.

Another concern is the level of transparency around the reforms. For such significant changes to a scheme of this scale, there has to be adequate engagement with the disability community and sufficient detail provided to stakeholders. Disability representative organisations have reported difficulty securing briefings, and there are reports of confusion and strain within the department itself.

At the same time, the pace of change is ambitious. Reforming a system as complex as the NDIS is not simply a matter of legislation. It requires careful design, coordination across jurisdictions and substantial administrative capacity. The government is attempting to do this, but it must not go too fast and risk sacrificing on these important considerations. The chaotic announcement and the continual delays in relation to the Thriving Kids program show just how difficult it is to hear and consider the range of experiences and perspectives that could help better shape a future system. For these reasons, I'm proposing an amendment to improve and ensure consultation on proposed legislative reforms to uphold the foundational mantra 'nothing about us without us'.

The bill leaves critical matters, including eligibility criteria, functional capacity assessments, assessment methodology and funding rules, to the future National Disability Insurance Scheme rules. Those rules will determine who can access the scheme and what supports they receive, yet the bill imposes no minimum consultation requirements before they are made—while simultaneously granting the minister significant new authority to control scheme costs, restructure participant planning and define support eligibility. This gap exists despite the independent NDIS Review calling for deep public consultation on the proposed reforms. My amendment fills that gap by requiring that the minister publish exposure drafts, consult with people in the disability community and representative organisations over a minimum of 28 days and publish both a summary of the feedback received and a disability impact statement before making rules of this kind. I sincerely hope the government will respond constructively and implement this amendment.

Beyond questions of funding and eligibility, we must also address the everyday experience of participants in the scheme, and this is where I hear the most frustration from my constituents. The NDIS has developed into a bureaucracy that's too rigid, that's too complex and that too often lacks common sense. People encounter administrative errors, such as incorrect plans, missing supports and simple clerical mistakes. These should be solved simply, but the system does not provide a straightforward way to fix them. Instead people are pushed into lengthy, costly and very stressful review processes. In too many cases, participants are forced to take matters to the Administrative Review Tribunal simply to correct what should have been basic administrative issues.

This includes one particularly egregious case, where a constituent's plan was issued without a requisite planning meeting and therefore no reference to goal setting or the latest medical evidence. Despite tens of emails, attempted phone calls, the lodging of complaints and advocacy by my office, it was somehow not possible to restart that process and have a planning meeting. Instead, after the internal review rubberstamped that initial plan, my constituent is now before the tribunal simply to get her statutory right and have a planning meeting. Sadly, cases like these are not isolated. Of the more than 100 NDIS related cases that my office has been asked to assist with, 20 have been in relation to errors or requests that should have been dealt with by commonsense review and 11 have ended up in front of the tribunal.

This is an expensive process. In the 2024-25 year, over $60 million was spent by the federal government, by taxpayers, on external law firms to fight participants at the tribunal, and yet the tribunal finds in favour of participants in around 73 per cent of cases. That tells us something important: people with disabilities are overwhelmingly trying to do the right thing and it's the system that's not working for them. The government is now proposing to restrict people's ability to have their plans reassessed, but it's unclear what the government will be doing to increase people's ability to fix clerical errors without being pushed into reassessment.

There are also concerns about the increasing use of automated decision-making within the NDIS. Technology can play an important role in improving efficiencies, but automated systems can entrench errors and create decisions that are difficult to challenge or undo. And, without proper oversight, they can harm the very people that they're meant to serve. We've seen this before. Need I remind everybody—robodebt showed us what happens when automation is deployed without adequate human safeguards. More recent experiences with automated aged-care assessments are similarly disturbing. If automation is to be a part of the NDIS, it must be accompanied by strong human oversight, clinical judgement, discretion and accessible review processes.

I ask the government to provide more information on what safeguards will exist to ensure automated decision-making and standardised assessments accurately reflect individual circumstances, including environmental factors, and on what human oversight will exist. Many NDIS participants have incredibly complex needs. The system currently uses some 18 different assessment methodologies, and no information has been provided as to how these will be streamlined and automated. We need a human eye for every critical decision.

If these reforms are to succeed, several things must happen. First, there must be a genuine partnership with the states and territories, backed by adequate funding and clear accountability. Second, there must be transparency. Stakeholders, including people with disabilities, must be meaningfully involved in the design and the implementation of these reforms. Third, we must address the administrative failings of the scheme itself by introducing more flexibility, faster resolution of errors and stronger feedback loops, including recommendations from tribunal cases to facilitate institutional learnings and prevent the same mistakes from reoccurring. Fourth, any move towards automated decision-making must include robust human oversight and clear avenues for review. Finally, above all, we must ensure that no-one is left behind without support during this transition.

The NDIS is supposed to support people. This is its primary goal; it's an admirable one. The government must not lose sight of that in its efforts to reform this system. Reform is absolutely necessary, but I will struggle to support this bill in its current form. Therefore, I urge the government to implement the amendments proposed by the crossbench.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pensions, paid parental leave, superannuation, Medicare, the National Broadband Network, the National Disability Insurance Scheme—it is Labor that makes the major economic and social reforms in this country. I want to pay tribute to former prime minister Julia Gillard and former ministers Jenny Macklin and Bill Shorten for the work they've done and to the many advocates who pushed for that Productivity Commission report which recommended a national disability insurance scheme in this country.

The initial cost was supposed to be $13.6 billion, roughly $20 billion in today's terms. In the 2013 budget, about $14.3 billion was allocated for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We've now seen an almost 50 per cent increase in the number of people we anticipated initially, which was 300,000 to 400,000. We're looking at almost 50 per cent more than that. Indeed, in terms of the cost, it's nearly four times as much as we initially anticipated.

Reasonable and necessary supports for people with significant and permanent disabilities—these words are in our lexicon. They're in our nomenclature. We use them day in and day out as federal MPs. Hundreds of thousands of people in the scheme use them as well, as do the plan providers, the reviewers and the people working in the NDIA. We created this scheme, and we need to fix this scheme, ensuring that we have the capacity to convince the Australian people that this scheme is worthy of continuing. The NDIS is projected to grow to $70 billion per annum by 2030. We're reducing the projection to $55 billion. That's what we need to do. We need to take the necessary steps to ensure that the costs do not blow out even further.

So we're going to limit NDIS costs in the short term and put a stop to the fraud in the scheme, which is so rampant and so evident. As federal MPs, we see the fraudsters, the shonks and the crooks. The vast majority of providers deliver quality services, act with the best of intentions and do good work. But there are crooks in the scheme. It has been rorted by many people.

We're going to continue working with the states and territories, the disability community and the NDIS workers, who need to be involved in the next stage of reforms. But, of course, when the NDIS came in, the states and territories opted out, and the only game there was indeed the NDIS. I saw a number of organisations locally who went to the wall because that ongoing grant funding from the states dried up. In the past 13 years, the NDIS has become entrenched and, really, a national institution—a great reform. But various reviews have found that it is in major need of reform and a major overhaul. There are unfair outcomes. There are higher numbers in the scheme, as I said, than we anticipated originally. It has changed lives and changed our country for the good, but the costs continue to rise rapidly. Participants don't often get quality supports and often have to undertake reviews again and again. As the previous speaker said, in my experience as a federal MP, they often are successful on reviews, so what's the problem initially? It also became target for shonks and fraudsters.

There's a major problem with respect to plan reassessments. One in five of these reassessments is unscheduled. The average increase as a result of this unscheduled reassessment is 20 per cent higher than the old, so the changes are being foisted on people. People are being encouraged to apply in those circumstances. It's going to be limited, henceforth, to significant and ongoing changes to functional capacity. I think that's the right thing to do.

The Fraud Fusion Taskforce has been operating in Australia since 2022 across many portfolios at the federal level. The multi-agency task force comprises 24 agencies, and it's co-led by the NDIA and Services Australia, and a number of other people, including the AFP, are involved. It found that there are serious criminal activities inside the NDIS. There are flaws in its design and increased susceptibility to fraud and crime.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 contains effective measures which I think address that, including the registration of providers. It's quite inexplicable that one in 16 of the current deliverers of services aren't registered. If you're registered, it means quality of service and safety standards. It means reporting and auditing. It means employees having screening. These are all parts of registration. So it's critical that we lift the registration level. We're changing the definition of NDIS provider accordingly. Retailers and suppliers will be outside the definition. I think it's critical also that we provide deterrence and punishment. We're introducing a new civil penalty provision which will act in terms of deterrence but also provide financial penalties to those people who do the wrong thing.

As I said, spending in the NDIS has blown out. Those opposite, the Liberal and National parties, didn't do anything about this, really. We constantly saw media inquiries about it, and we constantly saw whinging and whining and carping and moaning from those opposite, but they didn't take the necessary steps that this Labor government is undertaking. NDIS growth was 22 per cent under the coalition, with no moderation in sight over nearly 10 years of government. We brought it down to 10 per cent. In January this year the National Cabinet agreed to work together to bring down cost growth to five to six per cent or even lower.

One of the things that's so obvious to everyone is the tripling of the funding in the last five years for social and community and civic participation. It's gone up from $4 billion to $12 billion. That is a massive challenge. I'm not going to insult people by giving the examples many of my constituents have told me about the rorts and the fraudsters involved in this, and the failures across this space where people have not got the social, civic and community involvement they deserve. We're all paying taxes for it, and the Australian public is as well.

We need to manage this scheme more tightly, and there needs to be more rigour in the whole scheme. Without these reforms, the NDIS is going to cost more than Medicare and the PBS combined. It will fast catch up to the age pension. That's why we need to take the steps we need to do to restore it to its original intent. We need to support people who've got permanent and significant disability. We need to secure the scheme for the future. What we're going to do rests on a number of pillars.

One is delivering quality services and support to participants. I think the $200 million Inclusive Communities Fund is good. I'm looking forward to seeing how that will rebuild community organisation capacity to host genuine participation activities. One of the organisations that went to the wall in my community was known as CATS, Community Access Transition Service. They did a mighty job in providing assistance to people leaving places like the Ipswich Special School and other schools and getting people involved in civic life. I've met numerous people over the years who've got jobs and participated in community life because of the work that CATS did. They went to the wall when the state government funding was withdrawn because, of course, states and territories opted out. There are important things that we need to undertake, and I think that's a very, very important part of the reforms.

We're making eligibility requirements clearer with standardised, evidence based assessments of someone's functional capacity. I think the need for independence is so critical in that assessment. We need to fight fraud and stop rorts so participants and their families have better quality services and experience less exploitation and harm. I've seen it. I'm sure everyone in this chamber at times has seen the undue influence and the levels of abuse. People have controlled individuals who are vulnerable because they're members of the scheme. They see this as an opportunity where there are packages of hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. They see this as an opportunity to rip people off, and that's why we've seen these criminal activities involved.

We've already invested $550 million in tackling fraud and noncompliance and recently passed the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding) Bill of 2025, but there's more that needs to be done to protect participants and increase the quality of support services. That's why we're introducing legislation as a result of this particular budget. The changes we're making will reduce the growth and ensure that we can continue to support people. There are some changes that I think are really important. As I mentioned before, the tighter criteria for unscheduled reassessments and measures will reduce plan-cost growth. We never anticipated we'd see such growth in the costs of the plans.

We're resetting participant budgets for social and community participation. As I said, it's grown completely out of control. We're introducing standardised, evidence based assessments, and we're looking to improve the quality of plan managers and support coordinators. We've seen such variability in this space, I can tell you. Most people do the right thing, but, by golly, I've seen some really shonky ones in my time in this place. We're expanding categories of mandatory provider registration and enrolling providers in a digital payment scheme so we've got some accountability of where the taxpayers' money goes. Changes to eligibility can only happen with the agreement of the states and territories, and I'm urging the states and territories to do the right thing.

Importantly, $6 billion is being allocated by all governments to rebuild those local community supports for people with lower support needs. Not everyone living with a disability will be or should be eligible for the NDIS, but there should be other forms of support for them. In addition, a test of permanency is already required under the NDIS scheme, but we're tightening that definition to make sure it focuses on people with significant and permanent disability. This scheme was never, ever intended to replace health, rehabilitation and treatment services, but that's the mentality of so many people I've seen. That is important to get those health services, rehabilitation services et cetera going on.

I practiced as a litigation lawyer, and I practiced for a long time in personal injury law. We couldn't—and we shouldn't—settle cases in terms of work cover or indeed personal injuries involving motor vehicle accidents until someone's injuries settled and we knew their levels of permanent disability. That's because they would be underdone in terms of the damages paid—whether it was general damages or economic loss—unless we knew the permanency of their injuries. It's the same thing when it comes to the NDIS. We need to know people's permanent conditions and what they're going to live with permanently on a long-term basis before we know.

It's not a case of the federal government providing the NDIS for people who may have been injured or may have been suffering from an illness. All of us are one illness or injury away from any form of disability, but not everyone can and should be covered—and certainly not before it's significant and permanent. An assessment of a person's functional capacity is absolutely critical, and that will be done in consultation with the community with the support of a technical advisory group. This is absolutely vital. This will include disability reform organisations, the NDIS Reform Advisory Committee co-chairs and the Chair of Australia's Disability Strategy Advisory Council.

In terms of timeframes, we expect some of these changes to start later this year. When it comes to who will access the NDIS and who gets other support—many of these changes won't happen until 2028. We're giving the minister new powers, and I think this is absolutely vital to managing the scheme's growth on an ongoing basis. However, these powers will be used on the very clear advice of the National Disability Insurance Agency, and I think that's also important. The 2026-27 budget handed down on 12 May builds on our first term, providing significant investments in critical reforms. As part of this budget, we're working with the states and territories to establish the Thriving Kids foundational supports program to complement and take some pressure off the NDIS.

This is where the states and territories need to come in. It's a $4 billion scheme over five years. We want the states and territories back in the game. We want them back in the area of disability and disability support, in particular, with respect to children. That $2 billion we're providing is important for national information advice on child development and autism, because that is an issue. It cannot be the case that about one in six boys who are in year 2 are living with autism and are in the scheme. It cannot be the case; that is not sustainable. We need to provide additional supports for children with autism and their families—but often outside of the scheme. Not every child living with autism should be in the scheme.

Medicare Healthy Kids Check is a Medicare subsidised health assessment for GPs to assess the health and development of a child at three years of age, which is important, and refer them to appropriate supports, including this Thriving Kids support. A new national digital child health record makes it easier for families and health professionals to track a child's development and share information. There are important things that we need to do, and I call on the Crisafulli government in my home state of Queensland to do the right thing and engage properly and maturely with the Albanese government in the interest of people with disability living in Queensland.

The NDIS is a statement of our national values and a measure of our national character. It's up to us as parliamentarians—there are 150 in this chamber, as well as those in the Senate—to provide the necessary leadership in this space. That means coming together to pass this legislation. We need to protect the future of the NDIS. We need to strengthen the tough laws the government has passed and send a very clear message: the NDIS is critical, and you should not steal from people with disability, or we'll find you and we'll throw the book at you. It's absolutely crucial. We want to support people to do the right thing and support people living on the NDIS.

Dai Le (Fowler, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A local NDIS provider shared:

I got spat on by a dad the other day.

You can imagine that took me by surprise. The provider then shared that the distressed father yelled:

If my child is pushed onto Thriving Kids, is the government saying that my child no longer has autism? … it doesn't magically go away … What does this even mean for us?

That is the level of fear and confusion we are dealing with. Parents are terrified of losing support, and they're begging professionals to explain whether a change in program means their child's autism simply stops counting in the eyes of the system.

We all know that the NDIS reform is long overdue. The rorting of the NDIS has been real, it has been documented, and it has been deeply unfair. It's been unfair to the taxpayers who fund it and deeply unfair to those with genuine permanent disabilities who depend on it. For years, bad actors have exploited this scheme by inflating invoices, delivering little to no service and draining resources that should have gone to the people who needed them the most. The government is right to rein it in. I support that. I welcome the fraud and integrity measures in schedule 2. Strengthening the agency's powers to investigate and act is necessary and overdue, but those measures cannot come at the cost of fairness for the communities I represent, and I would go further: they cannot come at the cost of fairness for any Australian family navigating this system.

My concern with this bill, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, is simple: will the most vulnerable be worse off? I want to address something directly because I know it will be said. Some will argue that the answer is simple: people should just speak English and navigating a government system should not be that hard. Let me be clear. The accessibility features of the NDIS are not confined to people from non-English-speaking backgrounds. Everyday Australian families who were born here, were raised here and have English as their first and only language tell me they're overwhelmed by this system. They describe application forms that read like legal documents, assessment processes that feel adversarial, appeals they cannot afford to pursue and bureaucratic language so dense that even the most educated families struggle to understand what their loved one is entitled to.

This is not a migrant problem; this is a system design problem. The NDIS was built around an assumption that participants and their families have the time, the resources, the confidence and the literacy—in every sense of that word—to advocate effectively for themselves within a complex administrative framework. For too many Australians, that assumption has always been wrong. If you're from a multicultural background, if English is not your first language, if you're still finding your footing in this country, if cultural norms around disability mean your family has been reluctant to even seek a diagnosis, those barriers do not disappear. They compound. They stack. The result is that some of the most disadvantaged Australians are the least likely to be receiving the support they're actually entitled to.

We are a multicultural nation. Australia's diversity is not an edge case to be managed; it is the reality of who we are, and any policy that fails to account for that reality will fail a significant proportion of the people it is meant to serve. Over 63 per cent of constituents in Fowler speak a language other than English at home. Many are navigating not only the complexities of disability but language barriers, cultural differences and the deep challenges that come with building a life in a new country. I believe these communities are already underrepresented in the NDIS, not because disability does not exist in Fowler—it absolutely does—but because the system as it stands was not built with them in mind. Families have fallen through the cracks not because they lacked need but because the system lacked the cultural responsiveness to meet them where they are. This bill, in its current form, asks us to make that system harder to access. That is not reform, that is retreat.

One of the most concerning changes is the shift in how a person's functional capacity will be assessed. The bill requires the agency to focus on a person's intrinsic capacity while disregarding environmental and personal circumstances. I understand the policy intent, but in practice this creates a rigid, standardised measure that will misrepresent the lived reality of a significant number of Australians, not just those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds but anyone whose circumstances, geography or life experience means they cannot demonstrate their needs within a narrow framework. In Fowler, a language barrier is not just a personal circumstance; it is a systematic wall. By legislating for the agency to disregard these factors, we risk assessing participants as having a higher functional capacity than they actually have. We risk locking people out not because their disability has changed but because the measuring tool was never calibrated to see them clearly.

The minister has indicated that hospitals, schools, GPs and the broader health system could bear greater responsibility for those with permanent or significant disabilities before they are referred to the NDIS. I understand the intention. In principle, a properly funded and coordinated care system should be the first point of response. But the reality on the ground looks very different. Our hospital system is under enormous pressure. Emergency departments across Western Sydney are already stretched beyond capacity dealing with everyday presentations. The idea that these hospitals can absorb additional complex, ongoing care for people with significant disabilities without new funding, new infrastructure and new workforce is not a plan; it is a hope, and vulnerable Australians cannot be asked to wait to on hope.

Our GP workforce is in crisis. Western Sydney has a well-documented shortage of general practitioners. The doctors who remain are managing unsustainable patient loads. They are doing extraordinary work under extraordinary pressure. Asking them to co-ordinate complex disability care on top of that is not a solution. I agree with the principle that the NDIS should not be the first and only resort, but you cannot redirect people to systems that are already at breaking point and call it reform. Before this bill passes, the government must demonstrate that the alternative pathways in health, in schools, in community care are funded, staffed and genuinely ready.

I'm also deeply concerned about the new powers given to the minister to reduce funding across entire categories of supports—reductions of 25 per cent or more are applied across the board and not subject to Administrative Review Tribunal oversight. In a high-wealth postcode, a percentage based cut may be a budget inconvenience; in Fowler, it is a service cliff. My constituents do not have the private capital to top up their supports when the government resets the bottom line.

Based on the government's own impact analysis, participants not in supported living arrangements currently receive an average of nearly $33,000 a year for social, civic and community participation supports. Under these reforms, that would reset to approximately $26,000, an average reduction of around $7,000 per plan, with some families facing cuts up to about $15,000. The government says $200 million is being redirected to a new Inclusive Communities Fund, but guaranteed individual funding is being replaced with a general pool. We have no information on how much of that will reach communities like mine, whether it will go to the small, trusted local providers my constituents rely on or be absorbed by large national organisations without the cultural connection to serve them.

Families in my electorate are being told that Thriving Kids will be the alternative for children who no longer qualify for the NDIS. But what does that really look like in practice for a parent in Cabramatta, Liverpool or Fairfield? Will information be available in their language? Will services be culturally appropriate and locally delivered? The program is expected to roll out from October 2026, but the service model is still evolving. Parents are being asked to trust a system that has been announced but not yet built. If children are moved from NDIS before these services are visible and accessible, families will not receive alternative support. They will receive less support, and, in communities like mine where trust in government systems is hard won, a failed roll out could mean families disengage entirely. I had a parent who messaged me, saying: 'My youngest son is non-verbal and has no way of communicating. So how will he exist in society without support?'

I support reining in the rorting. I support a sustainable NDIS, and I understand the intent behind redirecting some responsibilities to the broader care system. But good intentions are not enough when the execution risks leaving the most vulnerable behind. We are a multicultural Australia. That is not a complication. It is who we are, and we have an obligation to make our public systems work for all of us—for families who have been here for generations and for families still finding their footing, for those whose first language is English and for those for whom it is not, and for everyone who needs support and does not have the private resources to go without.

The government must prove it can replace what it removes. It must fund the alternative pathways. It must provide clear, accessible, in-language information before changes take place. It must legislate genuine safeguards, including a mandate for consultation with culturally and linguistically diverse communities in the design of assessment tools.

With those requests in mind and without declining to give this bill a second reading, I commend this bill to the House, and I move:

That all words after "House" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"(1) notes that:

(a) culturally and linguistically diverse communities experience additional barriers in accessing and engaging with the NDIS; and

(b) a lack of consultation with culturally and linguistically diverse participants and service providers may result in further barriers and inequity; and

(2) calls on the Government to ensure the implementation of the reforms does not inadvertently impose additional burdens on, or further disadvantage culturally and linguistically diverse NDIS participants".

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Andrew Gee (Calare, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment, and I reserve my right to speak.

Libby Coker (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The National Disability Insurance Scheme transforms lives. It has given hundreds of thousands of Australians with disability greater independence, greater dignity and greater opportunity. It has supported families, strengthened communities and changed our nation for the better. But the success of the NDIS also means we have a profound responsibility to safeguard it, to protect it from non-compliance, fraud and exploitation, to ensure it remains focused on supporting Australians with permanent and significant disability and to ensure it remains sustainable, providing quality support for future generations. That's what the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 and the measures included in the Albanese government's budget are all about.

The bill introduces stricter eligibility, funding controls and new functional capacity assessments to ensure the scheme's sustainability, and there will be further consultation with the disability community and the states and territories to ensure support in the scheme and beyond the scheme. They are fit for purpose and are of high quality.

This bill reflects extensive work undertaken over many years. It draws on recommendations from the independent review into the NDIS, delivered in 2023; the disability royal commission; and the NDIS Provider and Worker Registration Taskforce, chaired by Natalie Wade. The bill also reflects the concerns that participants, carers, advocates and providers themselves have consistently raised about integrity, sustainability and participant safety.

These issues are at the centre of the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS's current inquiry into the integrity of the scheme. Since the inquiry commenced, we've heard evidence from researchers, disability representative organisations, legal experts, providers and participants from across the nation. We've held hearings in Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne, and what we have heard has reinforced the importance of getting these reforms right. We have heard about the devastating impact that fraud and noncompliance can have on participants and their families. We have heard about vulnerable people being manipulated, exploited and financially abused. We've heard from providers who are doing the right thing but are frustrated by a system that allows dishonest operators to flourish. And we have heard a clear message that safeguarding participants and safeguarding the scheme must go hand in hand.

When fraud exists in the NDIS, it is participants who suffer first. Every dollar diverted through sharp practices is a dollar taken away from someone who genuinely needs support. Where there is weak oversight and poor integrity, there is often greater risk of abuse, neglect and exploitation. This is why this bill matters, and it's why the Albanese government has backed these reforms with substantial investment in the budget.

Our government is a reforming government. We're not sitting on our hands like the former coalition government. Under the coalition there was a clear lack of oversight, giving fraudsters the opportunity to infiltrate the provider market and steal from the NDIS and, as a result, from people with disability. Under the coalition NDIS claims were barely checked for compliance. In 2020 there were fewer than 30 employees within the NDIA directly working on fraud and integrity activities. The system had serious blind spots. Claims submitted between 4.30 and 6 pm on a weekday couldn't be reviewed before they were paid, nor could claims made every second weekend. This is outrageous. But now we've fixed it. As a direct result of the Albanese government's actions, all claims are now visible in the system and can be analysed prior to payment. And we've established the Fraud Fusion Taskforce to tackle noncompliance and enable prosecutions. That's meaningful action. And with this bill and the measures in our budget, we're going even further.

The budget includes more than $1.35 billion in measures to combat fraud, improve integrity and strengthen the administration of the scheme. This includes more than $358 million over five years to establish a new enrolment and digital payment system that will further improve payment integrity and reduce fraudulent and noncompliant claims. It includes $280.1 million to continue the Fraud Fusion Taskforce and strengthen the NDIA's ability to detect and respond to fraud. It includes $182.6 million to introduce mandatory registration for high-risk providers. There's also the $200 million Inclusive Communities Fund, to rebuild community organisation capability to host genuine participation activities. And it includes additional investment in reform plan management and support coordination services to improve quality and reduce integrity risks. These are serious reforms because the challenges facing the scheme are serious, but we know there's much more to do.

The NDIS now administers more than $50 billion in public funding each year. The Fraud Fusion Taskforce has identified significant vulnerabilities within the scheme, and this cannot be ignored. Schedule 2 of this bill directly addresses these integrity concerns. It strengthens the NDIA's monitoring, investigative and enforcement powers by enabling provisions of the regulatory powers act 2014 to apply to the agency, it introduces new civil penalties to deter unlawful conduct and strengthen compliance, it improves information-gathering powers and introduces stronger record-retention obligations and it ensures claims must be made within 90 days of supports being delivered. These changes are practical, necessary and long overdue.

This bill also reforms provider registration. Currently, only a small proportion of providers are formally registered, despite the scale of public funding flowing through the scheme. The current definition of 'NDIS provider' is broad and can create confusion. The bill clarifies this while strengthening registration for higher risk providers. Importantly, these reforms will not only improve integrity but also improve participant safety and service quality.

The legislation also addresses longstanding concerns within the plan management and support coordination markets. Over recent years, multiple reviews have identified inconsistent standards, conflicts of interest and poor oversight in parts of these sectors. Frankly, participants deserve better. This bill enables the establishment of approved panels of plan managers and the commissioning of preferred quality support coordination services. These reforms will strengthen governance, reduce conflicts of interest and ensure participants receive high-quality, trustworthy support.

Schedule 1 of the bill addresses broader issues relating to access, eligibility and plan management. The reforms contained in this bill seek to restore greater clarity and consistency. The legislation clarifies the meaning of functional capacity and establishes the basis for more transparent and evidence based assessments of eligibility. Importantly, the bill recognises that further consultation and expert advice are required before thresholds are determined. That work will involve technical experts, the disability community and state and territory governments, who have to play a stronger role in providing supports for people with disability.

The bill also addresses unscheduled plan reassessments, which have become a major driver of expenditure growth. Currently, about one in five participant plans undergoes an unscheduled reassessment every year. Many of these reassessments result in substantial increases in plan value. In some cases, reassessment requests are initiated by intermediaries without the participant's knowledge or understanding. The reforms ensure unscheduled reassessments occur where there has been a significant and ongoing change in a participant's circumstances or support needs. This is about ensuring reassessments are participant driven, transparent and appropriately targeted.

The bill also strengthens the connection between funded supports and the impairments that meet eligibility criteria under the scheme. This is intended to ensure NDIS funding remains focused on disability related supports that are consistent with the scheme's purpose.

Another important reform relates to plan renewals. At present, many plans are repeatedly rolled over, with unspent funds carried forward year after year. Over time, this can inflate plan values well beyond what was originally considered reasonable and necessary. Under this legislation, all participant plans will have a defined end date. Renewed plans will continue to provide ongoing support while ensuring funding remains aligned with current circumstances and needs.

The bill also clarifies the concept of reasonable and necessary supports. This principle sits at the heart of the NDIS, but over time interpretations have broadened significantly, contributing to cost pressures and inconsistencies across the scheme. These reforms seek to provide greater clarity around what is reasonable for the NDIS to fund, while considering sustainability, value for money and consistency across government support systems. The legislation also clarifies the meaning of permanence. This bill makes clear that appropriate treatment options should be pursued before any impairment is considered permanent for the purpose of scheme access. These are sensitive reforms. They affect people's lives and they must be implemented carefully and compassionately. But we cannot ignore the challenges facing the scheme. If the scheme becomes unsustainable, it's participants who will suffer the most.

This legislation includes governance reforms in schedule 3. The bill enables a clearer and more transparent pricing framework by making the minister the decision-maker on pricing, following advice from the agency's annual pricing review. It also strengthens protections against overcharging and introduces safeguards around administrative decision-making. Schedules 4 and 5 deal with operational and transitional matters to support implementation of the reforms.

The NDIS is one of Australia's great social achievements and one of Labor's great social achievements. It was built through decades of advocacy from Australians with disability and their families and carers, and so much of that advocacy came from the disability community in my region. I remember standing alongside former prime minister Julia Gillard and Bill Shorten, in 2013, when she announced that Geelong would become the national headquarters of DisabilityCare Australia, now the National Disability Insurance Agency. It was an enormously significant moment for our region. I still remember the excitement in the room when Prime Minister Gillard told our community, 'You deserve it.' The decision recognised not only the capacity of our region but also the values of a community that has always understood the importance of fairness, opportunity and looking after one another.

The establishment of the NDIA headquarters in Geelong brought hundreds of skilled jobs to our region, but, more than that, it embedded the NDIS into the identity of our broader community. Across Geelong, the Surf Coast and the Bellarine, people understand what the NDIS represents because they have seen firsthand the difference it makes to people's lives. They've seen families finally receive support after years of struggle. They have seen carers receive support that allows them to participate fully in work and community life. They have seen a major national institution be built in regional Victoria, creating secure jobs and attracting expertise that continue to strengthen the region today. This is why a discussion about the future of the NDIS is never abstract for communities like mine. People understand both the human importance of the scheme and the responsibility we have to protect it. It does transform lives, and Australians rightly expect it to endure and to be embedded in our health system, just like Medicare is. But enduring institutions require stewardship, and that was absent under the former coalition government.

This bill is about ensuring the NDIS remains strong, sustainable and participant focused into the future. We know participants want a scheme that is fair. They want a scheme that is safe. They want a scheme that delivers quality supports, and they want a scheme that will still be there for future generations. This is exactly what this legislation seeks to secure. (Time expired)

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. The NDIS is one of Australia's most important social reforms. At its best it changes lives. It enables people with disability to live with dignity and independence and to be genuinely included in their communities. It allows carers to participate in work and public life.

The economic and social cases for a well-functioning NDIS are not in dispute, and I want to say that clearly at the outset because this is a contested bill and I do not want the contention to be mistaken for opposition to the scheme itself. The people who engaged with me most intensely in preparing for this debate—participants, carers, clinicians, advocates—are not opponents of a sustainable NDIS; they are its most passionate defenders. But they're frightened of what this bill might do to the scheme on which they rely.

I support the need for reform. The NDIS has grown faster than projected. Some of that growth reflects genuine unmet need that was always going to emerge as the scheme matured, but some growth reflects poor initial planning decisions, provider overcharging and inadequate fraud prevention. Reform directed at those drivers is necessary and overdue. The question this bill must answer is not whether to reform; it's whether this reform, as designed, will make the scheme more sustainable without removing genuine support from people who need it to live full lives.

I do not believe the bill as currently drafted passes that test. I'll explain why, drawing on the extensive community engagement I've conducted since these changes were announced on 22 April. Following the government's announcement, I heard immediately from Curtin constituents who were worried—parents of children with disability, adults managing complex permanent conditions, carers who've built their lives around a support system that for the first time recognised their family member as a full citizen with the right to genuine support.

I wanted to listen properly, so I convened a community workshop on 4 May attended by 70 people—NDIS participants and their families, occupational therapists, speech pathologists, physiotherapists, plan managers, support coordinators, providers and independent advocates. Many had been navigating this scheme for years. They came prepared with detailed knowledge and specific practical concerns. I followed that with an online survey, which received more than 90 responses, and an invitation for written submissions. Many of those who wrote did so at length, providing carefully argued accounts of how these proposed changes might affect their lives. Across all channels. I've considered almost 200 responses from my community.

What I heard was not a rejection of reform. Almost everyone accepted that the NDIS must be financially sustainable. What they're asking for with urgency and consistency is that reform be carefully co-designed with people who have lived experience and directed at the real drivers of cost growth—fraud, poor initial planning and provider overcharging—rather than at participants themselves.

Three themes were consistent across virtually every piece of feedback I received. The first is that sustainability must be pursued through efficiency, not exclusion. The people I heard from do not accept that a sustainable NDIS requires removing people who genuinely need support. Savings should come from eliminating fraud, reducing bureaucratic overheads, improving the quality of initial planning decisions and addressing provider overcharging.

The second is that reform must not cost shift to other systems that are not prepared to bear additional responsibility. Clinicians with direct experience in the justice, health and education systems stressed that reducing NDIS supports does not eliminate need. It transfers costs to hospitals, schools, mental health services, aged care and the justice system, often at far greater public expense.

The third is that the critical details, including the thresholds that will determine eligibility under the new functional assessment framework, are yet to be set by subordinate legislation that does not yet exist. Community engagement will happen after the legislative architecture is already in place, and that seems to be in the wrong order.

I will go through the key concerns schedule by schedule. First is the functional capacity assessment. Of all the elements of this bill, the new functional capacity assessment framework generated the most concern and the most detailed feedback from my community. I want to convey the depth and sophistication of what I heard, because it goes well beyond 'we don't want change'. My constituents raised serious, well-grounded concerns about whether a standardised assessment tool can adequately capture the full diversity and complexity of disability, including episodic and fluctuating conditions where a snapshot assessment may not reflect genuine support needs; including masking, particularly for autistic individuals who appear more capable in an assessment setting than they are in daily life; including rare and complex conditions where assessors may lack the specialised knowledge to correctly identify need; and including children, where different tools and developmental frameworks are required.

Allied health professionals raised specific concerns about assessor training. Occupational therapists complete four years of professional training. Underqualified assessment risks systematically underidentifying need, with potentially serious consequences for some of the most vulnerable people in our community.

The concern I heard about most consistently, raised with explicit historical justification, was around the new opportunities for automated decision-making proposed in this bill. Alan, a disability advocate, told me he'd already seen in robodebt what happens when inadequate human oversight of algorithmically driven processes is in place, and he's worried we're about to see a repeat in disability. The community has specific, recent, evidence based reasons to be alarmed, and I'll address this directly in my second reading amendment.

Second, I will look at social and community participation funding. The proposed ministerial determination to reduce social, civic and community participation funding generated a strong response from my constituents. This funding is not discretionary spending in any meaningful sense. For many participants, it's what makes the difference between a full life and an isolated one. It funds the sporting activities, outdoor experiences and community engagement that allow people with disability to be members of their community, to build skills and independence and to experience the ordinary dignity of participation in public life. The $200 million Inclusive Communities Fund, proposed as a partial replacement, was widely viewed as a step backwards towards the segregated, group based models that the NDIS was specifically designed to move beyond. A constituent, Bianca, told me she's worried the proposed inclusive communities program will result in corralling disabled people together into groups where they can only mix amongst themselves.

My constituents have also noted with alarm the sequencing. Cuts are scheduled from October 2026, while foundational supports are not yet operational, not yet funded in many jurisdictions and not yet demonstrated to deliver genuine community inclusion. That's not a transition plan. That's a gap.

On fraud and integrity, my community strongly supports action on fraud. There was no ambiguity on this point. The frustration I heard was not with the goal of fraud prevention but with whether the measures are appropriately targeted. Allied health professionals are already regulated through APRA. Additional NDIS registration can cost upwards of $10,000 and may drive small, high-quality independent providers out of the scheme entirely, leaving participants with only large corporate providers. My community supports a risk tiered approach: higher requirements for closed, high-risk settings, and proportionate, lighter requirements for professionals already subject to rigorous professional regulation.

The next concerns were around plan management and pricing. The proposal to commission a panel of plan management providers, replacing the current open market of over 1,400 plan managers, was contested. I received feedback that the panel model risks eliminating choice and control, consolidating the market in favour of large providers and removing the small, specialist plan managers most valued by participants with complex needs.

I've submitted the detailed feedback I received from my community, together with 22 formal recommendations for improving this bill, to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry, and I urge that committee to consider these asks carefully.

I now move the amendment circulated in my name:

That all words after "notes that" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"(a) the bill enables the use of automated decision-making in determining a wide range of matters affecting NDIS participants;

(b) it is reported that neither human decision-makers nor the Administrative Review Tribunal will be authorised to modify or override the automated decisions made about the support needs of NDIS participants;

(c) when used well, automated decision-making can deliver faster, more consistent and more efficient government services, and that agencies like the NDIA need digital tools to operate at the scale required;

(d) the Government has failed to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, handed down in July 2023, which called for the introduction of a consistent legal framework and oversight for automated decision-making in government services;

(e) the consequences of poorly implemented automation for high-risk decisions are already being seen in widespread concern around automated aged care assessments and the unlawful cancellation of income supports for Australians under the Targeted Compliance Framework; and

(2) calls on the Government to bring forward a legislative and mandatory framework for automated decision-making in government services, incorporating transparency requirements, decision-level safeguards, human accountability and oversight for high-risk decisions, meaningful review rights, and independent oversight, in order to prevent a repeat of the failures of the Robodebt scheme".

This amendment addresses the specific concerns raised by my community about the risks of automated decision-making proposed in this bill. Schedule 3 gives the NDIA CEO explicit legal authority to automate a wide range of administrative decisions about what goes into a participant's plan, whether a claim gets paid and whether the payment falls within the pricing limit. The bill allows the minister to extend the scope of automation further through legislative instrument. In other words, this bill gives the government the power to automate almost any administrative NDIS decision, including, as the explanatory memorandum tells us, the new framework planning process, which will determine every participant's total support budget.

The bill does include some transparency measures. Standard operating procedure instruments must be published on the federal register, and the CEO must disclose which provisions have been automated and report annually on cases where automated decisions were overridden. These are steps in the right direction, but the safeguards are not adequate to the risk. We've been told that NDIA staff will have no authority to modify a computer generated budget, even where they identify an error, and, if a participant appeals to the Administrative Review Tribunal, the tribunal cannot remake the decision. It can only return the participant to the same automated system that got it wrong in the first place. This is not a hypothetical risk. The Commonwealth Ombudsman found last year that automated processes in the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations illegally cancelled the income support of nearly a thousand Australians. In aged care, automated assessment tools are generating incorrect support outcomes, and the lack of transparency about how those tools operate is making it nearly impossible to identify and fix systemic errors.

This is a government that's expanding automated decision-making across portfolios—the NDIS, aged care, social security, environmental approvals—without having implemented the consistent legislative framework that its own royal commission said was necessary. In July 2023, the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme recommended that the government legislate a consistent legal framework and oversight mechanism for automated decision-making in government services. The government accepted those recommendations. Consultation followed. Nothing has been legislated. Meanwhile, the use of automation expands.

Robodebt was unlawful. It harmed hundreds of thousands of Australians, and it persisted because there was no independent body with the power and resources to identify and stop it. My amendment calls on the government to legislate that framework with transparency requirements, decision-level safeguards, genuine human oversight for high-risk decisions, meaningful review rights and an empowered independent watchdog. Automated decision-making done well can make government faster and more consistent, but it needs guardrails. Right now, the government is expanding automation across the lives of some of Australia's most vulnerable people without them. Australians with disability deserve decisions made with care, not decisions made by algorithms with no-one accountable for the outcome.

In consideration in detail, I'll be supporting a number of amendments from members of the crossbench that relate directly to other concerns raised by my community. The amendment requiring functional capacity assessments to have regard to environmental, social and personal circumstances restores the contextual dimension to the bill that current drafting would remove, directly addressing concerns about masking episodic conditions and the limits of standardised tools. The amendment requiring ministerial reporting on foundational supports readiness before the relevant parts commence addresses my recommendation that cuts not proceed before replacement services are demonstrably operational. The amendments making support determinations reviewable decisions, requiring parliamentary approval for material funding reductions and strengthening safeguards in section 34A, address my community's concerns about accountability and appeal rights. The amendment requiring genuine consultation before significant NDIS rules commence and an independent statutory review after 12 months reflect my recommendations on co-design and governance. Taken together, these amendments represent what responsible crossbench engagement looks like—not blocking a reform this scheme needs but insisting it be done in a way that does not harm the people it is meant to serve.

The people from my community will be watching—the woman in Churchlands in her late 60s who is caring for her non-verbal son alongside a husband with cancer, who told me that, without his funding for community outings, he would simply sit at home becoming agitated and distressed; the mother in Wembley Downs whose son masks exceptionally well, appearing articulate and compliant but dysregulated at home; and the parent of a non-verbal son with complex behaviours. I urge the government to engage seriously with the 22 detailed recommendations put forward in my community submission to the Senate committee. They come directly from the people this legislation will affect and are practical, considered and offered in good faith.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Jodie Belyea (Dunkley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I speak to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, I first want to acknowledge the incredible organisations in the community of Dunkley for the work they do supporting people with disabilities. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the Brotherhood of St Lawrence and also Grace Professional Services and Sandi Grace, who is the CEO, who has worked tirelessly over the last few years to deliver services to those with a disability. Dunkley has a range of organisations that provide a range of services, so these reforms are really important to me and to the community.

Before I speak about the legislation, budgets or policy settings, I want to begin by saying this issue is also deeply personal to me. My husband works in the disability sector, and I've worked in the sector. Every day he sees the dedication of support workers, therapists, carers and providers who are doing everything they can to support Australians with a disability to live full, independent and dignified lives. I also have a family member who relies heavily on the NDIS, so these reforms are deeply personal to her as well. So, when I talk about this scheme, I don't see figures on a balance sheet; I see people—families trying to navigate complex systems while caring for loved ones and parents lying awake at night worrying about whether the supports their child relies upon will continue. I hear about participants in the office trying to maintain their independence and their dignity through the packages that they receive, and I meet with workers and providers who care deeply about the people they support and desperately want and need this scheme to continue and to succeed. That is why this conversation matters to me.

The NDIS is one of Australia's proudest achievements. It's been transforming lives for quite some years and has given Australians with disability greater choice, greater independence and greater opportunity than ever before. It is a scheme Australians should be very proud of. But, if we genuinely care about protecting the NDIS for future generations, then we must also be honest about the problems that have emerged within the system.

Over the past few years, I've heard those concerns loud and clear from people throughout my community. I've spoken to participants who feel exhausted by endless bureaucracy and delays as well as to families who feel overwhelmed trying to navigate processes that are often confusing and inconsistent. I've heard from support coordinators and providers who say they are spending more time battling administrative systems than supporting participants.

One of the biggest issues repeatedly raised with my office has been the failures within some of the systems. Providers have described spending hours every single day manually tracking reporting obligations because the system continues to generate tasks even after a participant has changed provider, received a new plan or tragically passed away. I've heard from organisations forced to create separate spreadsheets just to manage compliance failures within the portal. Workers are uploading explanation letters repeatedly because they cannot properly close out reports they are no longer responsible for. Providers cannot end support coordination relationships properly within the system. All of this creates enormous administrative burden, and much of that work remains unfunded. These are not minor frustrations. They're inefficiencies that take time, resources and energy away from participants themselves. They reduce the capacity of providers to focus on care and support.

I've also heard serious concerns about the growing imbalance between registered and unregistered providers. Many registered providers in my community are deeply worried about whether they can survive under the current system. These are organisations that invest heavily in compliance, staff training, participant safety and quality governance. They are trying to do the right thing, yet they are forced to compete against unregistered operators who face far lower costs and significantly less oversight.

Providers have told me about unregistered operators enticing vulnerable participants with gifts, cash incentives and promises that simply should not exist in a properly regulated care market. Meanwhile, compliant providers are struggling under rising operational costs, carrying the burden of meeting proper standards and obligations. This is creating a race to the bottom, and, ultimately, participants are the ones put at risk. These are real and practical market realities that cannot simply be ignored.

I've also heard from constituents frustrated by lengthy review and appeals processes. Families have told my office that they have struggled to access supports while waiting for Administrative Review Tribunal matters to be resolved. Others have raised concerns about internal reviews occurring without meaningful consultation or preparation. These stories matter. This information matters. The voices of the people that come and talk to me matter because they remind us, and me, why we are here. Behind every policy discussion is a person trying to live their life with dignity and security. This is why we need reform.

The Albanese Labor government understands that securing the future of the NDIS means confronting the problems that threaten its sustainability, integrity and public confidence. The reality is that, under the previous government, NDIS growth reached 22 per cent annually with no moderation in sight. Costs were escalating rapidly, fraud and exploitation were increasing, oversight was inadequate and confidence in the long-term sustainability of the scheme was being eroded. We cannot protect the NDIS by pretending these issues do not exist. We protect it by fixing them. That is what this bill seeks to do. These reforms are about restoring the scheme to its original purpose, supporting Australians with permanent and significant disability with reasonable and necessary supports while ensuring the scheme remains sustainable for future generations.

The government's reforms are focused on tackling fraud, slowing unsustainable cost growth, improving quality and safety, strengthening provider integrity, clarifying eligibility and ensuring supports are directed where they are most needed. These are necessary reforms. Australians rightly expect vulnerable people to receive safe and high-quality care. Good providers who pay staff properly, who maintain strong governance and who take participants' safety seriously should not be forced to compete against operators who are simply trying to make a quick buck. That is why strengthening provider registration requirements for high-risk services is so important. These changes will ensure that the overwhelming majority of funding flowing through the scheme goes to registered providers who meet proper standards of safety and accountability. That means stronger oversight, improved quality and better protections for participants and their families.

The government is also improving plan management arrangements and strengthening payment oversight so the NDIA has greater visibility over where money is going across the scheme. These are important reforms because the NDIS became a soft target for fraud and exploitation under arrangements that lacked sufficient safeguards and guardrails. Australians expect taxpayer money to support participants, not fraudsters.

The reforms also address a difficult but necessary issue: defining more clearly what the NDIS is designed to fund. When the NDIS was created, it was never intended to replace mainstream systems like schools, hospitals, child care or aged care. It was intended to provide reasonable and necessary disability supports for people with permanent and significant disabilities. That distinction matters because, if every gap across every government system is shifted onto the NDIS, the scheme will eventually become completely unsustainable. If the scheme becomes unsustainable, the people who rely on it the most are the ones who are going to suffer.

That is why clear eligibility requirements and planning frameworks are necessary not to unfairly exclude people but to restore clarity, consistency and confidence in how the scheme operates. Importantly, the government has committed to consulting with the disability community as these reforms are being implemented. That consultation matters because reforms done with the community will always be better than reforms done to the community.

The reality is that urgent financial controls are needed to secure the future of the scheme. The government has already brought growth down significantly from the unsustainable levels inherited from the previous government, and National Cabinet has agreed to work together to bring growth to more sustainable levels over time. This is not about dismantling the NDIS; it is about ensuring it survives, because no scheme can continue growing indefinitely without risking its long-term future.

While these reforms are necessary, I also want to acknowledge something very important: any change leads to fear, uncertainty and confusion about what these reforms mean. There is misinformation circulating online and within communities that is creating enormous distress for participants and families. Some people feel they will lose all supports. Families worry they will be abandoned. Providers fear instability and uncertainty about future arrangements. Many people simply do not know who or what to believe. We must acknowledge those fears respectfully and seriously, because for many families the NDIS is not just another government program; it is the difference between independence and crisis and between inclusion and isolation.

That is why communication from government is critical as these reforms are implemented. People need clear information. They need transparency. They need proper consultation and accessible explanations about what is changing and why. Communication cannot be treated as an afterthought. The government must engage directly with participants, carers, providers and advocacy organisations. It must ensure misinformation is corrected quickly and clearly. It must listen carefully when legitimate concerns are raised by the community. Trust will determine whether these reforms succeed.

Many of the concerns being raised by providers and participants are not arguments against reform; they are arguments for getting reform right. When providers ask for stronger registration requirements they are asking for participant safety, when they raise concerns about unregistered operators they are asking for integrity and fairness, when they raise concerns about the failures of the pay system they are asking for efficiency and accountability, and when participants ask for better communication and fairer review processes they are asking to be treated with dignity and respect. These are reasonable expectations.

The NDIS remains one of the most important social reforms in Australian history. Labor created it because we believe Australians with disability deserve opportunity, dignity and inclusion, and Labor are reforming it because we believe future generations deserve that same promise. Securing the NDIS means making difficult decisions now to ensure the scheme remains strong into the future. It means tackling fraud, improving quality and safeguards and restoring sustainability. This bill ensures support continues to go to Australians with permanent and significant disability—as originally intended.

We must never lose sight of the people at the centre of this system: the participant striving for independence, the parent fighting for their child, the support worker dedicating themselves to caring for others, and the families who simply want reassurance that the supports that they rely on will be there well into the future. There are things that remain unclear as we work through the process of the reforms, but I say to the people in my community: I will continue to advocate for your voices as we go about this reform. Understand that I am listening.

Mary Aldred (Monash, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's always a pleasure to follow my colleague the member for Dunkley. In approaching my broader remarks on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, I want to say some things upfront about carers and, particularly, unpaid carers. I've had a number of conversations recently with unpaid carers, who are, in my view, the unsung heroes of our community. I think it's worth reflecting on the fact that one in nine Australians is an unpaid carer. They're often sons, daughters, parents, grandparents or siblings. There are 400,000 children and young people in Australia who are unpaid carers, often caring for a parent or a grandparent.

I also want to recognise the around 21,000 carers in my electorate of Monash, many of whom I speak to regularly. They include grandparents in their 80s, caring for grandchildren with a disability, and parents in their 80s, caring for adult children with significant disabilities. They put all of themselves into that role. They do it because they love their family, and they deserve more thanks, more recognition and more support than I think society and our broader community give them. So I want to place on record my sincere acknowledgement of what they do, day in and day out.

The coalition remains steadfast in our support for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and for Australians who rely on it every day. I think it's a fundamental principle that Australians living with a significant and permanent disability, wherever they are and whatever their postcode, should have access to the support that they need to live with dignity, with independence and with opportunity. The NDIS is one of the most significant social reforms this nation has ever undertaken. For many Australians, including many Australians in my electorate of Monash, it has transformed their life. It has provided support where, previously, there was uncertainty, crisis and barriers. It has offered many families hope and confidence about their future. It has offered independence for many who, previously, could not see a path through. For carers, it's often provided relief from an overwhelming burden. For parents, it's offered reassurance that their children can access support and opportunities. For participants, it's meant greater choice and greater independence over how they choose to live their lives. Because of that, all of us in this place should approach discussions about changes to the NDIS with deep care.

Supporting the NDIS does not mean simply defending the scheme as it exists today; it means ensuring that it stays strong and sustainable for generations yet to come. If we want the scheme to be able to continue supporting Australians well into the future, we also have a responsibility to ensure it remains fit for purpose. The reality is that the scheme has grown substantially since its establishment. Originally, the NDIS was expected to support around 410,000 participants. Today, it supports more than 760,000 Australians. Annual expenditure has grown from original projections of approximately $13.6 billion to around $50 billion, and that is projected to continue increasing significantly in the years ahead. That growth presents real challenges.

However, while the need for reform may be broadly accepted, the question before us now is not whether reform is necessary in itself. The question before us is whether reform is being undertaken in a way that gives all Australians confidence. For Australians living with a disability and for the families and carers who support them, these discussions should not be viewed through the lens of legislation or budget papers alone. They need to be viewed through the lens of everyday life. They are about whether support will continue, whether therapies remain available, whether routines can be maintained and whether families can continue managing the extraordinary responsibilities they already carry.

In a region like mine, the great Gippsland region—we're not a CBD region like Ballarat, Bendigo or Geelong, where you've got one central area of population; we have many smaller towns and many smaller communities. Forty per cent of our region is towns with under a couple of thousand people. That lack of market density sometimes makes accessing allied health professionals and therapists in very small or more remote communities quite difficult. I've had some things to say previously on the revised travel allowance component of the NDIS to ensure that your postcode doesn't determine your potential in respect of the NDIS and that if you live in a small remote community and you need the NDIS and you need to access an allied health professional, you can continue to do so.

One of the stronger actions required is around fraud and integrity within the scheme. Australians rightly expect taxpayer dollars intended for participants to support participants—not criminal networks, dishonest providers or individuals exploiting weaknesses in the scheme. Every dollar lost through fraud is a dollar unavailable to Australians with disability who genuinely rely on support. When reports are made to the NDIS and evidence provided, far too often there appears to be no response, no follow up and no visible action. In one case, a detailed report regarding a fraudulent operator was submitted with supporting evidence. It took two years for a response. That is simply not good enough. Australians with disability deserve better, and providers acting in good faith deserve better as well. Systems designed to protect vulnerable Australians must be capable of responding swiftly and decisively.

Families also regularly raise concerns about dramatically different pricing for identical services once providers become aware funding is being accessed through the NDIS—the same service, the same work but a dramatically different price. That is unacceptable. Participants deserve protection, taxpayers deserve accountability and the scheme itself deserves integrity—and that will ensure its long-term sustainability.

I can say with confidence that people across my electorate of Monash are paying very close attention to these proposed reforms. Monash is a large and diverse regional community, and regional communities often experience disability support systems differently. Distance matters, access matters, availability matters and workforce shortages have an impact. When local specialists are unavailable, families need to travel. When therapy providers reach capacity, families wait. When support workers cannot be found, parents and carers fill the gap. I've spoken to the parents of a teenager in Moe, in the Latrobe Valley, who having trouble accessing physical therapy. I've spoken to the parents of another young person for whom speech therapy every week makes the difference between being able to communicate how he's feeling—Does he feels safe? Is he in pain?—and whether he's not able to do those things. These things matter. They matter in regional communities, and regional communities matter.

One thing that's become abundantly clear through the work I've done across my community is just how many families in the Monash electorate are seeking help to navigate disability supports and the NDIS. It is not an easy system; it is a complex, cumbersome system for too many people, and unnecessarily so. Almost 30 per cent of constituents who contact my office seeking assistance raise issues connected to the NDIS, disability support or a related service. I've now been in my role for 12 months and have helped over a thousand constituents, and the NDIS makes up a really significant proportion of that. Nearly one in every three people contacting my office is doing so because they are trying to navigate assessments, funding arrangements and increasingly complex support systems. I've spoken to too many people with a disability and too many parents of someone with a disability in my electorate who are in tears, who are distraught, who are in a very emotionally fragile state because they're worried about losing their plan, or being assessed at a lower, different rate that is not sufficient to meet their needs or their disability. That is really wearing on the emotional and mental reserves of many people in my electorate right now who genuinely, absolutely need to rely on a strong and secure and available NDIS.

Before these reforms commence, many families are already navigating systems that feel overwhelming and difficult to understand. For many families, managing support has become almost a full-time responsibility in itself. These are the stories that I hear and my office hears. They may be powerful, but they're not unique. I've heard recently from parents in towns like Warragul and Drouin trying to secure early intervention supports while waiting months for specialist appointments. I hear from families in South Gippsland travelling long distances just to access therapies because local options either don't exist or waiting lists stretch for months. I've had constituents in Venus Bay tell me that they just cannot get providers to their community—full stop. I also hear from carers on Phillip Island attempting to co-ordinate support workers, appointments and transport while balancing work and family responsibilities. I've heard from families in Wonthaggi overwhelmed by paperwork, red-tape requirements and the uncertainty of future arrangements. This is not fair and it's not right.

Increasingly, parents tell me they feel less like parents and more like coordinators, advocates and administrators. These are regular conversations occurring right across regional Australia. Too often discussions in Canberra become focused on fiscal projections and growth trajectories. But for families in my electorate of Monash, this debate is not just about balance sheets; it's about whether the supports they rely on today will still be there tomorrow.

One of the most significant elements of this bill is the proposed change to eligibility and access arrangements. Historically, eligibility has centred largely around diagnosis and established assessment criteria. The government now proposes moving towards a model based around reduced functional capacity. This represents a significant shift and understandably has generated concern because many details on how these assessments will operate still remain unclear. Families are seeking reassurance. Participants are seeking certainty. Communities are seeking confidence that Australians with genuine need will continue receiving the support they require.

There is also understandable concern regarding the proposed reassessment of existing participants. With more than 760,000 participants potentially being reassessed over the coming years, this represents an enormous undertaking for a government department. Communities are quite rightly asking a very reasonable question: if they lose access to supports under the NDIS, where do they go next? There is no answer for them. There is no adequate response, because our broader healthcare systems are already under significant pressure.

In my electorate, in West Gippsland, we've got the West Gippsland Hospital, which predates World War I. Yet Warragul and Drouin are among the fastest growing towns in regional Australia—in fact, in any part of Australia. That infrastructure has not kept pace with the population growth of my West Gippsland community, and that is why I'm fighting for a new West Gippsland hospital. That's why it's important. It's important to local families; it's important to people with a disability. We cannot put additional unnecessary burden on local health services. In the Bass Coast community in my electorate, they're continuing to wait for stages 2 and 3 of the Wonthaggi Hospital redevelopment, because the population there has grown as well.

Australians deserve better. Regional Australians deserve better. People in my electorate of Monash deserve better. That is why I will always stand up for local families. I will speak up for people with a disability who need strong representation in this place, and they deserve nothing less.

Louise Miller-Frost (Boothby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

After 13 years, Australia's universal health and support system would be inconceivable now without the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The scheme has become an important part of Australian life. It's part of our national identity, it's part of our national story and it's one of the greatest social achievements. It is part of what makes Australia the envy of the world.

The scheme is the fruit of years of hard work by people with a disability, disability advocates and carers who recognised that Australia was falling short of its human rights obligations to protect and care for some of the more vulnerable people in our community. It was a Labor government who answered that call—their call that people with disability should be given choice and control in the matter of their own care. Labor is the party that does the big innovations that make life better for Australians—Medicare, the superannuation guarantee, paid parental leave, the NBN—and it was a Labor government that conceived of the NDIS. The Albanese Labor government is committed to maintaining this promise. We are committed to seeing the NDIS succeed well into the future.

But, after 13 years, the NDIS risks running afoul of its original charter. After a decade of poor implementation and management under those opposite, the NDIS ballooned beyond all recognisable proportions in terms of costs and numbers of participants. While most providers are doing the right thing for the right reasons, we know that there are also fraudsters, grifters and rorters in the system taking advantage of those whom the system is there to ostensibly protect. Sadly, whenever there is a bucket of government funding, the sharks circle. Hence, the quality of care and support has also been compromised.

These issues are perhaps not entirely unexpected. When the NDIS was established by a Labor government in 2013, it was the coalition that oversaw the initial period of its implementation. In 2022, the Albanese Labor government inherited from the coalition an NDIS that was growing at 22 per cent year on year—unsustainable. Since coming into government, we have sought to make the NDIS better, more reliable and fit for purpose in the long-term—sustainable. We have sought to make it safe, effective and ethical. Labor has brought down the growth rate to 10 per cent, but, unfortunately, this is still well in excess of what was originally contemplated when the NDIS was set up and is still too high if we want the NDIS to remain viable.

Under the changes that are proposed, the NDIS will continue to grow. But, rather than costing taxpayers more than Medicare and the PBS combined and rather than a total expenditure of more than $70 billion and participant numbers of 900,000 by 2030, compared to the Productivity Commission's recommended 550,000 benchmark, the NDIS funding will be $55 billion in 2030 and will provide for 600,000 people by 2030, bringing it back to its original purpose of providing services for people with enduring and significant disability.

Many Australians rely on the NDIS for their care needs and know that they can rely on the NDIS for their care. I hear from so many Boothby constituents about the life-changing experiences with NDIS, but I also hear stories about where it isn't working, and these can be catastrophic. The social guarantee risks being jeopardised if the shortcomings in the system aren't urgently and comprehensively addressed, and we are determined to make sure that the NDIS does not fail. We want it to be sustainable and to last for future generations. To this end, reform is not negotiable.

The reality is that many Australians have lost confidence in the NDIS. Increasingly, Australians believe it has become unwieldy, providers are untrustworthy and that changes therefore need to be made. Activists, advocates, carers, people with disability themselves—everyone wants to see the NDIS doing better, because the reality is that the NDIS cannot survive if it loses the confidence of the Australian taxpayer.

It was a Labor government that proudly established the NDIS, and it will be a Labor government that takes responsibility for ensuring that the NDIS truly works for Australians with disability. Be in no doubt: people with disability are not the problem and they will be the centre of these changes. Their voices cannot be divorced from this process of reform. The problem lies with the system that has long failed people with disability and will continue to fail them if changes are not made.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 will restore the NDIS to its original intent, supporting people with permanent and significant disability. To this end, it will make access and eligibility requirements fairer, clearer and more consistent. Assessments will be standardised and evidence-based, and this means that a person's eligibility for NDIS will depend on an assessment of functional capacity. What do they actually need in terms of support? Under the old assessment model, eligibility was determined on the basis of a diagnosis alone. It did not require a judgement of functional capacity. In the early days of NDIS, these diagnoses or access lists were intended to be provisional, and it facilitated faster access to the NDIS. But it was always meant to eventually make way for an objective assessment tool.

The new assessment tool will be developed through co-design with people with disability and the sector. The diagnosis gateway has put people on the NDIS who don't need to be because this was the only option for service provision for them, and so the government is developing the Thriving Kids program which children under eight with developmental delay or autism with low to moderate support needs will be able to access appropriate services in the future. Importantly, they'll be able to access the supports they need even while they are trying to find a diagnosis which can be difficult with young children. This enables them to access early intervention, which can make all the difference. The government will also invest $6 billion in foundational supports for people who require less significant support. I hear from people with disability and carers the fear that these services don't exist, and they're correct. They don't. They do not currently exist, but they will, and, again, they will be made with co-design.

This bill also introduces planning measures and safeguards. It ensures that supports provided are relevant to the eligible impairments. It will provide clearer guidance and legislation on what reasonable and necessary support means. It will make changes to the circumstances for requesting unscheduled plan assessments by imposing stricter criteria. Currently, one in five plans are subject to unscheduled reassessments. These are often instigated by plan managers who seek to exploit the process for their own personal financial gain because reassessments can result in an average increase of 20 per cent in plan value.

This bill will reset the total costs for social and community participation and capacity building daily activities to where they were last year. These programs are languishing and underperforming in their objectives. While many support workers do a fantastic job, many others are not meeting the basic expectations—expectations of creating connection, encouraging participation, fostering inclusion and treating participants' time with respect and dignity. The cost invested does not justify participants' current experiences of these programs. Four years ago, this stream of the NDIS was worth $4 billion. Today it is more than $12 billion, the same in net terms that we spend on the PBS. And it will be $20 billion at the end of the decade if not addressed. These are sums we simply cannot justify. Instead, the government will establish a $200 million Inclusive Communities Fund, facilitating mainstream disability services and organisations that will rebuild capacity and provide genuine options for participation in the community.

The government will also fight the fraudsters, the grifters and the rorters who maliciously and unashamedly take advantage of not just the system but people with disability. They use scams, cons, fraud and sometimes violence and threats to get their way. They game the system in order to make a quick buck at the taxpayer's expense and at the expense of their clients. There are no words to describe this activity other than criminal. The government has already committed $550 million to tackle these fraudsters in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding) Bill 2025. We now review more claims every day than those opposite did in an entire year. They just let the fraudsters rip.

This bill builds on our existing regulations and safeguards. The bill introduces additional categories of mandatory registration to include higher risk activities, such as personal care, daily living supports and supports in closed settings. Higher risk provider registration improves oversight, maintains safety and protects participants from exploitation, violence, abuse and neglect, and it will reassure participants of the quality of the service delivery. The bill will require providers to enrol in a digital payment system so that they are paid directly with a nominated and validated bank account, undermining criminal cash kickbacks, large cash withdrawals, asset purchases and fraudulent financial transactions on NDIS funds.

The NDIS will also be able to monitor all evidence associated with the claim. Currently, the NDIS has no access whatsoever to 90 per cent of claims made by plan managers and providers directly. Around 600,000 claims are made every day without supporting evidence. This will change that. In addition, the NDIS will now have new powers to investigate criminal activity, including more information-gathering capabilities. Providers, nominees and participants will be obligated to retain records regarding service provision or claims for specified periods of time at the risk of incurring a civil penalty.

The bill also seeks to improve the quality of service provided by plan managers and support coordinators. There are currently 1,400 plan management providers of variable quality—some excellent, some not so. Plan management providers will now need to be members of our commission panel. The panel will set strict quality regulation and monitoring standards for its members, resulting in higher quality services. We will also reduce third-party service providers, who are often not qualified to provide disability services and are much more interested in financial returns. Third parties are much more interested in hoarding as many plans as possible and much less interested in providing the quality of service that participants need and deserve.

The participants will no longer need to pay their support coordinator from the NDIS plan budgets. The government will commission providers to give support coordination from a list of quality and accountable providers funded directly by the government. The proposition is simple: more oversight will mean higher quality services. The return to sensible management will mean the NDIS is projected to grow by two per cent year on year and by five per cent from 2030 onwards. Importantly, it secures the future of the NDIS. The NDIS is sinking under its own weight. The system has outgrown the number of participants it was created to service, and costs have correspondingly become unsustainable. The question of delaying real and substantial change is not one we have the luxury of entertaining—certainly not if we want to preserve the NDIS for future generations.

This bill is not necessarily about participants. They're not the ones at fault here, but they are the centre of what we're trying to achieve. I know that the uncertainty of change is keeping people awake at night. This is not even necessarily about providers, the majority of whom do good work and go about their work with integrity. It is about creating a fair, safe and sustainable system that serves the interests of its participants, a system that is fit for purpose and will remain fit for purpose for the foreseeable future. The bill reclaims the narrative that first inspired the creation of the NDIS: giving a hand to our vulnerable Australians who need it the most. I commend the bill to the House.

Angie Bell (Moncrieff, Liberal National Party, Shadow Minister for Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. I wish to acknowledge and thank the extraordinary individuals across our country, across our great land, who dedicate their lives to supporting people living with disability, including those across my community on the Gold Coast. To the carers, support workers, allied health professionals, educators, therapists, medical specialists and the families and informal carers who show up every single day, thank you. You are helping our community's most vulnerable to live with dignity, independence and opportunity. We are a better nation because of you.

This debate matters because behind every policy, every budget paper, every legislative amendment and every statistic are real Australians and real families—people who rely on this scheme not as a luxury but as a lifeline. The coalition has always supported the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We support the principle that Australians with significant and permanent disability should have access to the supports they need to live fuller, more independent lives. That principle has not changed. There should always be a national disability insurance scheme for those who need it, and that scheme must also be financially responsible and operationally sound for the decades ahead, because sustainability and compassion are not competing objectives; they depend on one another. If the scheme is not sustainable, it cannot continue delivering for the people who rely on it most.

Today, the NDIS supports more than 760,000 Australians. When it was originally designed, the expectation was approximately 410,000 participants. The scheme was initially estimated to cost $13.6 billion. Today, that figure sits at around $50 billion annually, and it is projected to reach approximately $70 billion by the end of the decade. That trajectory is not sustainable, and that reality cannot simply be ignored. But what concerns us is that this legislation represents the government's latest attempt to manage growth in the scheme after repeated failures to meet its own targets. In April 2023, the Albanese government committed to reducing annual growth in the scheme to eight per cent. That target was missed. Then the minister announced the government would seek to reduce growth to between five and six per cent over the medium term. Again, that target was not achieved. Growth is now sitting above those ambitions.

So this bill becomes another attempt to control a system the government has struggled to manage. It's out of control, just like the government's loss of control when it comes to our economy and the budget. While we support reforms where they improve integrity and strengthen protections, our concern is simple: Australians with disability cannot become collateral damage in a race to repair the government's budget position. That is why scrutiny matters, and that is why implementation matters. Scrutiny matters and implementation matters, and they, of course, are the two biggest weaknesses of this government, because the success or failure of these reforms will ultimately be judged not by the press releases but by the experience of the participants.

In my magnificent electorate of Moncrieff I've seen firsthand the difference the NDIS can indeed make. Earlier this month I had the privilege of spending time with 18-year-old Tilly. Tilly lives with disability. She uses a wheelchair and requires full-time medical care. But Tilly is far more than her diagnosis. She's a young woman with ambition. Tilly's as bright as a button. She's building friendships. She has dreams for her future. She's living her life to the full. Earlier this month, Tilly attended our IMPACT Gold Coast Youth Summit, alongside her carer. Now in its fourth year, the summit brings together young people from across the Gold Coast to encourage leadership, aspiration and connection. Tilly has contributed multiple times to the event, because she's part of the rich diversity that makes our community that much stronger. Tilly and her very special family receive NDIS support, and that is indeed entirely appropriate for Tilly's needs. The NDIS is enabling Tilly and the 4,000-plus other participants in Moncrieff to live dignified lives and contribute to our community, and our community is better for it.

People are understandably anxious about some of the changes that are proposed in this bill. One of the most significant changes is the establishment of a new framework to assess eligibility for support. Historically, access has largely been linked to diagnosis. Under these reforms, greater emphasis will be placed on functional capacity. Now, there may be merit in moving towards assessments that better reflect a person's actual support needs. The problem is that the legislation establishes the mechanism but the government has not yet developed the actual assessment model. As usual, they put the cart before the horse.

People are being asked to trust a process that does not yet exist, and families are asking, rightly: 'Will my child still qualify? Will my loved one lose supports? What evidence will be required? Will people need expensive reports? Will reassessments become endless exercises in bureaucracy?' And today there are not enough answers. Changes of this magnitude must be consulted on properly. Participants deserve certainty. Providers deserve certainty. Families deserve certainty. The government says implementation will not occur until 1 January 2028. If that's the case, then I say to the government use that time properly to consult, test, refine, listen. Use the time wisely, because Australia cannot take any more broken promises and rushed implementation from this government. There have been a plethora of broken promises from this government, and Australians have now had a taste of what that actually looks like and how it hurts their back pocket.

The bill also proposes reassessment of existing participants over several years, and that means hundreds of thousands of Australians potentially entering the reassessment process. We must ask: What happens if people lose access? Where do those people go? State health systems are already under immense pressure. Hospital waitlists continue to grow. Specialist access remains difficult. GP availability remains stretched. We cannot simply move pressure from one system into another and pretend that that constitutes reform. The states simply cannot accommodate that and are certainly not ready for it.

We are hopeful that participants with permanent and significant disabilities are not forced to repeatedly prove conditions that are already permanent. People should not have to relive trauma or spend thousands obtaining reports to establish facts that are already known. The government must apply common sense—the very thing, I'm afraid to tell Australians, it lacks.

Let me be clear. There are other elements of this bill that the coalition support. We support stronger safeguards. We support improving integrity. We support measures that better protect participants because fraud in the NDIS is not victimless. Every dollar lost to fraud is a dollar not available to support someone like my friend Tilly. This bill includes measures around provider registration, stronger record-keeping requirements and shorter claim periods. These are indeed sensible reforms. Currently, providers and participants may claim over lengthy periods. Moving towards stronger record retention and shorter claim windows can support integrity, but integrity reform must go further.

Public confidence in the NDIS matters. Australians expect that taxpayer money reaches participants, not opportunists, and right now there remain significant concerns about fraud, exploitation and inappropriate claims across parts of the NDIS. We continue hearing stories of providers charging inflated prices simply because services are being paid through the NDIS. Families tell us they seek quotes for everyday supports and watch prices increase dramatically once the words 'NDIS funded' are mentioned. I have had many families come to my office in Surfers Paradise to speak to me about these difficulties, and those issues are indeed unacceptable. Participants should never be treated as funding streams, and taxpayers should not be treated as unlimited sources of revenue.

But integrity also means making sure good providers are supported, because not every provider is doing the wrong thing—far from it. In Moncrieff, organisations like LGO Therapy Group have worked tirelessly to provide evidence based, person centred support to young people and adults living with disability. Their focus is not on gaming the system. Their focus is on helping people live better lives—hats off to them.

I've heard directly from allied health professionals and providers concerned about workforce sustainability, funding settings and administrative burdens. Concerns have been raised that pricing decisions, travel arrangements and funding structures risk reducing access to services, particularly to capacity-building supports designed to help participants become more independent over time. There are also distributors who are NDIS providers who are charging a premium once they import some of the equipment and then add their margin to it—their overly bloated margin. These concerns deserve to be heard because reform cannot simply reduce costs in the short term while creating bigger problems down the road. Providers delivering essential services should not be left carrying unsustainable financial risk while trying to do the right thing by participants.

At every stage, the government must remember that the goal is not simply to reduce growth. The goal is to build a stronger scheme, a fairer scheme and a more sustainable scheme that protects participants while supporting innovation and choice. That means getting the balance right: stop the exploitation, support our legitimate providers and, most importantly, protect participants.

The coalition will support this bill because we recognise that change is necessary. The findings of the NDIS review and the royal commission make clear that reforms cannot be ignored. There must be stronger oversight, there must be stronger protections and there must be greater accountability—all weaknesses of this Albanese Labor government. But our support comes with an expectation that implementation is transparent, that consultation is genuine and that Australians with disability remain at the centre of every decision. The NDIS is one of Australia's most important social reforms. Its future matters, its integrity matters and, most importantly, the people who rely on it matter.

I once again thank every Australian who quietly dedicates themselves to caring for other Australians living with a disability. Your work matters, your compassion matters and Australia is stronger and better because of you.

Alice Jordan-Baird (Gorton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When the Gillard Labor government established the NDIS in 2013, then prime minister Julia Gillard told the House:

Disability can affect any of us and therefore it affects all of us.

She told the House:

The risk of disability is universal, so our response must be universal.

As we make some of the most significant reforms to the NDIS since it was introduced, I carry these words with me because this was the basis of the introduction of our National Disability Insurance Scheme—a once-in-a-generation reform, a reform which has reshaped the lives and futures of all Australians living with disability, of their families and of their carers by introducing one of Australia's most important social programs.

Through this bill here today, we are securing this foundational support for future generations. While the NDIS remains one of our country's most important social programs, it's growing faster than any other similar program, reaching unsustainable levels. It's riddled with fraud, rorts and unclear eligibility requirements. Through fighting fraud and stopping rorts, slowing rapid cost increases, providing clearer eligibility requirements and delivering quality services and support to participants, we are returning the NDIS to its original intent—providing lifetime support for Australians with permanent and significant disability—and ensuring that the NDIS remains a functioning and viable support system. This is so the next generation of Aussie families, carers and people living with permanent and significant disability can count on its promise for decades to come. For that reason, I'm proud to rise in support of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.

We know Australians expect the NDIS to keep supporting people with a disability and their families and to transform lives. But there is a need for change. There has been unsustainable growth that has gone unchecked for too long. Under the Liberals, NDIS growth was at 22 per cent, with no moderation in sight. We've brought growth down to 10 per cent, and in January this year National Cabinet agreed to work together to bring cost growth down to five to six per cent or lower. So here we are, bringing costs down to improve the quality of supports and the operation of the scheme for participants.

The first changes set out in this bill are changes to access and eligibility to the NDIS. The NDIS review found the approach we've been using for participants to access the scheme is inconsistent, inequitable and not always targeted to those with disability who require the most support. So, where definitions for who is actually an eligible participant are murky and unclear, we're clarifying them. We're defining and providing the assessment of thresholds for functional capacity. This bill will also clarify permanence in eligibility requirements where someone is or could be accessing supports from other service systems. These changes to eligibility will return the NDIS to its original purpose in supporting Australians with permanent and significant disability and support a more sustainable scheme moving forwards.

These changes aren't random. All these access changes were recommendations of the independent review into the National Disability Insurance Scheme, conducted in 2023. Considerable research has been conducted ahead of each and every one of those changes using an evidence based approach to determine what's best. At the moment, one in five plans are subject to an unscheduled reassessment every year, and the average result of these reassessments is a 20 per cent increase in plan value. It's these kinds of practices which drive inconsistency and unpredictability in funding decisions, which is why we're seeing such rapid growth in NDIS spending.

That's why this bill is also limiting unscheduled planned reassessments. Some requests for these reassessments are made by intermediaries like support coordinators and plan managers, sometimes without the knowledge of the participant. Our changes will make sure that only participants, their plan nominee or guardian will be able to request an unscheduled plan reassessment. These unscheduled reassessments will only be possible when there have been significant and ongoing changes to a participant's support needs which have arisen from changes in their functional capacity or if there's been an unanticipated, significant and ongoing change in the participant's living, education, work or informal support arrangements. This is about creating more predictability and equity in funding decisions and, of course, securing the NDIS so it remains viable for future generations.

Closer to home, a number of constituents in my electorate of Gorton receive life-changing support from the NDIS. For people with high needs, like a constituent of mine who suffers from motor neurone disease, the NDIS provides high-intensity supports like nursing and hospital equipment that is absolutely essential for her survival. For others, like my young constituent from Caroline Springs, the NDIS helps to fund supports like therapeutic swimming lessons and day care, which are indispensable to her quality of life. This is why making sure that the NDIS is sustainable for future generations is so incredibly important. I want to acknowledge that, for many families in my community and around Australia, it's an anxious time to experience changes around NDIS supports.

Our Thriving Kids initiative is intended to address the missing middle—children age 8 and under with developmental delay, disability and low to moderate support needs. These were not the participants with a profound disability who the NDIS was originally designed for. Nonetheless, they need adequate supports. One in five young children experience developmental delay or autism, mostly at mild to moderate levels. A school in my electorate told me that one in four of their students are NDIS participants, most of which are with developmental delay or autism at mild to moderate levels.

If you speak to families in my electorate or families facing similar challenges across the country, they'll tell you the current system isn't working for them. They're waiting years for specialist appointments. They say that the system is confusing and hard to navigate, and the supports they're receiving from the NDIS just aren't targeted enough. The harsh reality is that these children are falling through the cracks. Intervention is simply not happening early enough.

I'm proud to have been involved in the parliamentary inquiry report into the proposed Thriving Kids program as part of my role on the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Disability. We heard from experts, peak bodies, parents, families, providers, participants and those with lived experience, and I'd like to thank every single organisation and person who took the time and care to put in a submission to our report. This report has a specific recommendation about transitions, to help children transition into early education, from early education into primary education or from primary education into higher education, as appropriate. By increasing funding and resources to already existing organisations who can deliver through a hub-and-spoke system, these supports can be made more readily available and therefore can improve equitable access for these children and their families, thereby ensuring that cost and distance are not a barrier. This is a model that is better suited to children with mild to moderate developmental delay and intends to provide more appropriate supports than the lengthy and individualised NDIS model. It's about giving our kids the best possible start in life without forcing families to navigate the exhausting NDIS-or-nothing battle we see too often.

We have service providers in my electorate of Gorton as well as right across the country working hard to support NDIS participants and doing the right thing. But we also know there are service providers out there who are behaving fraudulently and that there are breaches of the code of conduct in the system. Where we see fraud, too often we also see violence, abuse and neglect. The bill makes practical changes to crack down on fraud and misconduct by dodgy NDIS providers. This bill will tackle fraud and compliance issues within the NDIS by providing the NDIA with the necessary powers to provide stronger safeguards for participants and improve integrity of the scheme. Provider registration is also an important element of our government's changes. This bill expands categories of mandatory registration to include the higher-risk activities. That means that personal care, daily living supports and supports provided in closed settings will be required to register as a provider. It's more oversight and more enforcement. For NDIS participants, it's about safety; for providers, it's about accountability.

Our changes are also ensuring that providers who do the wrong thing will face harsher penalties. We're introducing new offences, stronger civil and criminal penalties for misconduct and giving the NDIS commissioner more powers to punish providers, because NDIS participants and their loved ones deserve quality care. This is about justice—justice for participants who have been taken advantage of—and we are sending a clear message to fraudulent service providers: dodgy behaviour will not be tolerated. Breaches to the NDIS Code of Conduct may include providers failing to safeguard a participant from harm or breaching a participant's privacy, and punishments for providers whose breach often involves a significant failure or involves a systemic pattern of conduct will be increased. The code of conduct is central to ensuring that participants can access the quality of care they deserve, so we are strengthening it. This comes after reports of dodgy NDIS providers intimidating participants to change service providers and reports of providers trying to attract participants with offers of alcohol, tobacco or cash. The providers then allegedly drained the participants' plans while not providing the standard of care that was expected. This conduct should outrage us all. For vulnerable Australians to be taken advantage of in this way is absolutely disgusting.

Amendments provided in this bill will also provide the NDIA with new functions to allow it to investigate criminal activity and amend certain information-gathering powers. This is to make sure that information obtained by the NDIA CEO from participants and prospective participants can be used as part of those investigations, and it will require providers, nominees and participants to retain records relating to the provision of supports. Providers who don't comply with this will be met with a civil penalty.

All of these amendments have one thing in common: securing the NDIS for future generations. This bill is about tackling fraud and rorts, slowing rapid cost increases, providing clearer eligibility requirements and delivering quality services and support for participants, all so that we can return the NDIS to its original intent.

The NDIS is a lifeline for Australians with permanent and significant disability, and, if we want it to continue to be one for future generations, these changes are necessary. Let me be clear: these reforms being debated today are because of a Labor government that is addressing these issues and putting these changes forward. Under the previous coalition government, these sorts of behaviours went unchecked. When Labor came to government in 2022, we inherited a system that was not ready to meet the challenges of the future. We inherited a total mess. The NDIS lacked basic prevention controls for fraud and noncompliance. We acted fast, investing $550 million into tackling fraud and noncompliance and passing the 'getting the NDIS back on track' act.

While those opposite put reform in the too-hard basket, we're doing the real work to secure the future of the NDIS. We're making sure the scheme works for the participants it is designed for, not against them. Here we're continuing our work to crack down on fraud and noncompliance by dodgy providers. It'll mean better outcomes for people with disabilities and their families. When Labor introduced the National Disability Insurance Scheme, it wasn't about providers taking advantage of vulnerable people; the NDIS is about dignity, and that's what this bill is here to protect. This bill is, in essence, about dignity, which is why I'm so proud to commend it to the House.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The National Disability Insurance Scheme is one of the most important social policies in this nation. Equally, I think it's fair to say, it's also been the public policy problem child for successive governments since its introduction by the Gillard government. The NDIS was created with the best of intentions. Prior to the scheme, support for people living with disability was managed by individual states. Services were largely block-funded and subject to the vagaries of state budget cycles, and access to service depended largely upon your postcode.

In 2011, the Productivity Commission estimated that a national scheme would cost $13.5 billion per annum. A national system providing tailored support for people living with disability was certainly visionary. But what has eventuated has been a policy disaster of epic proportions, overwhelmed by fraud and inequity. The Productivity Commission's estimate has quadrupled, and when talking to people in my community many say the scheme has not materially improved their lives. Big differences can be seen in the level of supports provided, often due to the quality of supports participants can afford, and many people with disabilities—and their loved ones and carers—are fatigued, gripped with fear that their plan will be cut or cease with the changes that are before us. This fear is compounded by the knowledge that outside of the NDIS there are very few supports.

This scheme is absolutely plagued by fraud. In the 2025 September quarter, more than 7½ thousand fraud tip-offs were reported to the National Disability Insurance Agency. Reports of organised crime and inappropriate, mischievous or fraudulent claims are estimated to cost up to a tenth of its budget, or around $5 billion annually—and I believe that that's quite conservative. Realistically, that figure is likely underreported, given Minister Butler states the NDIA has no visibility of 90 per cent of invoices. In the February 2026 Senate estimates, John Dardo, the head of the NDIS Fraud Fusion Taskforce, reported that just 53 individuals were referred for prosecution and that there were just 16 matters before the court. Troublingly, Mr Dardo stated that in 2024 there was not 'sufficient judiciary to process the cases we have in the pipeline in the country'. Imagine that—not enough lawyers! Whoever would say that!

The recent declaration by Minister Butler that NDIS spending needed curtailment was expected, and it is indeed necessary. However, the message largely dominated by the announcement was that 160,000 people would be removed from the scheme. That not only leaves many people fearful; I believe it completely misses the mark on how to properly deliver a sustainable national disability program. The minister said that the goal is for most providers to be registered in the future. However, it is impossible for any government to have proper oversight when there are 320,000 providers, and that's from the December 2025 NDIS Explore data report, which said 320,778 providers existed. Now, the NDIA report to ministers says it's 276,000, and the library tells us it's somewhere in between. That is an extraordinary number of providers in the system. That's approximately two participants per provider across Australia, and 96 per cent of them are not registered.

In the Adelaide Hills, Fleurieu and Kangaroo Island parts of my electorate, 94 per cent are unregistered and only six per cent of providers are registered. In my electorate, we actually have more providers than we have participants, and of those who are registered, a minuscule number are actually certified as being accredited. It's just unbelievable that we would allow a system that is full of unregistered, unaccredited providers delivering services to our most vulnerable people. We don't know what qualifications they have. It's no wonder there is fraud rampant and it's no wonder we have organised crime and every man and his dog—320,000 of them—becoming NDIS providers. It's no wonder they all have stickers saying 'I love the NDIS'.

For context, Support at Home, the government's new national aged-care program that assists over 300,000 older Australians, has around 900 providers. Workforce Australia, the national program that assists over 600,000 Australians into employment, has around 1½ thousand providers. Each one of those, with respect to employment providers, had to apply through competitive tender, and they needed to demonstrate governance and expertise, and each one's audited annually. But with NDIS, we don't have that at all. Basically, put up a sign saying you deliver NDIS services and away you go.

And we are dealing with people. This is supposed to be providing services to our most vulnerable Australians. Investigative reporters have found that many padlocked shops are empty, yet the invoices to the NDIS continue. I've even heard from reputable sources of overseas-based support coordinators submitting invoices. This system is an unmitigated disaster, and that is what the government should be focusing on, not putting more fear into people who are trying to get by, supporting, in many cases, their children on a plan.

The optimist in me says that it's not too late and that we can address this. If I was the government, instead of looking to cut those 160,000 people, I would formally be putting to tender, region by region, services to deliver so that you had a group of services—organisations that were reputable and had qualified staff in them—and you still had choice for participants within that region. It seems insane; you're never going to get to the bottom of the problem of fraud when you have over 300,000 providers.

When we're looking at the challenges around the NDIS, what does this bill do? There are some parts of it that I do support in relation to integrity and responding to fraud, but there is much more that the government can do. This bill takes some positive steps towards better managing fraud, with plan managers to be the gatekeepers for other providers by setting up a provisioning model for the plan manager cohort. I do wonder, though, whether we are putting all of the burden on plan managers and not enough of the burden on the government department to actually curtail the number of providers that we have in Australia.

The government advises that providers of the high-risk services will be the first required to be registered. How they were not already registered just beggars belief. I would prefer to see all providers not just registered; they must be qualified and appropriate service delivery organisations and they must be accredited, because people who are living with disability, I believe, deserve the very best of supports. This should be our focus.

The legislation sets out a new definition for 'functional capacity' as a threshold to access the scheme. That is going to render many applicants and participants ineligible for the NDIS. I understand why the government's doing this, but there is a real fear in the community that there aren't alternative foundational supports. I was listening to the previous speaker, and she was saying how the Labor government is the first to try and curtail this scheme. That is not true. I was here when the previous government was attempting to legislate for independent assessments, and, I've got to say, the then Labor opposition fought so hard against that. We actually wouldn't be in the mess that we're in now if we'd had more bipartisanship in trying to address this behemoth of a scheme for the last decade.

I have much more to say about this, but I will say this: the government needs to focus on ensuring that we address the fraud, the rorting and the organised crime that is costing this nation billions of dollars and on providing and ensuring that there are the best quality supports for people who are living with disability. That is where the focus needs to be. I'm continuing to review this legislation. I'm continuing to hear from my community. My hope is that that will be the focus of the government in amendments to the Senate.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take this opportunity to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is indeed a very important scheme, but, unfortunately, it is not operating as it was originally intended to. Only people with a serious, lifelong disability—and quite often their immediate family members—would truly understand the living burden of disability. I can recall that, before this scheme was even put into place, the then member for Maribyrnong, Bill Shorten, was the Parliamentary Secretary for Disability. We held a forum in my electorate at Tyndale Christian School, and I believe it was the very first forum that the Parliamentary Secretary held to hear from families of people with disability about how they were coping. It was a real eye-opener.

One of the stories I have never forgotten was from a teenage girl who came up to myself and Bill—we were there together—and said: 'I cannot go to school, because I will not leave my mother, who has a serious disability, alone at home during the day. I have to care for her, and that comes at the expense of me being able to go to school.' I know that Bill was very moved by that story. From there, the whole notion of setting up a scheme or doing something to help those kinds of families gained real momentum. And, today, we do have a scheme. We have a scheme that was put in place by a Labor government, and it was indeed one of the great social reforms that the Gillard government brought in when it was brought in. It's another one of the real social reforms that Labor can take credit for.

I believe the scheme was truly well intentioned. But, regrettably, it's been very badly administered. It was a reform that was not only long overdue but also badly needed. Whilst Labor introduced the scheme, Labor, unfortunately, lost office in 2013 at the time that the scheme was about to be rolled out. The scheme was rolled out under the administration of the coalition government. In my view, for the next nine years, it was badly administered. Yes, it was a new scheme, and I suspect that it wouldn't matter which government was in place. There would have been a need to review the guidelines and so on. But it was badly administered for almost nine years.

In that period, I personally came across case after case whereby it was my view that there was something not right about the way it was being administered. I would say to myself and others, 'How is it that the National Disability Insurance Agency cannot see and is not aware of these problems?' Nevertheless, they continued until Labor was re-elected back in 2022, and when we were we knew that we had to get the scheme back on track to where it should be.

At the time that we were looking at setting the scheme up under the Gillard government, the projections were that the scheme would support something in the order of 400,000 to 450,000 Australians. Today, there are over 730,000 Australians that are on the scheme—almost double their original predicted numbers. Again, it highlights not so much that there are people with need out there but rather how the scheme has perhaps been used in a way that it was never intended to be used. With those additional people—that is, the 730,000 people that are now on the scheme—it obviously incurs additional costs which were never budgeted for.

I heard the member for Mayo, who quite rightly made the point about the number of providers out there. To use her figures, because I haven't checked them, it's over 300,000 providers that are now providing services across Australia. That figure staggers me just as much as it staggers the member for Mayo. It's the same with the fact that—I think she used this figure—some 96 per cent of them are not even registered. Again, those sorts of issues have to be sorted out.

What really concerns me with the whole scheme is really this: people for whom the scheme was not intended are now on the scheme—there should be other services that those people should be getting access to—and they're on the scheme with substantial packages. That's come about because, in my view, there are operators out there who are not doing the right thing. Let me qualify my comments about that by simply saying this. There are a lot of very good operators out there—and I support them and I will continue to support them—but there are also a lot of shonky operators out there, and it is those operators that I will not support. They, in turn, seem to find ways of bringing people onto the scheme simply so that they can then case manage their package and, in doing so, ensure that they get most of the funds that are allocated to the package. I've seen that time and time again. I have also come across operators who have said to families, 'Allow me to manage your family member's package, and I will give you some money back in return.' That's the kind of shonky operator that is currently out there. Not only, I believe, is this review absolutely necessary; the changes to the legislation that we are debating in this place right now are absolutely necessary because we need to stop that kind of rorting and that kind of practice.

There's another issue that concerns me. This applies to a whole range of government services, and we see it time and time again when there is the government involved. As soon as you provide a package to someone—and this includes, perhaps, an aged-care package as well—and you have a selected group of people that are able to provide the services, they immediately increase their costs. Whether it's a product cost or it's simply a service they provide, you'll find that the costs immediately go up to sometimes two or three times what other people are paying simply because it is part of a government service that is being provided and it will be paid for by the government. Again, this sort of thing needs to stop.

We've also seen that there are people that are now running what I call enterprises based on total malpractice. I was in here when the minister gave his second reading speech, and I was pleased to see that he is going to tackle each of the issues, as part of this legislation, very clearly and very deliberately. There are a lot of issues to address. It is not something to which you can simply say, 'Look, we'll bring in some legislation and do a couple of things and that'll fix it all up.' We have to address each of the problems that have been identified with the scheme. Ultimately, it's about ensuring that the scheme is much better managed, ensuring that the rorting is stopped, ensuring that the scheme is financially sustainable and ensuring that clients get the support that they need and that the NDIA has the investigative powers that it needs to ensure that the scheme is being administered the way it was intended to and that the packages are being spent the way they were intended to as well.

As part of that review—others have touched on this, and there's some concern about this from some of the comments that I've heard. The changes will much more clearly define who is eligible for NDIS support and define functional capacity. At the end of the day, that is critical to determining who should be eligible to get a package and who shouldn't be eligible. At the moment, it seems to me that there is a lot of uncertainty, or what we'd refer to as grey areas, about who should and shouldn't be eligible. Quite often it might come down to an assessment carried out by someone somewhere, and someone else with a very similar disability who has their assessment carried out by a different person doesn't get a package. There has to be some consistency with all of that. We also need to ensure that those people that are providing services are registered in some way—at least those people who are delivering support to participants who are most at risk of abuse or exploitation.

That's what this particular legislation will hopefully do. It will ensure that the people that are providing services and managing the cases for the individual recipients are registered and know what they're doing. The registration process alone, I believe, will weed out a lot of the bad operators. I'm hoping it will, but I've got no doubt that it will. One of the things that is contained within this legislation, which I also very strongly support, is the ability for the National Disability Insurance Agency to have much stronger investigative powers. It seems to me that right now the powers they have do not allow them to go in and perhaps review cases, get the information they need and then determine whether there is any malpractice going on. We need to give them those powers. That will happen with the information-gathering powers that we're giving them, as well as the civil penalties that they will be allowed to apply as part of their enforcement procedure.

The minister will also, I understand, have additional powers with respect to this legislation, and it will certainly be with respect to the setting of the fees. That in itself is something that needs to happen as well. We cannot have a scheme whereby there are what I would refer to as too many uncertainties. We cannot have a scheme where the rules and obligations of everyone involved are unclear, and it seems to me that that has been very much the case over the last decade or more since the scheme came into effect, I think, in 2013. We need to make the scheme much clearer in terms of who is eligible for it; what kinds of disabilities will be supported; and, for the people that are going to be supported, what kinds of disabilities they have. We need to ensure that those who could otherwise be given support through other services are not necessarily put on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, as many of them have been.

I know that there are concerns out there in the community from some people who have a package right now and who believe that their package may be cut or amended, or that they might even be taken off the scheme altogether. I've spoken to some of those people in my own office, and I'm aware of the concerns that they have. The intention here is not to take a package away from people that are on the scheme if they are deserving of being on the package. The intention with this legislation is very clearly to ensure that those people that should be on a package are on a package, that the people administering the package are not exploiting or rorting either them or the government and that the scheme itself delivers on the intent that was originally spelt out in the legislation when the scheme was introduced and nothing more. To try and achieve all that requires the changes that are in this legislation. These changes came about not only because of reviews but also because of information that has been collected by the agency, by the minister and by others over the years that the scheme has been in operation.

Yes, the scheme will continue, and, yes, the scheme is indeed a scheme that I believe serves this country well, but it cannot continue in the way that it has been administered for the last 12 or 13 years. It needs to be brought back in line. Once it is, everyone, whether they are clients—the people with a disability—family members, case managers or service providers, will know and have a clear understanding of what they need to do, what their obligations are and what the scheme provides for them. It is only when you get all of the rules made absolutely clear to everyone that we can have a scheme that everyone understands and everyone will benefit from and that will continue to remain financially sustainable into the future.

Jamie Chaffey (Parkes, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. There are 5,505 people in my electorate of Parkes who are participating in the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Let me introduce you to one of them. His name is Joe Barnes. Joe, from Dubbo, is 26—a fun, busy and social guy, I'm told, who has his own microbusiness, Barnsey's Bakes. He is studying hospitality at TAFE and works in a kitchen of a hotel and at a local forklift business. Joe has Down syndrome. Joe's mother, Maree, says he is 'happier, healthier and more independent' since the NDIS changed his life. He lives independently through supported independent living.

Unfortunately, Joe is likely to be one of the people whose lives could be about to change through the cuts to the NDIS. Reduced funding would mean Joe could no longer work and would spend a lot of his time alone, leading him back down the path of isolation. Joe's mum says:

By radically reducing people's social and community participation funding, we will end up with a cookie-cutter approach and more day care centres for people with disability because that will be the only way to make people's reduced funding last.

The concept of choice and control will go out the window and we'll go back to the bad old days!

Maree Barnes is also concerned about decisions about vulnerable people being made by machines, rather than by people. Computers can't replace human understanding, human compassion and good old common sense.

I have raised this issue before on behalf of Katherine McDowell of Dubbo, who presented a petition to this parliament called 'Harley's Law: National Safeguards for Terminal, Degenerative and High-Complexity Disabilities'. Katherine's son, Harley, has juvenile Huntington's disease, and she well understands the human cost of anonymous decision-making. Her petition sought a ban on automated tool-reducing support without human sign-off. It sought transparency for any automated tool used in disability assessment and enforceable rights for people and families to choose home, community or residential care. It called for the creation of an independent dignity-in-care commission. The petition had more than 2,000 signatures, and Katherine has yet to receive a well overdue formal response from this government.

In September last year, I spoke about a 16-year-old girl who asked to be known as Maddie and was facing the consequences of the last changes to the NDIS made by this Labor government. The changes to section 33 of the NDIS Act that came in last year meant funding could no longer be used as needed and had to be staggered equally across the year. Obviously, life doesn't work that way. We all know that all of your bills, and sometimes your troubles, come at once. For Maddie from Dubbo, who has cerebral palsy, this meant she was not able to get the support she needed to transition to her new school. She could not access half of her sessions until she'd started, with no timely training for support staff.

I've heard from providers who were devastated that they could no longer offer services to remote clients, because their travel allowance had been cut. Again, these changes hurt our most vulnerable community members, people in remote areas living with a disability. These cuts will add to the minefield of changes that service providers are already negotiating.

The Elephant in the Room service has been helping children and families in the Parkes electorate for more than 10 years. It employs allied health professionals such as behaviour support practitioners, support coordinators and early intervention workers in Coonamble, Coonabarabran, Gilgandra, Dubbo, Wee Waa and Walgett. But this service is fighting a battle on a number of fronts, including the eligibility criteria for the New South Wales government's Thriving Kids program. The service says this structure will mean no services for Coonamble, Coonabarabran, Gilgandra, Walgett and Wee Waa. It means the entire service may no longer be viable after operating for more than 10 years. It's another example of a flawed NDIS arrangement and another massive hurdle that service providers have to overcome. It is yet more evidence of just how difficult a Labor government can make living in regional areas.

I repeat that there are 5,505 people on the NDIS in the Parkes electorate. I've spoken about the stories of just three of those people. There are 5,502 other stories, many of which are likely to be impacted by the cuts to NDIS funding. There will be people who can't get medical appointments, who will no longer be able to see friends or family or who will go without services that make their lives so much easier. This, of course, includes parents who will have to see their children living with a disability, who already have so many challenges, lose even more.

The NDIS plays a huge role in helping Australians with significant and permanent disabilities to live with dignity, independence and greater choice. That's what it was established for. I fully support this scheme and have seen so much evidence of the good it does when I'm at work, driving around my electorate. When it works well, it helps with medical attention and allows human contacts that are important to all of us. It has the capacity to greatly improve lives. It is part of our responsibility as human beings to care for each other, to assist those who are in need, to share the good fortune we have and to make all our lives richer for it. The NDIS can do that, but, yes, the need is far greater than anyone could foresee.

The scheme has grown to 760,000 participants at a cost of almost $50 billion. Labor has failed to meet the commitment to reduce the annual growth rate of the scheme to eight per cent. Something does need to be done to ensure the NDIS is sustainable. The costs continue to rise, and we must make sure that the scheme is around for a long time to come to support people with disabilities, but I am deeply concerned about the way in which this is being done. Instead of targeting scammers, these changes will impact people like Joe from Dubbo or a child in Walgett, who will no longer get the support that they need. Instead of shutting down shonky operators, these changes will mean people with a disability in remote areas will not be able to access services. Instead of becoming more efficient, the NDIS services will just be cut, hurting some of the most vulnerable people in my electorate of Parkes and across Australia. For people who are suddenly not eligible, who are told that their challenges are not big enough, what options will there be?

We will always support measures that improve the integrity of the NDIS. We will always support measures that ensure there are safeguards in place to protect participants, and we will always support ways to prevent fraud and rorting, which, of course, do take place. Every day, there are reports of fraud and misuse. We know it happens and we know it's a problem, but neither this Labor government nor the National Disability Insurance Agency has been able to get a handle on it.

The Australian National Audit Office reports that six to 10 per cent of claims might be incorrect, fraudulent or non-compliant. The General Manager of the Fraud Fusion Taskforce and Integrity Capability told a Senate inquiry that every day they identify about 50,000 claims that might be risky. The most rotten cogs in the wheels are shonky providers who are not doing the right thing. Some providers are taking advantage of participants with their pricing. Some are doing substandard jobs or not doing the job at all. It is the scammers and the reporters who need to be targeted, not the people who depend on these services, not Joe in Dubbo.

There are many people in Australia right now who are deeply worried that the help they so desperately need will be taken away. There is confusion about the lack of detail in these changes. How will people be assessed? Where will they go to be assessed when our health system is already buckling under the pressure? Are their families, who will be waiting so patiently for support, going to be forced to go right back to the beginning again, waiting for specialists, waiting for diagnosis, waiting for assessment? And when all of this is navigated, will the service be there to support them? What will help here is consultation. What will help here is talking to the people whose lives this will impact, and what will make a difference is listening. When the consultation has been completed and when families and services who will be affected have been heard, communication of the end result is desperately needed. The families who have struggled through this system and these changes need to know exactly how it will affect them and what they can do about it. They have suffered enough uncertainty and weathered enough storms.

There is no capacity to get this wrong, and we need to ensure the structure is there for all of the health professionals who make the big difference in our regions in order for them to continue. The quality services and the caring people need to stay. We need solutions that support the people who need it when they need it. That is absolutely crucial for both participants and for providers. As Joe's mum Maree puts it, the NDIS is about people doing their best to live their lives as all of us should have the opportunity to do.

Rowan Holzberger (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. In doing so, I commend the work of not only the Minister for the NDIS, Senator McAllister, but also the caucus and the Labor Party, which has worked for many years not only before the inception of the NDIS but also in the inception of the plan to try and get it back on track. What we have seen in the history of the NDIS is that the Labor Party introduced it but the Liberal Party maladministered it.

I make a big point in this place of reminding people that I've worked for a living in farming and in construction, but I say that as a preface because, from about 2018, I was working for Senator Murray Watt. As the NDIS scheme grew, all of the problems that were evident there at the time grew with the scheme. Unfortunately, they had an opportunity there from 2018 to deal with the problems. They could have actually solved the problems that we are now left to deal with. That's why this bill is so important. That's why the work the Labor Party has done to try and get the NDIS back on track is so important.

There are so many people in the electorate of Forde that rely on the NDIS. There's probably somewhere around 8,000 people on the NDIS. That's double what it is in other electorates. That's 60 per cent more than what's in the electorate of Parkes. I know the NDIS really inside out and I know the communities that rely on it. I know the people that rely on it. I know the absolute torture that people go through to access the NDIS and the fight to get the services that their kids and their family members so desperately need. I know that, basically, what we have now is really akin to systems abuse—what we put people through to access those services. And so—

Debate interrupted.