Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The NDIS must be made fiscally sustainable, but sustainability cannot come at the cost of Australians with disability being left worse off. The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 contains reforms that are genuinely necessary—stronger fraud controls, provider accountability and modernised governance—and I support those measures. But this bill also contains reforms that are moving too fast without the supporting infrastructure, independent modelling or accountability frameworks that responsible reform demands.

Warringah has heard from participants, carers, occupational therapists and providers, and their message is consistent: fix the system, don't punish the people it exists to serve—NDIS participants and their families, many living with autism, psychosocial disability, Down syndrome and complex fluctuating conditions. My electorate office has heard from local NDIS providers, including Northside and Bushlink, one of Warringah longest serving community disability organisations; allied health professionals—occupational therapists, speech pathologists and social workers, all of whom work with NDIS participants daily; and parents of children with developmental delay and autism, who are anxious about the Thriving Kids transition. The NDIS is essential to each of their lives. Constituents are reporting change-of-circumstance requests sitting unprocessed for months, and some have reported drastic funding reductions—in one case, from 36 hours of support to just seven, without explanation or clinical justification. Families of young children are deeply anxious about the Thriving Kids transition, uncertain as to whether community services will actually exist in Warringah when their child's NDIS plan ends. Many of these constituents have raised their view that this bill appears to be driven by a cost reduction agenda, not by ensuring people receive reasonable and necessary supports

In 2022-23, NDIS expenditure grew by 20 per cent. The government committed to an eight per cent growth cap by July 2026, but the latest figure shows that it is still exceeding that. There are currently 774,456 NDIS participants. Without reform, that figure is projected to be exceeded, and that is an issue. In 2026-27, the budget projects some $37.8 billion in reduced expenditure growth over four years. The NDIS spending on core social and community participation reached $11.9 billion in the 12 months to 31 March 2026, and the government says average actual spend in that category has risen from around $14,000 five years ago to about $31,000 this year. I agree: these are real sustainability pressures that cannot be ignored.

But the system's existing failures are also real and can't be dismissed. Participants in my electorate face chronic delays, inconsistent decisions, poor plan quality and an overwhelmed appeals system, with a backlog estimated at 35,000 change-of-circumstance cases. Non-clinically-trained planners are making consequential decisions about complex disabilities. Significant public funds are being spent on administration, tribunals and consultants—not supports.

Fraud and provider misconduct are genuine issues, but this claim is often conflated with legitimate participant need to justify eligibility tightening. It's concerning that there are even allegations that there was messaging consultation done by the government that actually said, 'If you amplify the concern around fraud, you will get more social licence for reining it in and for these changes.' In some ways, it's almost like it was a marketing strategy to enable these changes to be pursued. The government should absolutely pursue fraud, but that cannot be the whole story. The bigger issue is that the scheme has been allowed to operate with insufficient oversight. The regulator does not have full visibility over the provider market, creating space for overcharging, poor practice and exploitation to take hold.

But let's be clear. This is not the only area where it happens. Medicare fraud has been estimated at around $3 billion a year, yet we don't see the Prime Minister and members of the government—when they come in here brandishing their Medicare cards—also concerned about fraud in the Medicare system. We certainly don't see them come in here demonising patients and blaming them for that fraud. We don't describe Medicare fraud as a reason to demonise patients, yet the NDIS is too often discussed as though participants themselves are the problem.

A fair reform agenda would strengthen regulation, close loopholes in the provider market and protect the people the scheme exists to serve. The scheme's integrity problems should not be treated as though they sit with participants. People with disability are not the ones designing pricing models, running provider businesses or exploiting gaps in oversight. Reform should be aimed squarely at those who profit from failure.

This bill gets a few things right. Strengthening fraud controls, civil penalties, expanded information-gathering powers and record-keeping requirements—these are necessary and long overdue. Expanding mandatory registration to higher risk providers—personal care, daily living supports, closed settings—is sensible and consistent with the NDIS Review's risk-proportionate model. But, again, there is overreach in the government's response. The ministerial pricing mechanism provides a lever for cost containment that may be necessary, but there is no precaution or arm's length and the government may not always use this responsibly. There are serious concerns.

Firstly, the I-CAN automated assessment system—transparency and accountability are sorely missing. This question was put to the government today in question time, and there is no reasonable or real answer to this problem. From April 2027, participant support plans will be determined through I-CAN—the Instrument for the Classification and Assessment of Support Needs—a semistructured assessment rating support needs across 12 domains, including communication and mobility. Our current reporting indicates that, once I-CAN generates a budget—and this is an automated system—NDIA staff will have no authority to change it. It will not be reviewed or managed by people. This is an automated system. They can request a reassessment using different inputs, but it is still an automated output. This risks allowing a standardised assessment and budget-setting method to carry decisive weight in determining a participant's support with limited transparency about how the generated budget can be reviewed, varied or overridden.

The assessors conducting these conversations are not required to have allied health qualifications. It's just staggering that we're still at the point of saying that. It's highly desirable but not mandatory. It's deeply concerning. As NDIS expert Dr Georgia van Toorn has noted:

If algorithms are going to determine who gets support and who goes without, then the entire apparatus—including the algorithm itself, its modelling, classification rules and training data—must be open to scrutiny.

The bill permits automated administrative decision-making but does not establish the transparency, the override mechanism or the accountability frameworks needed to make this safe. I'm calling on the government to publish the I-CAN algorithm and modelling, require qualified allied health assessors, guarantee that human override of automated plans is possible and establish an independent audit function for algorithmic decisions. We've seen what happens when automated systems go wrong: they have dire consequences. What the government appears to be doing is repeating the same mistakes. It has done so with aged care. It is repeating the mistakes and ignoring the recommendations that came out of the robodebt royal commission.

Secondly, foundational supports must exist before eligibility is tightened. The bill stages these changes unevenly. Access changes based on functional capacity are not due to commence until 1 January 2028, but changes affecting social and community participation are being advanced before the Inclusive Communities Fund and broader foundational supports are fully designed, funded and actually operating in local communities. We can all see the gap. The $10 billion national agreement on foundational supports over five years sounds substantial, but $4 billion is already committed to the Thriving Kids program for children under nine, leaving just $6 billion for adults and the broader population.

The government has allocated only $200 million over three years for the Inclusive Communities Fund. Just think about that—$200 million over three years to replace social and community participation supports for over 368,000 participants currently using those supports. The maths just don't add up. This sequencing is precisely what the 2023 NDIS independent review warned against: reforms being implemented piecemeal without the supporting structures required. As put to me by a Warringah constituent, rushing these reforms risks 'entrenching cost driven decision-making that undermines both the integrity of the scheme and Australia's disability rights obligations.'

Thirdly, the Thriving Kids transition must have a no-service-gap guarantee. Children with mild to moderate autism and developmental delay under the age of nine will be transitioned from the NDIS to the new Thriving Kids program, which is set to begin rolling out from 1 October 2026. But the NDIS eligibility changes don't take effect until January 2028, meaning there's a real risk that there's going to be a gap between when NDIS support winds back and when Thriving Kids services are available in communities in Warringah and across Australia. We've raised this issue with the government but have yet to be absolutely assured that a service gap will not occur—keeping in mind that these are young children, where every month and period of development is crucial to ensure they are reaching their full potential. State based delivery means geographic inconsistency. Services in Warringah may look very different from those in regional New South Wales or other states. Families have already reported receiving exit letters from the NDIA, claiming children have 'achieved their goals', even when therapists and parents know they still need support. I'm calling on the government to provide a clear, legally binding guarantee that no child will lose access to funded supports until Thriving Kids is operational in their community—not just nationally but locally.

Fourthly, there is no accountability framework for systemic failures. The bill does not address the systemic failures that are driving costs and participant distress—inconsistent decision-making, delays, poor plan quality and a high-volume appeals backlog. Without statutory timeframes for decisions, mandatory clinical input in planning and independent oversight of the NDIA, the structural problems remain and reform risks layering cost cuts on top of dysfunction.

At the consideration in detail stage, I'll be moving three amendments to this bill. The first is about broadening the reassessment trigger. Currently, the bill limits when a participant can request an unscheduled plan reassessment, tying it to a narrow set of circumstances defined by the NDIA. The bill narrows when participants can request an unscheduled plan reassessment, and this amendment adds three practical triggers: when supports in a plan are no longer available, when a plan is not meeting a participant's needs in practice or when new clinical evidence has emerged. These things are not static; they fluctuate. Disability is not static; it needs change. Providers exit markets, and circumstances shift between scheduled reviews.

The minister's power to reduce funding across classes of supports is broad. It is too broad as currently drafted. The bill does not require the minister to consider what that reduction will actually mean for individual participants before acting. My second amendment changes that. Before reducing funding across a class of supports, the minister must actively consider whether the determination would undermine supports assessed as reasonable and necessary for individual participants. This introduces a genuine, holistic safeguard into a ministerial power that currently operates with very limited constraints. It anchors cost containment decisions in the scheme's founding principle—that supports exist to enable Australians with disability to live independently and contribute on their own terms.

My third amendment makes support determinations reviewable decisions, and, in the bill as drafted, a ministerial determination reducing support funding is a legislative instrument, meaning it applies broadly and is not, itself, a reviewable decision that an individual participant can challenge through a merits review. This amendment closes that gap. Where a determination reduces a participant's funding, they are deemed to be affected by a reviewable decision and can access existing review pathways. It does not prevent the minister from acting, but it creates accountability. I want this scheme to succeed; it is so vital for so many. I want it to be here for Warringah families in 10 years and for every Australian with disability who needs it, but I will not support a bill that achieves fiscal sustainability by shifting the burden onto people with disability, their families and their carers. The government's urgency appears to be driven by fiscal and political expediency rather than best care for the most vulnerable.

Simon Kennedy (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the NDIS, I will talk about the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, but what I think is very important about the bill and the amendment is the human stories behind them. I recently received a letter from parents in my electorate which I would like to share with the chamber and put onto Hansard. Here are the words of Andrea and Jason, and their son Lachlan:

We are writing to express our deep concern about the removal/reduction of community access supports for our disabled son.

Our son Lachlan Rowney, is a 24 year old young man with a severe intellectual disability (mental capacity of a 4 year old in a 24 year olds body) along with ASD level 3, severe anxiety (medicated) and Epilepsy—grand mal (medicated).

Under the proposed changes, our son who is a participant for 'whom the Scheme was originally intended' (profound disability) will lose the current flexibility of his NDIS Plan. Due to fatigue heat and anxiety triggering his seizures, he attends group day programs 3 times a week. He stays in the centre if there is an excursion because group outings cause major distressed which can lead to meltdowns (where he can lash out or throw himself on the ground) and seizures (which require immediate medical attention from ambulance/hospital).

Lachlan accesses the community 2 days a week doing things he likes for example the gym or swimming using 1:1 support for programs designed by therapists to maintain his health. Due to Lachlan's severe disability he is unable to dress himself, toilet himself, catch public transport, cook meals or access community programs on his own so needs the 1:1 support to do these activities, us as normal people take for granted. The freedom to choose his weekly schedule is under threat. His family work 5-6 days a week and cannot replace paid support. Through community access, our son is able to participate in everyday life, build confidence, reduce stress, maintain social connections, and engage in activities that support his emotional and physical wellbeing. Without it, his world becomes smaller, more isolated, and far less meaningful.

People with disabilities deserve the same opportunities as everyone else to be included in their communities. Removing this support sends the message that their participation and inclusion are not important. Families already carry enormous emotional, physical, and financial responsibilities, and cuts to these services place even more pressure on carers and loved ones.

Community access is not a luxury—it is an essential part of his wellbeing, independence, mental health, and quality of life. Taking this support away isolates vulnerable people from society and removes opportunities that many of us take for granted every day. The look on our sons face when he goes swimming is priceless, due to the strength of a lot of the medication that he must take, it impacts his weight, by attending the gym and swimming it is helping him maintain a relatively healthy weight

I ask you to advocate strongly against any cuts or restrictions to community access funding and to support policies that protect the rights, inclusion, and wellbeing of people with disabilities.

My son deserves the chance to live a full and connected life, not one limited by isolation.

Andrea and Jason

That is the human impact of this debate. It's not a line item in a budget paper. It's not a bureaucratic category. This is not some abstract discussion about scheme design. This is Lachlan's life. It is his parents life. This is a 24-year-old man with a profound disability—one that the scheme was designed for—severe anxiety, epilepsy and the mental ability of a four-year-old. This family is doing everything they can to give their son dignity, structure, health, connection and joy.

How can this government look at Lachlan and his family and tell them community access is a luxury? How can the government look at Andrea and Jason, who already carry the physical, emotional and financial burden of care, and tell them that the answer is less flexibility and a smaller life for their son. The NDIS was created for Australians like Lachlan and their Australian families. It was created for people with permanent and significant disabilities. It was created so that families would not be left alone. It was created so that people with disabilities could live with dignity, safety and inclusion, and this is why the government must get this right.

Yes, the NDIS must be sustainable. Yes, the rorting must stop. Yes, bad providers, inflated invoices, fake services and criminal exploitation must be driven out of the scheme. It's taken YouTube influencers—two guys with an iPhone—to expose this, when we have tens of thousands of bureaucrats working in and around the scheme who are not doing their jobs properly. Every dollar lost to fraud is a dollar not going to someone like Lachlan and his parents. Every dodgy provider who drains this system makes it harder for genuine participants and honest families. But the answer to provider rorting cannot be to make life harder for profoundly disabled people. The answer to fraud can't be to strip flexibility from families doing everything right and suffering from the largest, biggest disabilities. The answer to waste cannot be to isolate people like Lachlan from their community.

This community access is not a luxury. For Lachlan, swimming is not just swimming; it's health, it's routine, it's confidence, it's joy. It keeps his physical weight up. It's part of maintaining his physical wellbeing. One-on-one support isn't an optional extra; it allows him to do basic things safely that most Australians take for granted. Without that support, Lachlan's world becomes smaller. His parents know that. They see it every day. They live it, and they're asking parliament to understand it. The government says it wants to return the NDIS to its original intent, and we couldn't do more but agree. But Lachlan is the original intent. People with profound disability are the original intent. Families who cannot replace paid support because they're already working, caring, carrying the weight every day, are the original intent of this scheme.

So if this government is serious about reform, and we will support them in serious reform, let's start where the problem actually is. Let's go after the rorters. Let's go after providers billing for services they never deliver. Let's go after the criminals exploiting vulnerable participants or sometimes even phantom participants. Let's strengthen the enforcement, improve detection, register providers properly and make sure public money goes where it's meant to go. But let's not take away the support that keeps Lachlan and Australians like Lachlan healthy, safe and connected. Do not call inclusion a saving. Do not call isolation a reform. Do not pretend that removing flexibility from the most profoundly disabled Australians is the same as stopping the rorts or attacking people the scheme was never meant for.

The NDIS has grown into one of the largest areas of Commonwealth spending, growing eight to 12 per cent a year. The government has now booked major savings from this reform, but Australians are entitled to ask where those savings will come from: stopping fraud and provider exploitation or targeting participants who the scheme was never meant for. We hear statistics of one in five or one in six five- and six-year-old boys being on the scheme. Is this who this was targeted for? For learning disabilities? There's no sunset period for some of these children to be on it. But then we have someone who has the mental capacity of a four-year-old. He can't work. His family are working and are now panicked with anxiety that it's going to be taken away. The government needs to be looking in the right areas. The government must stop the fraud and provider exploitation without making families like the Rowneys fight harder for basic supports.

Yes, there's bipartisan support for these NDIS reforms. We strongly support those bipartisan reforms. But let's focus where the rorting is. It's amazing to me that two guys knocking on doors in Western Sydney, armed with nothing more than an iPhone camera, can expose more rorts than I have seen in four years of this government. Australians rightly ask what is going on. Australians with profoundly disabled family members, families who are working, families who are doing exactly what this scheme is intended for, deserve the answers to these questions.

This scheme was not intended to be rorted. It was not intended for one in five or one in six five- and six-year-old boys to be on this scheme. That's not what this scheme was intended for. They were put onto it with no sunset date. We should be looking at sunsetting kids. I was talking to a plumber on the weekend who was proudly talking about his ADHD. He reckons it makes him one of the best businessmen in the Sutherland Shire. Imagine if he, at six years old, was put on a scheme and told: 'You'll be on this for life. You won't amount to anything.' He's one of the most successful guys I have met running one of those businesses. It's fantastic. We need to be telling Australians they can do more, taking crutches away from people who don't need them and directing this scheme to people it was intended for.

The other thing that gives me pause is the implementation time. I congratulated the government when they announced the intent to reform the scheme the day after Minister Butler gave his speech at the Press Club. But I was disappointed to learn in the days after that that the implementation dates were set for 18 months. Well, 18 months happens to be just after a likely federal election. I also saw the timing of the announcement—a mere weeks away from the federal budget. In that budget, suddenly, in the forward estimates, the spending is revised down, and that has led people in my electorate to ask me questions: Was this done just to improve the budget papers? Why are we taking 18 months to actually start implementing reforms that get the budget back into shape? There are a lot of questions.

It's families like Lachlan's who have questions, with profound disabilities, who this scheme was intended for. It's people who are seeing two guys wandering around with an iPhone, meeting providers, seemingly uncovering fraud after fraud after fraud, rightly asking: what have the thousands of bureaucrats administering this scheme been doing? You almost don't need the bureaucrats. You could be armed with an AI program and get some AI agents to go through and look at these unusual expenses. The cleaners who are going there and pretending to clean, booking for hours and staying 30 minutes—the fraud seems so endemic it must stop. Instead, I'm getting this, and this is one of many emails; I thank Lachlan's family for allowing me to use their case and their names. There were a number of other emails we received, similar in tone but where the families did not want to have their names or their personal circumstances put on the record. Those people, similarly, deserve to be heard. They deserve a chance.

Eligibility has primarily until now been based on a person's diagnosis. The bill will change that to be based on a person's reduced functional capacity as a result of the diagnosis. There are a lot of people just like Lachlan who are exceptionally worried about themselves, their child or their family members, so we need to get these answers clear, and what we hear is that the Albanese government hasn't developed it yet. What worries me even more is that we hear they won't develop it for 18 months. On the other side of the election, who will be in those portfolios? Can we guarantee we'll have the same NDIS ministers? Will we have the same people in the health portfolios? What worries me about this is: Are we kicking the can down the road for political convenience? Did we announce these reforms mere weeks before a budget to lower the budget estimates? Who will be implementing these reforms? And why do we have to wait for the answers to these questions

On the unscheduled plan reassessments, this bill will restrict a person's ability to ask for unscheduled reassessments of their plans. The Albanese government has said around 12,000 unscheduled plan reassessments are taking place each month, most resulting in additional funding variations of 20 per cent. Right now, a participant or their support team, including the plan managers, can ask for a plan reassessment if they believe the person's needs have changed. Unfortunately, we're seeing this power misused by some bad actors who are just out to skim additional funds from participants, often for services never provided. The changes in this bill will restrict who can ask for plan reassessments to a person's plan nominee or their guardian—this is sensible—and these will only be considered where there has been a significant or ongoing change in a participant's functional capacity. This will ensure that a participant or their trusted nominees or guardians remain in control of their needs. That part of the reform Lachlan and his family will welcome. But we must not forget who the plan was intended for.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The National Disability Insurance Scheme is one of the most important social programs in Australia's history. Across this country, it has changed lives in ways that go well beyond funding packages and support plans. It has given people with disability genuine agency and delivers on the promise that it was built on, that Australians with a permanent and significant disability would have access to the supports they need when they need them on terms that respect their own choices. We must ensure that we keep that promise.

In my electorate of Wentworth, I hear about these impacts directly. Many participants and their family members share with me how the NDIS programs have helped them participate in and contribute to the community in ways they previously didn't think possible. Just the other day in my electorate office, I met a family who have a non-verbal autistic son around the age of 13. I talked to them about the NDIS and the challenges that they found with the NDIS. We were working through some of the problems and I said, 'What did you do before the NDIS?' They said that they could barely cope. For all its faults, the NDIS has had a transformational impact on the lives of their child and on their own lives. This is why it is so important, but we cannot ignore the trajectory of the scheme and the problems with it.

The NDIS is now supporting almost 760,000 Australians, and annual expenditure is growing at a rate that, if left unaddressed, would threaten the long-term sustainability of the scheme itself. This is not just a problem for the budget. This is a problem for every person, every family member and every friend of someone who has a significant disability and is currently receiving support from the NDIS or may in the future. If we don't get this right, I don't believe those supports will be there in the future.

The program was originally modelled to cost $13.6 billion a year, or $20 billion in today's dollars, supporting just over half a million people. The Productivity Commission modelling from 2011 estimated that annual cost growth would sit between three and six per cent. Instead, between 2020 and 2024, costs grew on average 24 per cent per year. The program is now projected to cost around $58 billion a year by 2028, with an estimated 900,000 participants expected to be on the scheme by 2030 if no other changes are made.

I want to be honest about this because I think the disability community deserves honesty more than it deserves platitudes. We have an enormous challenge here with this program. I think one of the most profound aspects of this challenge is that, when this program was introduced, it became—and other people have used this expression—the only lifeboat in the ocean because many other services that others relied on were withdrawn. So the only option to get real support was from the NDIS. That is the world that we're in now, and that world is not sustainable nor suitable, so we need significant reform. That is why I approach this bill in good faith. However, alongside that good faith, I hold significant concerns about how some of the measures have been designed and how they will be implemented. My greatest fear of what the government is putting forward is that they're just not going to be able to provide the services on the timeline that they have outlined in these bills and people who really rely on these services are going to be left waiting.

This bill contains five schedules covering access and planning measures, fraud and integrity, governance, new framework planning operationalisation, and transitional provisions. I'm genuinely pleased to see that some of the reforms draw on the 2023 NDIS review and Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, among other reviews. These were hard-won findings from processes that listened deeply to the disability community, and it matters that they have informed this legislation. However, I do note that not all recommendations from these reviews have been incorporated, and I will return to some of those gaps.

I'm especially supportive of the integrity measures in schedule 2. Fraud is real. Major operations have uncovered scam schemes worth millions of dollars—money that is not going to support the people who rely on it most—and it undermines the entire NDIS scheme as it is. The NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission has reported a sharp uptick in fraud referrals in recent years. This fraud diverts resources away from the people who deserve the support, undermining the integrity of the scheme at its core. I frequently hear from NDIS participants, providers and disability sector workers who have seen the fraud firsthand and are deeply concerned about its impact. New civil enforcement powers, tighter provider registration requirements and greater payment visibility through digital payment systems are welcome. I would encourage the government to also adopt the self-direction registration category recommended by the 2024 NDIS Provider and Worker Registration Taskforce, which would maintain pathways to greater participant choice within the expanded registration framework.

On pricing and governance in schedule 3, I understand the rationale for giving the minister binding pricing determination powers. If used judiciously, these can help address market distortions and ensure value for money. But I want to be clear: my expectation is that these powers will be used with genuine consultation, not as just a blunt instrument.

Let me now talk to where I believe the bill falls short, or risks falling short, in implementation. My largest concern underpins the rest—that the supports meant to exist outside the NDIS are not ready. As the Grattan Institute's Sam Bennett noted this week:

The success of a slimmed-down scheme will depend on the availability of high-quality alternative services for those who no longer qualify for the NDIS.

The federal government has set aside approximately $5 billion for foundational supports. While we know that $2 billion of this will go towards Thriving Kids, no information has been provided yet about which other services will be commissioned.

Thriving Kids is due to be stood up in its first stage at the end of this year, but we have not yet seen it in practice. Families across my electorate and disability community organisations around the country are understandably anxious about what could happen to children who may find themselves removed from the NDIS scheme before any alternative pathways are properly operational. I have heard similar concerns from others in the community that they do not have the certainty about the supports provided to participants with psychosocial disabilities, who expect to be deemed ineligible under these changes.

States and territories have responded tentatively to proposals about supports available external to the scheme, and that tentativeness creates real risk and enormous anxiety. If we narrow access before the alternative systems are ready, we will not be saving the scheme; we will simply be abandoning people. The sequencing of reform must be rigorous. Change must not run ahead of infrastructure designed to catch those it transitions out. This includes ensuring that families are informed about what new pathways will look like.

In a community survey I recently ran on the proposed changes, respondents shared these concerns, with one saying:

The QLD government hasn't yet agreed to Thriving Kids, Foundational Supports programs don't yet exist and public health services, especially mental health services, are already struggling to meet demand.

Another shared:

More information on the Thriving Kids initiative needs to be shared, and sooner. Any changes to publicly funded community health services need to be announced (and I hope that there are some!)

There's this anxiety, and people just don't know what will be there.

My second significant concern is about the automated decision-making in schedule 3. I understand it is important to be efficient in these services. Honestly, that's feedback I get consistently—that working within the NDIS and dealing with the NDIS is a bureaucratic maze, and it should be more efficient. But we do not yet know if automated systems alone can adequately address the complexity and individuality of disability. The bill authorises automated decision-making with safeguards, but those safeguards need to be legislated clearly, not left to administrative practice. There need to be clear frameworks and guidelines about how such decision-making will be completed such that the government and decisions can be held accountable. Many constituents have shared with me their real concerns about this element of the legislation—that it could be a repeat of robodebt, that machine decision-making could ultimately lead to negative outcomes for NDIS participants. I am supportive of the member for Curtin's amendment, which raises these concerns.

Third, my community have shared their anxieties with me about various new eligibility and assessment requirements, including the requirement that participants undergo all relevant treatments technically available before accessing the scheme. While I understand that exceptions are made within reasonable terms—such as someone who has hearing loss not being required to have a cochlear implant if they don't wish to—I hold concerns that not all the treatments are accessible to individuals, whether they be prohibitive by price or location or whether they are appropriate at all.

Fourth, I raise the planned reductions to social and community participation and capacity-building supports. I understand the expenditure within these programs has risen significantly and that standardising average cuts is one of the easiest ways to reduce costs. However, applying an average reduction to this category of support across the board may not be the best solution. We know that some participants, especially those with intellectual disabilities, heavily rely on capacity-building supports to ensure they can leave the house and participate in society. Approaching these reductions in more individualised ways should be considered. We must be cautious to ensure that these cuts do not undermine the key objective of the scheme—for people with a disability to participate in normal life.

Finally, as many of my crossbench colleagues have shared, there's the consultation timeline. Ten days for the disability community to respond to 109 pages of complex legislation affecting 760,000 Australians is not genuine engagement. I understand the government faces real pressures, but rushed process erodes trust at exactly the moment when trust is what this reform requires.

The NDIS is hugely important. I support the NDIS and the community it in turn empowers. I will continue to fight for its future, its sustainability and its ability to achieve the core objectives for Australians and their families. It is clear that a major redesign of the NDIS is warranted. The growth trajectory is real, the urgency of reform is real and the experiences of people engaging with the scheme and the challenges they face with the scheme are real. I strongly believe that. The design challenges the government is seeking to address—in abuse of the NDIS, in fraud, in eligibility, in planning, in market stewardship, in foundational supports, I do believe, on balance, are mostly the right ones. But this bill requires a huge degree of trust from the disability community—trust that the functional capacity tool will be fair, trust that automated systems will not produce outcomes that would never have survived individualised scrutiny, trust that the states will step up with foundational supports, trust that the instruments and rules—many of which have not been released—will be developed with the community, not imposed upon it. That is a huge degree of trust for the government to ask for.

This reform must also not be the end. There were lots of concerns shared with me in my community surveys which will not be addressed in this stage of reforms. There must be more steps to ensure the integrity, that fraud is countered effectively and that the level of supports provided to participants is proportionate. I support the principles of these reforms. I believe that they are necessary to secure the NDIS for the future. But I do think that the government is being heroic in its assumptions about what it can get done by when. It is absolutely critical for the government now to deliver on what it has promised to the community. I will look most carefully at the rollout of its implementation. I'll be listening to my community and ensuring that the legislation has achieved what it set out to do, because there are 760,000 Australians and family members who rely on this scheme, and they deserve nothing less from this parliament.

Garth Hamilton (Groom, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Energy Security and Affordability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm going to start my contribution on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 by quickly thanking a wonderful person called Ruth Doyle, who works in my office and handles most of our NDIS issues. I'm sure that every person in this place has someone in their office who knows exactly who to call when we get those inquiries in from constituents who are having trouble getting onto the NDIS or working with a provider or finding the support that they need or just asking the first questions that one starts to ask when they realise there are issues that they need to face. Ruth has done a great job for my community over a long period of time, and I want to thank her for that. I hope she hears it. We often don't thank the ones at the front line in our offices.

I am going to, however, change my tone a little bit. I'm going to ignore the advice of both Gallagher brothers and look back in anger because we have in front of us a program that has massive design issues. Its budget has spiralled out of control, and I think it has lost the confidence of many people across Australia. If this were a rail project, like Inland Rail, the government would cut it and run. I actually commend them for taking on the hard work of this project of trying to address reform. I wish they had the same vigour on Inland Rail. A lot of hard work has to be done.

There was a time when you couldn't talk about the problems with the NDIS. You could not mention that this was a program that had massive funding issues and that was blowing out month on month. You couldn't talk about this. If you did, you were shouted down. You were told that you were scaremongering, that you were trying to cut funds from disabled kids and that you were all about cutting services. That's what those opposite said. They said exactly that. I'm going to give two cases of this.

There were certainly times when I was on the backbench that I enjoyed a frolic and I said what was on my mind, and I thought very strongly that I had to make a contribution to the national conversation about the NDIS because I was seeing it week in, week out. This program was blowing out, money was being wasted around Australia and, sadly, I saw evidence of it in my local community. Those who needed the support were not getting it, yet the money was still flowing.

In 2024 I pointed out that the growth of the NDIS was unsustainable. I pointed out that we needed to do something to it, not just from a pure economic sense but because this was such an important project that both sides of politics had embarked upon that we could not risk losing confidence in it. I was told by the Treasurer that I was engaging in heartless slash and burn politics in the Australian of the day.

A year later, in 2025, I returned to my criticisms and I pointed out two things. One was that the program at that stage was growing at around 12, 16 or maybe 18 per cent, that this was an extraordinary rate of growth and that both sides of politics should come together and find a way to limit its growth to somewhere around four per cent, just above inflation. If the growth was just above inflation, we'd know that no-one would be left behind, and then we could go through a broader reform structure.

I also pointed out in July 2025 that, at that point in time, 15 per cent of six-year-old boys across Australia were on the NDIS. I made the point that clearly 15 per cent of young boys are not disabled. For daring to say that, the minister of the day slammed me as being reckless and heartless—for daring to talk about reforming the NDIS. I'm not raising this just to flatter myself. I do that far too often anyway, and I have the member for Page to help me on occasion. I'm doing it because this is an important program and what we're dealing with at the moment, unfortunately, is a battle. I'm going to acknowledge the member for New England, who joined me in my criticisms of the NDIS in July 2025 in that particular article.

What we have now, sadly, appallingly, in Australia is a battle for funding among NDIS, health, aged care and even veteran support. When I talk to people in health, aged care and veteran support, they have the very strong feeling that in that battle the NDIS is winning and they are losing. I sat with a gentleman, Scott May, in my office, and he said: 'Watch this. I'm going to show you the most heartbreaking trick ever.' He called up an occupational therapist and said, 'I'm a veteran; I need to see you.' I sat listening in on the conversation. The occupational therapist said: 'You're on veterans coverage. I've got a six-month waiting list. Call me in six months.' We then went outside and he bought me a coffee, and we sat and had a coffee for five or 10 minutes.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You should have bought the coffee.

Garth Hamilton (Groom, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Energy Security and Affordability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I should have bought the coffee. You're right. The member for Page is right. He scolds me appropriately. We had a coffee and came back in, and he calls the same occupational therapist. He says, 'I'm on the NDIS and I'd like to talk to you.' They say, 'Come in next week.' That's a true story. The gentleman's name is Scott May. We did it. That was heartbreaking to watch. We have created a scheme that has lost the confidence of Australians. I sat there looking a veteran in the eye, someone who has served this nation, someone who'd come back with injuries, and in his eyes he was being neglected and the battle for funding was being lost. What a terrible thing to do—to lose confidence in a project as important as this.

There is no-one I talk to who doesn't agree with the point that part of the tax that we pay should go towards helping Australians with significant disabilities and with significant vulnerabilities. We're proud to do that. That's what makes us a good nation. We like doing that. It's something that we should always continue to do, and the NDIS was set up as a conduit for achieving that. But, sadly, because we've been too timid to talk about reforming the NDIS, we've got to a point where that scheme no longer holds the esteem of the nation.

I've talked about the eligibility concerns we've seen. Clearly at that point in time 15 per cent of young boys being on a disability scheme—I can't imagine the impact that has on a young boy's life. He's going through maybe learning difficulties and being told that he has a disability. I think that would have a profound impact on someone. But we've seen so many unfortunate stories about where the money that is being poured into NDIS has gone. We've heard stories about it being used for holidays. We've heard about it previously being used for sex work. We've heard about fraud and organised crime. I saw the figure that about 10 per cent of claims raise concern for fraud.

It's important now that I don't do what those opposite did when we engaged with them in a conversation on reform. It's important that I say quite clearly: I want to be part of this. I'm open to a conversation about reforming the NDIS, and I'm willing to work with the government on this. It's important that we do it. It's going to be very difficult work because we've got ourselves into a very bad way. This scheme, which should be about doing some of the best things that we can do as a nation, sadly, has been designed in one of the worst possible ways. I hate to think what happens if we aren't able to do this and if we find ourselves creating a situation where we don't have confidence and we stop funding something like this. A future where the NDIS loses out is where Australia loses out.

I'm very much of the view that for many of the cases I've talked about with misuse of funds through the NDIS we should be taking a very strong law-and-order-style approach. We should be looking for every opportunity to track down those who are taking this money, which should be used for good purposes, and pocketing it themselves. I think we should be taking a law-and-order approach. We should be cracking down on those who are defrauding the scheme. We should be doing that. That would be appropriate.

I note the concerns of many previous speakers. I'm not going to repeat their concerns. Clearly there is an issue of uncertainty that these changes have made. What the changes to eligibility will do—I've heard from many local constituents who've reached out and raised their concerns. Mostly, it's parents raising their concerns about their kids and how their kids will continue to have the service they've had. So there is an issue here that the government needs to address very quickly. Again, I'm happy to work as closely as possible with the government to address those concerns and to hopefully come up with a solution to the anxiety that people in my electorate and around Australia are facing.

I'll finish on this. One of the problems, I think, in this place is that we get to a point in a debate where we refuse to acknowledge the truth that's in front of us, and the longer we find ourselves in that situation the worse the situation gets. Sadly, if we ignore a problem for long enough, it has a huge impact. At over $50 billion a year now on NDIS, we are seeing a huge weight on the Australian economy, and we are not seeing an equal and opposite benefit being given to those who most need it. That's the sad truth. If I could stand here, hand on heart, and say that that $50 billion was making the lives of people with disabilities better, that'd be a different conversation. But that's not where we are.

We can't ignore these things. We should be able to speak out about them. I think that's an important part of being in this place. I'm very grateful that the government is listening—mostly to solutions that we put on the table years prior, in some cases, which they wouldn't support back then.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will be a responsible opposition, unlike them.

Garth Hamilton (Groom, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Energy Security and Affordability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely. Bipartisanship, sadly, in this place often goes one way. It often goes one way, and this is a great example of that. It's a great example of that. When we needed help to get these sort of changes through, Labor wasn't there. But this is too important a program, too important an issue, certainly for me and definitely for those on this side, to play politics with.

I hope that we can have a day here where we've made sufficient changes to make this a program that is sustainable, that does what Australians want and that fulfils that desire for Australians to look after those of us who need support and who need help. I look forward to that day, and I think there is enough in here that starts us down that pathway. I think there is a start here, and that's why I'm very willing to work with the government on this. But there is a long way to go here.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought the honourable member opposite might want to have a say. I was there when we started this in the Expenditure Review Committee. I remember it very well. Abbott at the time was believing that if it was untenable that we couldn't support the NDIS. We believed that the then prime minister Gillard had her heart in the right place, that this was a proper thing to do. We were a bit overwhelmed by the cost. It was a bit shocking. I think they said it would cost $13.8 billion. Around the table, we needed some convincing as that was not out of the box, that we could deal with that. It was an immense payment, but it worked on the premise of something that had been discussed for quite some time, right back to 2008, and the Productivity Commission had suggested that we have an overarching scheme that encompassed so many of the forms of disability.

It was well-meaning at the time, but the problem we've got is that it has become crazy. It is completely and utterly out of its envelope. It is unsustainable. Hard decisions need to be made, and, when hard decisions are made in government, they are unpopular. But the alternative is that it hits the deck. Not only does it do that, if you don't take control of it, it is a substantial part of the financial problems of our nation. We cannot have the NDIS drawing more from the budget than Defence, and that's where we're off to. I believe right now it's more than Medicare. This is insane.

We have Public Accounts and Audit—I was there the other day—750,000 people or thereabouts are now on the NDIS. It was never ever designed for 750,000 people to be on it. It's heading towards one million people being on it. I don't think there are that many walking sticks to sell in Australia. A million people on the NDIS—it wasn't designed for that. In my belief, it was for catastrophic disabilities. We saw quadriplegia, paraplegia, schizophrenia, motor neurone disease. These sorts of issues are what we had in mind. We can't cover all these issues. It's unsustainable. And what people have to ask on the NDIS—I know how it works. I know how politics works. People come to your office, and they give an example of someone who quite obviously should be on the NDIS. But they don't bring in all the people who you'd say: 'Well, I don't know about that. I don't know about that person.' A person on the NDIS has to have the capacity to look at a person who pays the taxes for the other person not to have to go to work and say, 'I feel completely comfortable asking this person to go to work for me.' If that person feels uncomfortable about saying to that other person, 'I think you should go to work for me,' then, I suggest, they should not be on the NDIS. It won't matter what side of the political fence you're on; if we continue down this path, this will hit the deck.

When I knew we were going to lose government—I'd said, 'We're gone; we're cactus'—I remember I said to a bloke by the name of Bill Shorten, as politics does work: 'We should move some amendments on the NDIS to try and trim this right up. But, if we do that, Bill, you can't make them controversial. Let's do this for the Australian people. Let's get some amendments up, trim it up and let it through, because we're going to lose government, and, no matter how parochial you think we are, we have to put Australia in a better economic position, get some financial stringency in here and try and bring this thing under control.' Bill's a good bloke—I got along very well with him—but he couldn't come to it. He said no; he wanted to fight us. I think we still tried it, and he still fought us. I suppose he got a few points out there with people who believed that he was supporting them.

But the rejoinder to that—I remember exactly where I was in the car. We'd lost government, and I was driving from Tamworth down to Sydney. I'd just gone past Goonoo Goonoo Station and turned off to my left. I was near the truck stop that always has the bins there—these are the bins that are not filled up with other people's rubbish—and I got a call on the phone. It was one Bill Shorten. He said, 'Barnaby, about that deal you were talking to me about, can we still do it?' He was wanting to do exactly what we were going to do and didn't want us to kick up a stink about his amendments. I said: 'Well, you should have done this in the first instance. We were actually trying to help the Australian people, the Australian taxpayer, and straighten this rubbish out.' I said, 'Look, I'll give it my best shot.' The shadow minister then was Michael Sukkar, and I said: 'Sukes, this is going to be hard, but I think, on behalf of the Australian people, we've got to trim this right up. Bill is going to bring forward some amendments, and I believe we should be supporting them.' Sukes was pretty good. He said, 'He gave us a fair touch up when we tried to do this.' He really did. He took to us in the papers and dragged us through the prickles. I don't know how many amendments there were—five of them? Sukes said: 'We'll give them four, and we're going to touch them up on the fifth. Let him know that.' And that was it.

What is the point of that story? On both sides of this chamber, you'd better realise that, if we don't straighten this out, it is over—we will have to close down the NDIS. It is completely and utterly unsustainable. There has to be a bipartisan view. There'll always be the few who scream from the edges, because they never actually have to run the treasury bench. They can say what they like; they don't have to pay the bills. To bring this back under control, it needs a cap on it. It needs to be said: 'This is what you've got.' It was supposed to cost $13.8 billion. Say: 'Let's double it and add a bit, to make, say, $30 billion—that's it. There is no more money beyond that. That is it. So find your most profound disabilities. They have to fit within the budget. And that is it.'

If you don't do that, you have to say where you think the money will come from. You can't just believe in this magic—that it'll just fall out of the sky. You have to be responsible to the taxpayer and say, 'I'm really putting you on the hook for some massive expenses.' You have to say to the taxpayer: 'See these people? It is right and just that you go to work—work five days out of seven, seven-and-a-half hours a day—to pay your taxes, to pay for them.' That is morally justified. The Australian people are very generous. If they see a person with Down syndrome or a severe disability, they will do that. But the Australian people have every right to kick up a massive stink when they see someone who's gone to a prostitute and put it on the NDIS, who's gone for trips overseas and put it on the NDIS, who's gone for pony rides and put it on the NDIS or who's had Reiki therapy and put it on the NDIS.

The classic one is when one person is an unregistered provider and, in a suburb in Brisbane or Sydney, they divine that one of their friends has a child who might be a bit on the spectrum—a bit autistic. Remember that Tim Fischer, who was the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, was on the spectrum for autism. So they get that person's child on the NDIS, and they get paid to look after that child. Then a surprising thing happens: that other family look at one of the unregistered provider's children and say, 'Well, I'll be damned! Your child also looks like they might be a little bit on the spectrum, and I, as an unregistered provider, will look after them.' So they get paid to look after your child and you get paid to look after theirs. It's a great deal! It's a scam—a total scam.

The average cost of the NDIS is $65,000 a year per person. That's $65,000 per year per participant on the NDIS. Somebody somewhere has to find $65,000 to pay for them. If I was to say to a taxpayer, 'I want you to go out and do your job and I'm going to take $65,000 out of your salary to pay for someone of the NDIS,' I know the response I would get, and it wouldn't be a good one. That $65,000 is untenable for a million people. That's crazy. What's that? We're heading towards $65 billion. It's just out of the ballpark.

So let us not confuse compassion with reality. Compassion has its ring road. It is based on logic. It's based on what you can actually do. Compassion is not wishful thinking. Compassion is actually being able to follow something through. Given where the NDIS is at the moment, it is not able to be followed through. If we are going to continue on with this—if we are going to be truly compassionate—we have to trim this up massively. If we don't and our debt keeps going up, through $1 trillion and on and on and further up and further up, I'll give you a little lesson from a little bush accountant of what will happen: our cheques are going to bounce and we'll have no money for the NDIS—we'll have no money for anything, actually.

One of the biggest issues right now in trying to bring this back under control is to really drill down and make the hard decisions that a responsible government needs to make. I would suggest to both sides of this chamber that we need a responsible Treasurer who will come up with pretty severe cuts, to be quite frank, and will say that there is a ceiling on this and it will go no further. If a Treasurer were to have that honest conversation with the Australian people, I believe they would go along with him. Then go back to what Julia Gillard and everybody thought of at the time: this is for people with catastrophic disabilities; this is for people to whom we owe compassion. This is incredibly expensive. But, with a prudent economy that opens up its coal mines, runs its iron ore, runs its gas, has dams, has cattle, digs up the gold, processes the bauxite, has coal-fired power stations, has an economy that's humming and can produce money off the assets on its balance sheet rather than borrowing it from overseas—a lot of this NDIS money is borrowed. It's on the credit card. When you build up an economy that can hum, when you work the assets on the national balance sheet, you will make the money that pays for things such as the NDIS.

In conclusion, that is the call that you have to make. Are you going to make this economy hum? Are you going to remove the ridiculous ideas of climate change policy and climate change departments so that you can put in, in their place, things that make money so that, from that money, you can pay for that compassion and your compassion can be authentic and your compassion can be paid for, or are you just a foolish, wonderful spirit?

Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to start my contribution to this debate today by acknowledging the extraordinary disability organisations in my electorate. These are organisations I've worked alongside, people I've advocated for and people I've seen serve our community well and transform people's lives.

I think of places like Warrah school at Dural; Inala at Cherrybrook; Studio ARTES—which is an organisation, in my view, of national significance; CNS Precision Assembly at Hornsby; and Northcott, which specialises in disability employment and whose participants I've seen firsthand bring skill and dedication to the real workplace. I had the privilege of having Cain Noble Davies, who came to me from Northcott, in my office. I also think of the wonderful Clarke Road special school, which transforms the lives of so many young people and families in our community, families that trust the school with their most precious people every single day. These organisations don't just provide services. They provide dignity and community. They provide the daily proof that people with disability are human beings with gifts to offer and lives worth living fully.

Speaking of lives worth living fully, I want to note that I have been proud to stand up for the recognition of Australians with disability who are extraordinary achievers. It is my honour to be running a campaign in the Berowra electorate at the moment to rename Hornsby pool after not only our most capped female Paralympian but our most capped female swimmer ever, Ellie Cole. She has 17 Paralympic medals. No female swimmer, Paralympic or non-Paralympic, has ever won so many medals, and no female Australian Paralympian has ever won so many medals either, so she deserves the recognition of our community. She's a proud resident of the Berowra electorate, she's a wonderful Australian and I look forward to seeing Hornsby council eventually listen to the Australian people, listen to the people of Berowra and rename the pool in honour of a great Australian and a great Australian who's been such a wonderful advocate for people with disability.

Turning to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, I want to talk about the story of a constituent of mine, a child called Max. If the NDIS is about anyone, it's about a child like Max. Max is four years old. He lives in Berowra. He has multiple severe and lifelong disabilities, two rare genetic conditions and epilepsy. He's non-verbal, he can't walk and he can't stand independently. He requires high-level support for virtually every activity of daily living. He's a bright, curious, determined, wonderful little boy, and he's exactly the kind of child that this scheme was created to support.

Max came with his mother, Gemma, to my office. Gemma was in the depths of one of the hardest periods of her life. She hadn't been sleeping, she was managing Max's complex needs largely on her own and she had sustained serious chronic injuries to her arms and wrists from the physical demands of caring for him. Then the NDIS, the system that was supposed to be there for her son, had cut his therapy hours by approximately 40 per cent, down from 396 hours a year to 234. Around 4½ hours a week for a non-verbal, non-walking four-year-old with two rare genetic conditions and epilepsy was not enough.

The NDIA had suggested that childcare educators could deliver physiotherapy and speech therapy strategies for Max in a one-to-three ratio environment. For a 21-kilo hypotonic child with high-support needs—I want to be direct about this—that is not a solution. That is a risk, and it reflects the kind of decision-making that happens when people making choices about a child's plan have never met the child, never read his 30-plus clinical reports and are working under pressure to cut costs rather than apply clinical judgement.

I took up Max's case. I particularly want to acknowledge Senator Jenny McAllister, who I went to see. She handled this matter with particular care and genuine human decency across party lines. Together, we were able to ensure that a much more experienced team at the NDIA was put in charge of Max's plan review. The difference was immediate and profound. When the new plan came through, Gemma told me she cried with relief. There were more support worker hours to help with his care and improved allied health therapy hours, and critical pieces of equipment were approved. What happened next? Max pulled himself up the stairs using just the handrail. He guffawed with laughter at the top. He started moving around the kitchen, exploring what was accessible to him. He's making progress in his receptive language. He seems, as Gemma says, so much happier.

That's what the NDIS is supposed to do. That's the investment that's worth making. That's why every dollar that leaks out of this scheme through fraud, gaming and waste is not an abstraction. It's a dollar that could have gone to a child like Max and didn't. Gemma has asked me not to use her story to fuel division between the parties, and I respect that. She saw Labor and the Liberals working together to help her son, and she values that. So do I. But I want this parliament to understand concretely and humanely what's at stake in this debate. It's not a budget line. It's about children like Max.

I want to make the most important call I can make in this speech today, and that is to call directly to the disability community of Berowra and across Australia. There's a Senate inquiry into this bill, and if you're an NDIS participant, a family member, a carer, a support worker or a disability organisation, this is your chance to shape the scheme's future. Your lived experience isn't just relevant; it's essential. It's the most important evidence that the inquiry will hear. I'm urging all the organisations I name today and every family I've had the privilege of serving and those I haven't met because the scheme works for them to make a submission. The Senate inquiry is open now. Don't leave this to others. Tell your story. Your voice will shape what this scheme looks like for the next generation.

Let me now turn to the bill and our position on it. The NDIS was originally established to support around 410,000 Australians, and it now supports over 760,000. It was estimated to cost $13.6 billion, and now it costs around $50 billion. By the end of this decade, on the current trajectory, it will reach $70 billion. On that trajectory, the scheme is unsustainable. Sustainability isn't the enemy of compassion. It is its prerequisite. In the coalition, we reaffirm our bipartisan support for the NDIS, and, to the extent that this government is genuinely pursuing sustainability and integrity, we are broadly supportive. We'll support this bill through the House, but we will also hold the government to account, because this is the Albanese government's third attempt to slow the growth of the scheme, and their track record of broken promises in this space doesn't inspire confidence.

In April 2023, the government committed to reducing annual growth to eight per cent, and they failed. The minister then announced a target of five to six per cent. They failed again. Growth is currently sitting at 10.3 per cent. The government's now proposing a two per cent growth target. It's an enormous reduction, and, without a clear, detailed, properly consulted implementation plan, it won't be a savings target; it will be a harm target.

The bill establishes a new framework for determining access to the NDIS, shifting from a diagnosis based model to an assessment of functional capacity. In principle, a more consistent and objective assessment process is quite sensible. The current system has produced real inconsistencies, and participants with similar needs have received vastly different support packages depending on who's assessed them and when. But here's the problem. This bill creates the legislative mechanism for the new assessment without actually telling us what the assessment will look like. The government hasn't developed it yet. The details will come through the rules and regulations—disallowable category A rules requiring unanimous agreement from states and territories. That's a significant amount of policy still to be written and a significant amount of anxiety being created right now in communities like mine.

Right now, there are thousands of parents across Australia who don't know whether their child will still be eligible for the NDIS under the new rules. There are adults with lifelong disabilities who don't know if their plans will survive reassessment. That uncertainty is cruel and unnecessary. The government owes people answers, not just a promise that the details will come later. I should note that all existing participants will be progressively reassessed between 1 January 2028 and 31 December 2030. That's more than 760,000 reassessments. Our health system is already stretched to breaking point. People are being turned away from emergency departments.

Wait times for specialists are months long. If people are exited from the NDIS and pushed into a health system that can't absorb them, we will have solved a budget problem while creating a human catastrophe. The government must be clear about where these people will go. I'm also deeply concerned about the burden being placed on participants to prove and re-prove their disability—costly new medical reports, new assessments and new processes for people who have in many cases spent decades navigating this system already. The government must apply genuine common sense and genuine compassion to this process.

And then there's Thriving Kids. As the shadow education minister, I want to say to Minister Butler and Minister Clare: families need to be able to trust a system, but how can they trust a system whose eligibility rules haven't been written yet? You've made an announcement that a group of people with disability will be moved from the NDIS and will end up being part of the education system. What will this mean for the education system? There are so many questions to answer. What's the expectation on schools? What's the impact on schools? The ministers need to explain this. They have left families and school communities worried, and, as the shadow education minister, I share their concerns.

Of all the changes in the bill, the ones causing the greatest anxiety in the disability community are the support determinations—the changes that will enable the minister to reset budgets in existing plans for social, civic and community participation supports and capacity building activities supports from 1 October 2026. The government says critical supports, daily living assistance, personal care, mobility equipment and home modifications will be protected. We will hold them to that commitment, and we will be watching closely to ensure that that commitment is honoured. But I want the government to be honest with the community about what these changes will mean in practice. Vague reassurances are not enough. People deserve specifics.

Let me be direct about something that I believe is at the heart of this debate and hasn't received enough attention. That's the question of fraud and waste in the NDIS. This isn't a minor administrative problem. This is a systemic failure that is stealing money from our taxpayers and our most deserving people. Around 94 per cent of NDIS providers are currently unregistered. The ANAO has reported that the NDIA's own assessment is that between six and 10 per cent of claim outlays may not be compliant. They might be fraudulent. They might be incorrect. Of the $48.83 billion spent on paid supports in 2025, that equates to between $2.9 billion and $4.8 billion per year. By the end of the decade, if current growth continues, that figure could reach $8 billion annually. Every single one of those dollars have been taken from a participant who needed it, and the Albanese government, with more than 10,000 public servants working on the NDIS, hasn't been able to get on top of it.

We hear every day about providers quoting one price to a customer and then quadrupling it the moment the customer mentions the NDIS. We hear about organised criminal networks deliberately targeting the scheme. We hear about services that were billed but were never delivered. This is unacceptable. It's a betrayal of every genuine participant in the system. The bill goes some way to addressing this: improved provider registration requirements, civil penalties, new information-gathering powers and a 90-day claims window. These steps are steps in the right direction, but they're not nearly enough. The digital payments platform will help. Mandatory record retention will help. But determined fraudsters won't be stopped by paperwork requirements alone. The government needs to bring genuine prosecutorial energy to this problem, not just regulatory machinery.

I want to close by speaking directly to constituents like Eleanor, who wrote to my office this week about her son Benjamin, an adult with significant permanent disability whose supports were confirmed by the Administrative Review Tribunal. Eleanor is nearly 60 years old. She's carried Benjamin's care responsibilities for many years. Her own sister, who had significant disability, died in respite care. She has seen what happens when the safety net fails. Eleanor asks that I not support any bill that weakens the rights of NDIS participants, reduces essential supports or places further burden on ageing carers. I hear that, and I share that concern.

The coalition's position isn't to weaken rights; it's to ensure the scheme is strong enough, honest enough and well funded enough to actually deliver those rights. That means cracking down hard on fraudsters and the bad actors who are bleeding the scheme dry. It means ensuring rules are being developed and consulted on properly and designed with human dignity at their centre. It means holding the government to account every step of the way. I've spent time as a parliamentarian fighting for constituents who have disability. I've sat across the table from parents who are exhausted, frightened and desperate for someone to listen. I've seen what happens when the system works, when a child like Max gets the support he needs and climbs the stairs, guffawing with laughter. I've also seen what happens when it doesn't.

The NDIS was built on the idea that Australians with significant and permanent disability deserve to live with dignity, independence and genuine choice. That's a noble idea, and our responsibility is to protect a scheme like this from those who'd seek to exploit it. The coalition will support this bill through this House. We do so not as a blank cheque to government but as a commitment to the principle of a sustainable and well-governed scheme. We will scrutinise the rules framework carefully. We will push for proper consultation. We will call out broken promises.

Let me again call on the people in the disability community in my electorate—the participants, the families, the carers and the organisations. Make your submission to this Senate inquiry. This is your scheme, and it's your voice that must shape the future.

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

The NDIS has been a game changer for constituents of our Calare electorate and communities around Australia. It needs to be supported and it needs to be sustainable.

Everyone wants the rorters and the wrongdoers identified, weeded out and dealt with. In fact, I am concerned that there is not enough focus on that in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. This is taxpayer funding we're talking about, and every dollar that is dishonestly taken by the unscrupulous is a dollar that doesn't go to those in need and that undermines public confidence and faith in the whole scheme.

The proposed changes have, however, raised serious concerns amongst many local participants. These are great local community members. They deserve to be heard, and they don't feel that they are being sufficiently listened to at the moment. I want to take some time to give voice to my constituents who've raised these concerns.

Skye is a constituent in the Calare electorate, and I have known her for many years. She has written to me and said:

I live with Spina Bifida and a lower limb amputation. These are lifelong conditions that already require ongoing management, adaptation, and support to maintain my independence and safety.

Skye says:

I understand the need for the NDIS to be sustainable. But sustainability cannot be achieved by reducing support for the people who rely on it to function.

Because when support is reduced:

Right now, I am already experiencing what it looks like when capacity is reduced and support becomes critical.

Under one of the changes 'using capacity not diagnosis to determine support' will be disastrous for someone like me because the NDIS considers me independent and able to function. This is not the case because what you and everyone sees outside my house is me putting a face on, because you know what disability is hard … what your capacity will be like day to day is hard enough to deal with, without having to prove that life sucks.

I would honestly give back the membership card if it meant being accepted in society as not the bad guy, or having to prove every single day that I have a disability.

This is not hypothetical.

This is my reality.

I ask that you take that into account when considering these changes, and that you bring the lived experience of people with disability into the centre of these decisions.

Victoria writes:

I am a sixteen year old, wheelchair bound constituent writing to express my concern about the proposed NDIS reform, specifically the shift toward strict functional impairment assessments and away from flexibility and personalisation.

In 2020, I developed Myalgic Encephalomyelitis after contracting Covid-19. I live with many other multiple, complex and debilitating conditions, including but not limited to Functional Neurological Disorder, Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome, fibromyalgia, and Autism Spectrum Disorder. To say that I live in a constant state of pain would be an understatement. The NDIS has saved my life. The funding that I receive is how I am able to get out of bed and do something meaningful with my life.

The proposed changes to the NDIS risk that. ME/CFS, as well as many other conditions, are dynamic disabilities. This means that while a disabled person can seem functional and capable one day, they can be severely impaired and unable to complete basic tasks the next day. What do you think would happen if an assessor deemed someone with a dynamic disability "functional" one week, and the next, they aren't able to use the bathroom on their own? That cycle may repeat for years, if not decades, and they will be denied help.

Victoria goes on to state:

A standardised assessor may see that and tell me that I am functional and do not need NDIS funding. But what they fail to see is that the next day, I am in so much physical pain that I can not move, breathe, or swallow. They do not see that the following night, I am at risk of falling onto the hot stovetop while preparing food as my body can not properly circulate blood. They do not see that I have had to quit mainstream school despite my exceptional academic performance because the mere environment induced violent seizures and extreme fatigue where I could not even lift my head without excruciating pain.

She goes on to write:

If access to NDIS support is restricted, people like me who suffer from poorly understood but very real dynamic disabilities will be failed. We will not be able to manage daily life, let alone participate in the community, build capacity, and advocate for ourselves.

I am already financially struggling with the NDIS chunk funding. I can not afford the support work that I need. The new changes will only make my situation, and thousands more, more dire.

I am pleading that you advocate for:

I am afraid for my future and afraid for the vulnerable people like me.

Cheryl lives in Kelso and she says:

I am writing to you as one of your constituents and as a person living with disability, to express my deep concern about the proposed changes to the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

She says:

I rely on my NDIS supports for the most fundamental aspects of daily life: personal care routines, eating meals safely, moving around my home, mobilising in the community, going shopping, and attending medical and other appointments. These are not luxuries. They are the supports that allow me to exist with dignity and safety in the way that you and other Australians do. But they have also made something remarkable possible: I have been able to re-enter the paid workforce and contribute through volunteering.

She says:

The proposed changes … risk causing serious, even irreversible harm, particularly in regional/rural areas such as ours. I am fortunate—

she says—

to have the capacity to advocate for myself, but I think constantly of those who cannot: people with cognitive disabilities, people … in supported accommodation, and people without family or friends to fight for them. For these Australians, the withdrawal of NDIS support is not an inconvenience, it is a threat to their safety, their health, and in some cases their lives.

Kathryn says:

I am a young adult Autistic NDIS participant with high support needs. …

With NDIS supports, I have been able to start attending board game groups to meet new people and access therapies that have greatly improved my quality of life. I have learned more about my disabilities and been able to start engaging with the disabled community. I have no friends and no healthy family supports, so my only supports are NDIS-funded—my therapists and support workers. Without NDIS, I would have no support. … The current proposed NDIS cuts would impact me significantly, reducing my quality of life and negatively impacting my mental health.

Nicole, who is the director of Health Works NSW, which is a longstanding regional allied health organisation, has said of these proposed changes:

The greatest impact will ultimately fall on children and families.

Children may lose long-standing therapeutic relationships with clinicians who understand their communication styles, sensory needs, behavioural presentation, developmental history and family context. Families who have spent years navigating fragmented systems may once again find themselves without clear pathways to support.

In regional communities, the impacts may be even more pronounced. There are already significant workforce shortages across allied health, disability and paediatric services. Smaller regional providers often operate with narrow financial margins while carrying substantial travel, workforce and operational costs. Procurement models that favour large-scale metropolitan structures or unrealistic delivery expectations risk unintentionally destabilising the very providers currently holding regional service systems together.

Nicole says:

… I am deeply concerned about the practical implementation risks associated with the current reform and procurement environment, particularly if experienced private paediatric providers are excluded or significantly reduced within the broader ecosystem supports.

…   …   …

… many children over the age of 9 may also lose access to continuity of care and broader therapeutic supports.

These concerns are very real. Reform can't be at the expense of our constituents and our community members who genuinely rely on this scheme and are gaining life-changing benefit from it. It can't be at the expense of those who are doing the right thing. There needs to be genuine consultation, and the government needs to listen to those whose lives they are affecting. I support the NDIS, but reform needs to be properly thought through and properly planned. I urge the government to listen to those most affected and act on their concerns. Don't let genuine NDIS participants fall through the cracks of reform.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, in the remaining eight minutes before adjournment, is of immense importance to the parliament. It's immensely important to have a conversation about how we are going to take the nation forward together. There will be no-one you will find who will be more critical of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and its corruption and fraud than myself.

What we have allowed—what the Labor government has allowed, I should say more correctly—is for this to become a honey pot. So many people engaged in fraud and corruption have taken advantage of the honey pot and tipped their hand into the resources of the Commonwealth and the taxpayers of Australia, only then to use them for dishonest ends. We have honest Australians paying honest taxes on honest work, and it's ending up in the hands of dishonest means.

Of course, the government is now coming around, finally, and acknowledging that, despite the constant efforts in the period of the previous government, they have let it rip for organised crime, corruption and fraud. The solution now is to attack participants. Certainly that's a perception outside in the community in terms of the implementation. I just need to look at some of the emails that have come through the Goldstein office and what people have raised. You'll understand, Deputy Speaker, I want to respect people's privacy and to make sure that personal conditions are not revealed, but I will use their words.

One person wrote to me and said, 'I think everyone realises that changes need to be made to the NDIS, but not at the expense of participant safety. I'm not sure the politicians realise that NDIS participants are reliant on support to be able to live safely in their homes, access the community and live ordinary lives.' Well, I will clarify for one of the Goldstein constituents: we do, but, unfortunately, I don't think that this is understood by the Labor Party, who are too busy always finding pathways to cut rather than focusing on where they need to actually cut, which is around fraud and corruption.

This person went on to say, 'We're very concerned about Labor's proposed changes to the NDIS, which seem to focus on cost-cutting rather than supporting vulnerable Australians.' I think that's a legitimate and serious concern, because so many people have written to us and outlined their specific circumstances and what has been happening. People have faced what are, in their words, alarming changes which diminish their capacity to access essential care in a very challenging environment.

One person wrote to me and said, 'It's clear there is wastage which needs resolving in the system, but pulling support from those of us who are trying everything we humanly can do to preserve dignity and independence is really a low blow.' It's a really low blow from the Albanese government, because they were unwilling to support and work with the coalition the last time we were in office to actually bring in a lot of the changes that they're now seeking to bring in. But, instead of focusing on the fraud and the corruption, the way they're approaching it is to target the participants.

One person wrote to me and said they received an ambush call from the NDIS over the claims of their daughter, who's five years old, with cerebral palsy. That has a very significant impact on their lives. The NDIS planner that called then—they allege—lied, threatened, abused and patronised. Such was the wanton attempt by said individual to reduce the package of a NDIS participant. We have other examples. People have raised concerns about the NDIS cutting a lot of their funding. Their situation has changed considerably, yet there has simply been no leniency or understanding of the impact on them as an individual.

One person went on to say that their right side is affected now and it's hard to cope each day based on their disability. They're suffering a lot because of chest pains due to anxiety, which affects their mobility and/or shaking whilst moving around. They're seeking support and assistance, as is appropriate, to be able to maintain and balance out their life, but of course the NDIS under the Albanese government is not providing the support they so desperately need.

We have a lot of people who have faced really serious challenges. One person says that for the first time in eight years the NDIA has had to reject claims for their daughter's special needs netball program. I'm not sure about you, Deputy Speaker, but I think maintaining a physically active lifestyle is very important for young Australians, particularly those with a disability, to be able to get ahead because of the pathway and the social connection, which is a very important part of their quality of life. But that now seems to be, as part of the All ABILITIES Program, something that's been put on the back burner by the Albanese government.

In some cases acknowledging the importance of these programs, in particular, for those who have come here with no means—we have a Ukrainian refugee who's even contacted me talking about how their diagnosis of lifelong cerebral palsy is now being targeted by these cuts. They say that English is not their first language and on at least one occasion they have been contacted by the agency without any interpreter present despite having requested one. So we're seeing a decline in standards, a decline in quality and a decline in the services that are needed so desperately by some Australians, and the response from the Albanese government is 'tough it'. They're not prepared to make any accommodations or work with people to be able to improve their circumstances.

But there is one thing they are prepared to do. They are prepared to allow organised crime, fraud and corruption to continue to attack the NDIS at every step of the way and profiteer from it without any regard or any serious attempt to respond. On budget day there was finally an acknowledgement after the government was dragged, kicking and screaming, to the scale to address corruption and fraud in the NDIS. They were dragged, kicking and screaming, to be able to affect change and to address the fraud and corruption. Since then they've gone silent. It's quite clear that the government's approach to the NDIS is to target clients first and worry about the organised fraud and corruption later.

The problem is that it's ordinary Australians who just want to live a dignified life that are left on the chopping block of the Albanese government's approach. This is where the government has got its priorities fundamentally wrong. I can't fathom the scale of what is being done and why it is being done. This government has such a terrible record of allowing programs to become honey pots for organised crime and corruption, from the NDIS to home aged-care packages, to childcare packages and all the way through, of course, to handing $15 billion of public money to organised crime through the CFMEU-Labor cartel. And who do they choose to punch down on? It is people with a disability.

What is wrong with this government and its priorities? They can't tell the truth. They can't be honest. They can't be clear with people about what they're going to do before an election versus the actions they take after an election, and when they get their chance at the levers of power, their solution is to punch down on people with a disability. This government has to end.

Debate interrupted.