Essential supports could be cut
The eligibility, reassessment and funding changes could leave participants without essential help, particularly where suitable mainstream or community services are not yet available.
This bill is currently before Parliament.
Health, care & disability
People applying for the NDISThe national scheme funding disability supports. face a clearer test of how disability affects daily life.
The government said the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which funds supports for people with permanent and significant disability, was growing faster than expected and facing serious fraud. It said the National Disability Insurance Agency, which runs the scheme, lacked adequate powers to oversee more than $50 billion in yearly payments. In January 2026, National Cabinet, where federal and state leaders coordinate policy, agreed to bring yearly cost growth down to 5 to 6 per cent or lower. The government also said the changes drew on reviews that heard from more than 10,000 people and organisations and received more than 4,600 online submissions.
The NDISThe national scheme funding disability supports. replaced state-based, block-funded disability services after the Productivity Commission proposed a national scheme, but participant numbers and costs later grew far beyond early estimates; the 2023 Royal Commission also documented systemic violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. Against that history, the government introduced this bill to tighten access and plan settings, control spending and prices, and strengthen fraud and provider enforcement, with the House passing it in July 2026 before its Senate introduction in August.
Melissa McIntosh (Liberal Party) argued that the new test for how disability affects daily life had not yet been designed, leaving families uncertain about access from 2028. She warned that tighter plan reviews could be inconsistent and that ending the rollover of unused plan funds could leave gaps in essential support. She also argued that the bill did too little to stop fraud and said up to 10 per cent of payments could be incorrect, against the rules or fraudulent. Crossbench amendments separately sought longer consultation, human safeguards for computer-made decisions and protection for culturally and linguistically diverse participants.
Mark Butler MP introduced this bill. Support so far has come from Labor, Liberal, Nationals, Centre Alliance; opposition has come from Greens, some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
Not yet
Final passage
Recorded vote so far
1 counted final-passage vote was recorded.
Days since introduction
145 days
Updated 06 Oct 2026.
Meaning
People applying for the NDISThe national scheme funding disability supports. face a clearer test of how disability affects daily life. New access rules start on 1 January 2028.
NDISThe national scheme funding disability supports. participants can request an extra plan review only after a genuine, lasting change in their support needs.
NDISThe national scheme funding disability supports. participants receive funding only for needs directly linked to the conditions that made them eligible for the scheme.
NDISThe national scheme funding disability supports. participants may have funding reduced for specified groups of supports. The final bill limits this power and excludes some kinds of support.
NDISThe national scheme funding disability supports. participants can have a plan suspended after at least five failed contact attempts over three to four months. Hospital stays and homelessness must be considered.
Providers, participants and people managing plans must keep records. Payment claims generally must be lodged within 90 days of the support.
NDISThe national scheme funding disability supports. providers face stronger monitoring, penalties and criminal investigations. Plan managers generally cannot also sell participants other NDISThe national scheme funding disability supports. supports.
Clarify the meaning of ‘functional capacity’ and provide for the assessment of thresholds of functional capacity. This is consistent with Recommendation 3 (action 3.1) of the NDIS Review, which recommended that the Agency introduce a more consistent and robust approach to determining eligibility for access to the NDIS based on transparent methods for assessing functional capacity.National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) explanatory memorandum
Introduce sensible controls and conditions on unscheduled plan reassessments to ensure that they can only be requested where there is a genuine and ongoing change in a participant’s support needs. Amendments will also ensure that only participants, and those authorised to act on their behalf, can request a plan reassessment.National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) explanatory memorandum
Make clear that NDIS supports can only be provided to address needs arising directly from impairments that meet the disability requirements in section 24 of the Act and/or the early intervention requirements in section 25 of the Act.National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) explanatory memorandum
(1) Schedule 1, item 34, page 12 (lines 8 to 13), omit paragraphs 34A(1)(a) and (b), substitute: (a) a percentage for reducing funding component amounts for a group of supports specified in the determination; and (b) the class of participants’ plans to which the percentage applies, which may be: (i) all old framework plans that commence on or after the day the determination commences; or (ii) the class of such plans specified in the determination. [support determination] (2) Schedule 1, item 34, page 12 (after line 16), after subsection 34A(1), insert: (1A) For the purposes of paragraphProposed amendment 5: Detail - Crossbench
(1) Schedule 1, item 79, page 30 (after line 17), after subsection 30(1A), insert: (1B) The CEO cannot be satisfied that reasonable attempts to contact the participant have been made as mentioned in subparagraph (1A)(a)(i) unless the CEO is satisfied that the requirements in subsection (1C) are met in relation to: (a) unless paragraph (b) or (c) applies—the participant; or (b) if the participant has a nominee—the participant’s nominee; or (c) if the participant does not have a nominee but has another authorised contact or representative—that other authorised contact or representative. (1CProposed amendment 13: Detail - Government [ST122]
Require that providers, nominees and participants retain records relating to the provision of supports and/or claiming for NDIS amounts for specified periods of time. A civil penalty will apply to a provider who fails to comply with this requirement. Require that claims for NDIS amounts are made within 90 days of a support being provided.National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) explanatory memorandum
Enable improved regulation of the NDIS by amending the definition of NDIS provider. This is consistent with the advice of the Registration Taskforce. Provide the Agency with compliance and enforcement powers by triggering provisions of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 and providing for a range of new civil penalties. Safeguards will be established when regulatory action is taken in respect of participants. Update the Agency’s functions to allow it to investigate criminal activity and amend certain information gathering powers to ensure that information obtained by the AgeNational Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) explanatory memorandum
Context
The NDISThe national scheme funding disability supports. replaced state-based, block-funded disability services after the Productivity Commission proposed a national scheme, but participant numbers and costs later grew far beyond early estimates; the 2023 Royal Commission also documented systemic violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. Against that history, the government introduced this bill to tighten access and plan settings, control spending and prices, and strengthen fraud and provider enforcement, with the House passing it in July 2026 before its Senate introduction in August.
Productivity Commission backs a national disability scheme
The Productivity Commission estimated that a national disability scheme would cost about $13.5 billion a year, providing the policy basis for replacing postcode-dependent state services.
Hansard ↗The NDISThe national scheme funding disability supports. begins with lower early growth expectations
The 2013 budget allocated about $14.3 billion to the NDISThe national scheme funding disability supports., based on an expectation of roughly 300,000 participants.
Hansard ↗Royal Commission reports systemic disability abuse
The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability delivered its final report after four years of hearings and documented systemic mistreatment, including restraint, seclusion and neglect.
Hansard ↗Mark Butler MP introduces the NDISThe national scheme funding disability supports. reform bill
Mark Butler MP formally introduced the bill in the House of Representatives to address the Scheme’s rapid growth, sustainability pressures and weak fraud-monitoring powers.
Parliamentary timeline ↗House passes the bill
The House of Representatives agreed to the bill at third reading after accepting government and crossbench amendment packages.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Senate receives the bill
The Senate recorded the bill’s introduction and first reading, beginning its consideration of the proposed NDISThe national scheme funding disability supports. changes.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Referred to Committee (14/05/2026): Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee; Interim report (23/06/2026); final report due 14/08/2026
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
Considered by scrutiny committee (12/06/2026): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights; Report 7 of 2026
Report 7 of 2026
APH bill page notesConsidered by scrutiny committee (25/06/2026): Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; Scrutiny Digest 7 of 2026
Scrutiny Digest 7 of 2026
APH bill page notesThe chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Consideration in detail debate
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Key criticism
Melissa McIntosh (Liberal Party) argued that the new test for how disability affects daily life had not yet been designed, leaving families uncertain about access from 2028. She warned that tighter plan reviews could be inconsistent and that ending the rollover of unused plan funds could leave gaps in essential support. She also argued that the bill did too little to stop fraud and said up to 10 per cent of payments could be incorrect, against the rules or fraudulent. Crossbench amendments separately sought longer consultation, human safeguards for computer-made decisions and protection for culturally and linguistically diverse participants.
McIntosh supported keeping the NDISThe national scheme funding disability supports. for people with permanent and significant disability and accepted that its growth and fraud problems required action. The government said the bill would improve support quality, strengthen fraud controls and follow recommendations from independent reviews.
Essential supports could be cut
The eligibility, reassessment and funding changes could leave participants without essential help, particularly where suitable mainstream or community services are not yet available.
Safeguards and review rights were inadequate
Broad funding powers and automated decisions needed stronger human oversight, individual review rights, parliamentary scrutiny and consultation to prevent unfair or poorly informed decisions.
Regional and diverse communities may be disadvantaged
The reforms could assume alternative services exist when regional participants and culturally and linguistically diverse communities may face limited, inaccessible or unsuitable options.
The bill was rushed and pricing independence was uncertain
More Senate scrutiny and amendment were sought because key assessment details remained unclear and ministerial pricing decisions could weaken independent price-setting.
Votes
The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
Passed 100 to 9. Support came from Labor, Liberal, Nationals, and Centre Alliance. Opposition came from Greens and minor parties and independents.
Amendments grouped by chamber. Where APH reports aggregate counts, the package card summarizes the matching public amendment sheets by source theme.
House
Defeated 10 to 72. Support came from Community Strong Australia, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor.
The House rejected the proposal by 72 votes to 10, leaving the bill’s assessment provisions unchanged.
Defeated 11 to 70. Support came from Community Strong Australia, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and One Nation.
The House rejected the proposal by 70 votes to 11, so these additional consultation requirements were not added.
Defeated 10 to 70. Support came from Community Strong Australia, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, One Nation, and Nationals.
The House rejected the package by 70 votes to 10, leaving the bill’s reassessment and funding-reduction framework substantially unchanged.
Defeated 11 to 66. Support came from Community Strong Australia, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal, and One Nation.
The House rejected this proposal by 66 votes to 11 at this division.
Defeated 10 to 66. Support came from Community Strong Australia, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal, and One Nation.
The House rejected the package by 66 votes to 10, so those safeguards were not adopted through this vote.
Defeated 9 to 61. Support came from Community Strong Australia, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal, and One Nation.
The House rejected the proposal by 61 votes to 9, although the minister indicated interest in further work on whistleblower support.
Defeated 10 to 49. Support came from Community Strong Australia, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal, and One Nation.
The House rejected the proposal by 49 votes to 10, allowing the bill’s existing commencement arrangements to remain.
Defeated 9 to 50. Support came from Greens, Community Strong Australia, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Nationals.
The House rejected the proposal by 50 votes to 9, leaving the bill’s delegated support-determination process in place.
Defeated 10 to 57. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor. Community Strong Australia had split recorded votes.
The House rejected the proposal by 57 votes to 10, retaining a broader power to reduce specified support categories.
Defeated 11 to 44. Support came from Community Strong Australia, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Centre Alliance, and Nationals.
The proposed change was not agreed.
Defeated 10 to 68. Support came from Community Strong Australia, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Nationals.
The House rejected the proposals by 68 votes to 10, retaining the government’s proposed pricing process.
Defeated 9 to 64. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Nationals. Community Strong Australia had split recorded votes.
The House rejected the package by 64 votes to 9, leaving the government’s reassessment and support-determination framework largely intact.
Passed 101 to 7. Support came from Labor, Liberal, Nationals, and Centre Alliance. Opposition came from Greens. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The House carried the package by 101 votes to 7, adding the revised related-provider framework to the bill.
Passed 90 to 33. Support came from Labor, Greens, and Centre Alliance. Opposition came from Liberal, Nationals, and One Nation. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The House carried the motion by 90 votes to 33, allowing the third reading to proceed at the next sitting.
Defeated 11 to 85. Support came from Greens, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor.
The House rejected the statement by 85 votes to 11; it would not have changed the bill’s text directly.
Did not vote: Liberal Party, LNP, Nationals
Defeated 11 to 86. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Centre Alliance.
The House rejected the statement by 86 votes to 11; it would have expressed a parliamentary position rather than directly changing the bill.
Did not vote: Liberal Party, LNP, Nationals
Defeated 12 to 86. Support came from Greens, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor.
The House rejected the statement by 86 votes to 12; it did not directly alter the bill’s operative provisions.
Did not vote: Liberal Party, LNP, Nationals
Defeated 52 to 90. Support came from Liberal, Nationals, Greens, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor.
The House rejected the statement by 90 votes to 52, then agreed to the original second-reading question and read the bill a second time.
Did not vote: Liberal Party, LNP, Nationals
Crossbench amendments restrict funding cuts, protect daily living and essential work or study supports, expand plan reassessment and review rights, require transparent pricing advice and parliamentary reporting, strengthen consultation and impact assessment, and improve cultural and linguistic accessibility.
Passed on the voices
The chamber agreed to this amendment package without a counted vote. APH records the agreed count by amendment, while the source documents are grouped into amendment sheets.
Government amendments require repeated contact attempts over several months using a participant’s preferred method, with written follow-up where needed, while excluding contact attempts made during hospital care or homelessness.
Passed on the voices
The chamber agreed to this amendment package without a counted vote. APH records the agreed count by amendment, while the source documents are grouped into amendment sheets.
Senate
Passed 29 to 23. Support came from Liberal, Greens, and Nationals. Opposition came from Labor.
The Senate carried the suspension by 29 votes to 23, permitting the subsequent procedural motion to be considered.
Passed 29 to 25. Support came from Liberal, Greens, and Nationals. Opposition came from Labor and One Nation.
This was a procedural vote, not a final vote on whether the bill would become law.
Defeated 10 to 32. Support came from Greens. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal, One Nation, and UAP.
The Senate rejected the motion by 32 votes to 10, so the bill remained available for further consideration.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Mark Butler supports the bill as necessary to secure the NDISThe national scheme funding disability supports. for future generations by refocusing eligibility and funding on people with permanent and significant disability, restraining unsustainable cost growth, and strengthening safeguards against fraud and poor-quality providers.
Read in Hansard ↗Ryan opposes the bill, arguing that it would cut essential supports, impose untested and restrictive eligibility rules, and give the minister excessive power without adequate safeguards or consultation with people with disability.
Read in Hansard ↗McIntosh will not block the bill's second reading, but demands Senate scrutiny because its assessment and reassessment changes lack detail, could threaten essential supports and do too little to combat fraud.
Read in Hansard ↗Kate Chaney supports reforming the NDISThe national scheme funding disability supports. but says the bill as drafted lacks adequate safeguards and risks cutting essential support.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
16 speakers · 17 contributions · 16 support
“National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 seeks to return the NDIS to its original intent—providing lifetime supports for Australians with permanent and significant disability. The measures in this bill will secure the future of the NDIS, so future generations can count on its promise in decades to come.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The NDIS is a statement of our national values and a measure of our national character. It's up to us as parliamentarians—there are 150 in this chamber, as well as those in the Senate—to provide the necessary leadership in this space. That means coming together to pass this legislation. We need to protect the future of the NDIS. We need to strengthen the tough laws the government has passed and send a very clear message: the NDIS is critical, and you should not steal from people with disability, or we'll find you and we'll throw the book at you. It's absolutely crucial. We want to support people to do the right thing and support people living on the NDIS.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“It does indeed! I rise today in support of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. Labor created the NDIS. This was nation-building reform. It was essential for the community, and it had strong community support. We are incredibly proud of the NDIS and its intentions, and we are determined to secure its future and cement the community support that people with disability deserve. I have a long history of advocating hard for the rights of people with disability in our community for over three decades and ensuring that they have a voice at the very highest levels. I've seen what happens when that support is not adequate or is not properly targeted, and I know how important it is for this to be right.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I am proud that Labor built the NDIS, and I'm also proud that we are taking responsibility for securing its future. I'm deeply committed to this work, and I will continue to be a passionate advocate for people with disability in this place. This bill is needed to restore the NDIS to its original intent of supporting people with permanent and significant disability, to stabilise the growth of the scheme and make the NDIS available and secure for those who need it most for generations to come. That is why I commend this bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“These are the faces and the stories that give us the human perspective on the importance of the NDIS and this bill. This bill is about securing the future of the NDIS so that Australians with significant disability have a future with an institution they can trust and rely on for support for the rest of their lives. I had, as I said, a conversation about this with former prime minister Julia Gillard around 2008, at a meeting with the then member for Werriwa, Chris Hayes, and she understood well the importance of the NDIS being sustainable for the future. Whilst the NDIS is a Labor initiative—and it's thanks to Julia Gillard and, later, Bill Shorten—I know that many on the opposition benches have supported it and continue to support it, and it is very important that it is bipartisan.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Through this bill here today, we are securing this foundational support for future generations. While the NDIS remains one of our country's most important social programs, it's growing faster than any other similar program, reaching unsustainable levels. It's riddled with fraud, rorts and unclear eligibility requirements. Through fighting fraud and stopping rorts, slowing rapid cost increases, providing clearer eligibility requirements and delivering quality services and support to participants, we are returning the NDIS to its original intent—providing lifetime support for Australians with permanent and significant disability—and ensuring that the NDIS remains a functioning and viable support system. This is so the next generation of Aussie families, carers and people living with permanent and significant disability can count on its promise for decades to come. For that reason, I'm proud to rise in support of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill is about ensuring the NDIS remains strong, sustainable and participant focused into the future. We know participants want a scheme that is fair. They want a scheme that is safe. They want a scheme that delivers quality supports, and they want a scheme that will still be there for future generations. This is exactly what this legislation seeks to secure. (Time expired)”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill is not necessarily about participants. They're not the ones at fault here, but they are the centre of what we're trying to achieve. I know that the uncertainty of change is keeping people awake at night. This is not even necessarily about providers, the majority of whom do good work and go about their work with integrity. It is about creating a fair, safe and sustainable system that serves the interests of its participants, a system that is fit for purpose and will remain fit for purpose for the foreseeable future. The bill reclaims the narrative that first inspired the creation of the NDIS: giving a hand to our vulnerable Australians who need it the most. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The NDIS remains one of the most important social reforms in Australian history. Labor created it because we believe Australians with disability deserve opportunity, dignity and inclusion, and Labor are reforming it because we believe future generations deserve that same promise. Securing the NDIS means making difficult decisions now to ensure the scheme remains strong into the future. It means tackling fraud, improving quality and safeguards and restoring sustainability. This bill ensures support continues to go to Australians with permanent and significant disability—as originally intended.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill represents an important step forward in meeting that responsibility. It gives effect to key elements of a broader plan to restore the scheme's integrity, to bring it back to its original intent and to ensure that it continues to deliver meaningful outcomes for those that it was designed to support. When I read those words, it brings back memories of a forum in Glenelg where members of the disability sector were asking the then government to design something to give people support. I think of those people in that room who have turned their lives around since then because of the NDIS and have benefited from it. The bill introduces reforms that focus on the core foundations of the scheme—access, eligibility and planning—ensuring that decisions are clear, consistent and grounded in the needs of participants.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We cannot, we don't get to, preserve the social licence of the NDIS—and that's a collective task of everybody in this parliament—unless Australians continue to see the scheme as fair, compassionate and effective. Labor understands that because Labor has always believed in the NDIS. Labor created it, Labor built it, and Labor is taking responsibility to ensure it remains strong not just for today but for all those generations into the future. That's what responsible government looks like; it's the task before us, because the greatest threat to the NDIS right now is no reform. Despite the anxiety that some participants are feeling about change—understandably so, as I just said—there is no greater threat to the NDIS scheme that they're relying upon than a zero-reform agenda. That would be a diabolical outcome right now.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“That's what this particular legislation will hopefully do. It will ensure that the people that are providing services and managing the cases for the individual recipients are registered and know what they're doing. The registration process alone, I believe, will weed out a lot of the bad operators. I'm hoping it will, but I've got no doubt that it will. One of the things that is contained within this legislation, which I also very strongly support, is the ability for the National Disability Insurance Agency to have much stronger investigative powers. It seems to me that right now the powers they have do not allow them to go in and perhaps review cases, get the information they need and then determine whether there is any malpractice going on. We need to give them those powers. That will happen with the information-gathering powers that we're giving them, as well as the civil penalties that they will be allowed to apply as part of their enforcement procedure.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Labor built the NDIS. We built it because we believe in a country where the circumstances of your birth, including the presence of disability, should not determine or limit your life. We built it because we believe in an Australia that is grounded in fairness and kindness, and we are reforming the NDIS now, with this bill, because that belief carries with it responsibility not just to build something good but also to protect it, to make sure it lasts, to make sure it is still there, stronger, better and fairer for the next generation of Australians who will need it. The coalition had their chance to be stewards of this scheme. They squandered it. This government will not make the same mistake. We are making the tough decisions that the moment demands and with the care that Australians with disability deserve. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“If we want the NDIS to be the system it was intended to be—to truly provide security and dignity for people with disability—the NDIS needs the structural change proposed in this bill. I know these changes are going to be hard, I know these changes are fuelling anxiety and I know constantly advocating for your needs is so exhausting. For many this reform is a hard pill to swallow. But for others it is hope that help is on the way to their local town, to their community. We can no longer have a two-tier NDIS where, if you live in the cities and you have a package and you can access services and you have the health literacy to make applications for those services, you have a completely different experience than if you don't have health literacy or if you live in a regional or rural town and there are very limited providers where the market has failed. We can no longer have a system where some people with disability and significant disability are in and some people with significant disability are out.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 gives effect to elements of our plan to restore the NDIS to its original intent of supporting people with permanent and significant disability and to secure the NDIS for future generations. These aren't changes to its purpose but to protect it, to strengthen it and to secure it for future generations who will rely on it long after us. It's changed lives, it's opened doors and it's given people with permanent and significant disability the opportunity to participate fully in their communities. It's one of Australia's most important social programs. It's a national institution built on fairness, dignity and inclusion.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Rowan Holzberger on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Rowan Holzberger supports the bill, arguing that it is important to fix longstanding problems in the NDISThe national scheme funding disability supports. and secure essential services for people with disability and their families.
“I rise in support of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. In doing so, I commend the work of not only the Minister for the NDIS, Senator McAllister, but also the caucus and the Labor Party, which has worked for many years not only before the inception of the NDIS but also in the inception of the plan to try and get it back on track. What we have seen in the history of the NDIS is that the Labor Party introduced it but the Liberal Party maladministered it.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Holzberger strongly supports the bill, arguing that fundamental reform is needed to stabilise an unworkable NDISThe national scheme funding disability supports. while expanding services outside the scheme so people are not left without support.
“I call on the opposition. I really believe that you are going to end up supporting this. I know that, quite rightly, you want to make sure that this legislation is properly examined—absolutely. But outright opposition to this legislation will, I think, mean the collapse of the NDIS. The public have had enough. We all know that the status quo is just not on. Let's make this work for the people that it was intended for. Let's make the whole system work for the people who won't be on the NDIS. To that, I commend the bill to this House.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
23 speakers · 24 contributions · 21 support · 1 oppose · 1 mixed
“"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that:”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“None of this means reform should not occur. Reform is necessary. The scheme must be sustainable. If costs continue to grow unchecked, future governments will face impossible choices. And, if fraud and waste continue to undermine confidence, the social licence that underpins the NDIS will weaken. But sustainability cannot simply mean reducing expenditure. True sustainability also means maintaining trust that genuine participants will be treated fairly, that vulnerable Australians will not be abandoned, that the system will remain centred on people rather than bureaucracy and that governments are targeting the real causes of waste and exploitation, not simply making it harder for vulnerable people to access support.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The coalition is very keen to potentially amend this legislation in the other place to make sure that we're getting this completely right, because it is a large bit of legislation. There are many components to it, and it is obviously something that has been pushed onto the sector at very short notice. A lot of the measures that are being proposed had previously been championed by the coalition, but they were, I'll note, strongly opposed by Labor at different points. Functional capacity assessments are effectively a repackaged version of the coalition's independent assessments model, which Labor was opposed to. We've been strongly pushing for stronger registration as well, and I note the comments that people have made about the need for greater registration so we can tackle those quality and fraud issues.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill goes some way to addressing the rising number of bad actors taking advantage of participants and taxpayers by introducing additional provider registration requirements. Right now, around 94 per cent of providers are unregistered. The controls and fraud protection mechanisms are far too weak, and we see this nearly every day in the papers and on social media. This is absolutely unacceptable. These providers are taking advantage of NDIS participants, and they are taking advantage of the taxpayers who are funding this work. There are a few measures in this bill that stamp out this fraud. The digital payments platform needing to retain receipts and evidence of services and the 90-day claim timeframe will help with some of this, but it will not stamp out the rorts. That's why the coalition has called for a Senate inquiry into this bill. Submissions are currently open to participants, families, carers, providers and advocates right across the country. We must carefully scrutinise these changes. NDIS participants can't be expected to trust reforms that this government can't even explain, and they need more information on what these changes will mean for their future.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Supporting the NDIS does not mean simply defending the scheme as it exists today; it means ensuring that it stays strong and sustainable for generations yet to come. If we want the scheme to be able to continue supporting Australians well into the future, we also have a responsibility to ensure it remains fit for purpose. The reality is that the scheme has grown substantially since its establishment. Originally, the NDIS was expected to support around 410,000 participants. Today, it supports more than 760,000 Australians. Annual expenditure has grown from original projections of approximately $13.6 billion to around $50 billion, and that is projected to continue increasing significantly in the years ahead. That growth presents real challenges.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“After all, the title of this bill is 'Securing the NDIS for Future Generations'. Doesn't that sound sensible? The Miracle Babies NurtureGroup program delivered more than 33,000 parent-support interactions in 2025 and is embedded in more than 65 neonatal units around the country. I'd like to see more of this program in regional Australia. The NDIS review itself called for more support for children with developmental delays both inside and outside the NDIS. If government is serious about securing the NDIS, it should not only stop the rorts and register providers; it should also strengthen the earlier, community based supports that stop families from reaching deeper crisis in the first place. If we identify developmental concerns earlier, support parents earlier and build stronger referral pathways earlier, we can improve outcomes for children and reduce pressure on the NDIS later.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“With that in mind, I think it is very pleasing that the coalition are approaching this with a lens of bipartisan support for important reforms but with some concern and trepidation that the savings from these measures have already been spent. In today's Australian we see that more than the savings from these NDIS changes has already been committed in this budget alone. This is the second in a series of legislative changes that the current government has made in the wake of the 2023 independent review into the NDIS, and it is of great concern to me that already the money's gone.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“But we don't think this proposed legislation is going to fix the NDIS. We don't think this goes far enough. We don't think it will do what it needs to do in order to restore integrity to the NDIS. I implore the government to reconsider its approach to the NDIS more broadly to make sure that we are actually going to address the issues that we are seeing in the NDIS. The fact that 94 per cent of providers are currently unregistered is something that, prior to entering politics, I had absolutely no idea about. It is absolutely shocking that, while across various industries, various sectors and professional bodies, if you want to practise in certain fields, you need to be registered, in the NDIS there's a different standard.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We all have different stories, different thoughts, but we all just want the same thing: the treatment for our loved ones, the support for the people that need it, and to make sure that those that are ripping off the taxpayers that are here today and robbing the people with disabilities get the punishments that they deserve. I'll always stand in support of the NDIS, and I'll work with the government to make sure that we are looking after our most vulnerable—people like my daughter.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I'm not saying that the coalition covered itself in glory either, in one sense, because both sides of government have allowed the NDIS to grow into the beast that it has, to grow into the monster that it has, to allow some of these service providers to take the Commonwealth for granted. It's not right. That is why a full audit is needed to eke those people out and, in some cases where corruption can be proved, to send them to jail where they belong because they are sponging off and bleeding dry the vulnerable members of our community who need our support and our assistance. This legislation doesn't give it to them. They are going to be the ones who are going to suffer the most because their disabilities aren't going to improve.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The coalition will always support measures that improve the integrity of the NDIS. We want genuine safeguards in place to protect participants and to stop the rampant fraud and rorting that is currently undermining the scheme. Right now, a staggering 94 per cent of providers are completely unregistered. With $50 billion in taxpayer funds going out the door, our fraud protection mechanisms are simply too weak. The Albanese government has more than 10,000 people working within the NDIS scheme alone, yet they are completely failing to use these massive resources to get on top of the issue and, more importantly, act. To date, neither the government nor the agency have been able to clearly quantify the scale of the theft. The data we have is deeply concerning. The Australian National Audit Office reported that six to 10 per cent of all claims could be noncompliant, fraudulent or simply incorrect.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The bill before us today seeks to address some of these critical issues. It introduces tighter controls on how funds can be spent. It provides greater powers to the regulatory body to investigate and prosecute fraud. It aims to clarify the definition of 'reasonable and necessary supports', ensuring that funding is directed towards evidence based therapies and interventions. These are necessary steps, and we support the intent of these measures. We believe that we must tighten the rules to protect the very purpose of the scheme. But legislation alone is simply not enough. The government must be committed to implementing these changes effectively. They must provide the resources necessary to ensure that these new rules are enforced. They must work closely with the states and the territories to ensure a consistent approach across the entire country.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The coalition will support this bill because we recognise that change is necessary. The findings of the NDIS review and the royal commission make clear that reforms cannot be ignored. There must be stronger oversight, there must be stronger protections and there must be greater accountability—all weaknesses of this Albanese Labor government. But our support comes with an expectation that implementation is transparent, that consultation is genuine and that Australians with disability remain at the centre of every decision. The NDIS is one of Australia's most important social reforms. Its future matters, its integrity matters and, most importantly, the people who rely on it matter.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“While I wholeheartedly agree with the intentions held within this bill, I do not believe that the bill in its current form is the right way forward, and I hope that these concerns will be effectively addressed. As I said in my introduction, when the right support is delivered at the right time by the right provider, it does more than change lives; it sustains them. These recipients deserve a bill that protects that, and the Australian taxpayer deserves a bill that protects their investment.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“On integrity, the coalition has been clear: we will support measures that crack down on fraud, noncompliance and exploitation. Public confidence in the NDIS depends on knowing the money is going to real supports for real people. When around 94 per cent of providers are unregistered and there are serious concerns about non-compliant or fraudulent claims, every member of this House should be paying attention. Fraud not only wastes taxpayer money; it takes support away from Australians with disability. That is why stronger provider registration, better record retention and tighter claims timeframes matter. But these measures should go after the crooks, not make life harder for honest participants and providers who are doing the right thing. Reform has to be fair as well as firm. But these measures should go after the crooks, not make life harder for honest participants and providers who are doing the right thing. Reform has to be fair as well as firm.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The integrity measures in this bill deserve support. Stronger record keeping, tighter claims timeframes, improved provider regulation and enhanced fraud prevention powers—I think we'd all agree that they are necessary. The scheme has been subject to misuse, and, of course, that must be addressed. But integrity alone is not enough. Transparency, consultation and careful implementation are critical to give participants confidence, not confusion. In short, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We must also ensure that plan suspensions, eligibility reviews and compliance mechanisms do not inadvertently penalise vulnerable participants due to administrative or communication barriers.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The scheme has grown to 760,000 participants at a cost of almost $50 billion. Labor has failed to meet the commitment to reduce the annual growth rate of the scheme to eight per cent. Something does need to be done to ensure the NDIS is sustainable. The costs continue to rise, and we must make sure that the scheme is around for a long time to come to support people with disabilities, but I am deeply concerned about the way in which this is being done. Instead of targeting scammers, these changes will impact people like Joe from Dubbo or a child in Walgett, who will no longer get the support that they need. Instead of shutting down shonky operators, these changes will mean people with a disability in remote areas will not be able to access services. Instead of becoming more efficient, the NDIS services will just be cut, hurting some of the most vulnerable people in my electorate of Parkes and across Australia. For people who are suddenly not eligible, who are told that their challenges are not big enough, what options will there be?”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“On the current trajectory, the NDIS is expected to cost a hundred billion dollars a year within 10 years. If we don't get this right, then, at some point, some future government is going to say: 'That's it. We can't do this anymore. The NDIS is gone.' That would be a disaster for families like the member for Herbert's, mine and those of 760,000-odd Australians around the country. We've got to make this a better system, we've got to make it a fairer system and we've got to crack down on the shonks. Hopefully, this bill will do that, but we'll keep a close eye on it from the opposition.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Sam Birrell on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Birrell supports the bill as amended, particularly its stronger integrity and anti-fraud measures, but warns that eligibility restrictions, automated decisions and broad ministerial powers must not create uncertainty or harm participants.
“In closing, the coalition believes in a strong, sustainable NDIS. I thought it was a really good moment when the then Gillard government presented the NDIS legislation and then Tony Abbott, the then opposition leader, talked about the NDIS as 'an idea whose time had come'. Everyone believes in the principle and the intent, but we've got to tackle the fraud and waste. We want a scheme that can support future generations, but we believe in protecting participants. We're not going to support changes that create uncertainty, undermine confidence or place vulnerable Australians at risk. We're going to engage constructively with this legislation. We're going to listen to participants, families, carers and providers—many of us have been doing that in our electorate offices across Australia—and we'll use the Senate inquiry process to properly interrogate these reforms. Getting the NDIS right is not just a fiscal responsibility; it is a moral responsibility.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Sam Birrell supports making the NDISThe national scheme funding disability supports. sustainable and voted for the bill, but insists the reforms must protect vulnerable Australians and undergo careful Senate scrutiny.
“I don't think anyone in this House disputes that the NDIS must be sustainable. The scheme's growing rapidly, and there are genuine concerns about its trajectory. It is absolutely critical that we deal with the fraud, the rorting and the inefficiencies that we all know are out there. This scheme and system must deliver value to the taxpayer, and we must ensure that support is there for future generations. But sustainability cannot come at the expense of fairness, and it must never come at the expense of the most vulnerable Australians.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“At the end of the day, it's clear that disabled people will be significantly worse off. For this reason, the Greens and I will be strongly opposing this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 support
“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.'”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
11 speakers · 2 support · 6 oppose · 3 mixed
“In consideration in detail, I'll be supporting a number of amendments from members of the crossbench that relate directly to other concerns raised by my community. The amendment requiring functional capacity assessments to have regard to environmental, social and personal circumstances restores the contextual dimension to the bill that current drafting would remove, directly addressing concerns about masking episodic conditions and the limits of standardised tools. The amendment requiring ministerial reporting on foundational supports readiness before the relevant parts commence addresses my recommendation that cuts not proceed before replacement services are demonstrably operational. The amendments making support determinations reviewable decisions, requiring parliamentary approval for material funding reductions and strengthening safeguards in section 34A, address my community's concerns about accountability and appeal rights. The amendment requiring genuine consultation before significant NDIS rules commence and an independent statutory review after 12 months reflect my recommendations on co-design and governance. Taken together, these amendments represent what responsible crossbench engagement looks like—not blocking a reform this scheme needs but insisting it be done in a way that does not harm the people it is meant to serve.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We would also need to fix the auditing and compliance system that currently profits from the scheme rather than safeguarding it, which is not the primary aim of the changes made in this legislation. The government's margin for error in implementing these reforms is vanishingly small—cutting supports before alternatives exist, changing eligibility before the assessment tool is even designed, granting the minister sweeping powers over support categories without adequate safeguards, restricting plan reviews within a week of royal assent. This is not reform done well. This is reform done fast and badly.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Families like mine understand better than anyone that sustainability matters. However, sustainability cannot come at the expense of the fundamental purpose and philosophy of the NDIS itself. I strongly believe the current direction risks shifting the Scheme away from one centred on inclusion, participation, independence and quality of life, toward one focused predominantly on cost containment, functional minimisation and restricting access to support. The NDIS was never intended to simply deliver the bare minimum required to keep disabled people alive. It was designed to allow people with disability to participate meaningfully in society, exercise choice and control, and live with dignity as valued members of their communities.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I'm not convinced the bill will address these problems for my constituents. While it's clear that the NDIS is too important to fail, it's also so important to get these reforms right. The NDIS has transformed lives in Indi and across the country, and it deserves and needs reforms that strengthen its foundations—and I'd like to the parliament to work collaboratively to achieve that. I encourage the government to consider my amendments to ensure the scheme remains responsive to the needs and dignity of people with disability. I expect there will be a number of reasonable, constructive amendments to the bill, and I very much hope the government will give them serious thought.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The NDIS is supposed to support people. This is its primary goal; it's an admirable one. The government must not lose sight of that in its efforts to reform this system. Reform is absolutely necessary, but I will struggle to support this bill in its current form. Therefore, I urge the government to implement the amendments proposed by the crossbench.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“With those requests in mind and without declining to give this bill a second reading, I commend this bill to the House, and I move:”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Minister Butler identified in his speech to the National Press Club last month that the NDIS Reform Advisory Committee said recently more time is needed to deal with the legislative uncertainty and remove the risk of other unintended consequences. The same advice must apply to this bill. While the NDIS desperately needs reform, let's take the time to address this now and get it right.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I have much more to say about this, but I will say this: the government needs to focus on ensuring that we address the fraud, the rorting and the organised crime that is costing this nation billions of dollars and on providing and ensuring that there are the best quality supports for people who are living with disability. That is where the focus needs to be. I'm continuing to review this legislation. I'm continuing to hear from my community. My hope is that that will be the focus of the government in amendments to the Senate.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Consideration in detail: amendments considered
Amendment packages agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (14 May 2026): Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee; Interim report (23 June 2026); final report due 14 Aug 2026
APH bill page notesParliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
Report 7 of 2026
Considered by scrutiny committee (12 June 2026): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights; Report 7 of 2026
APH bill page notesSenate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
Scrutiny Digest 7 of 2026
Considered by scrutiny committee (25 June 2026): Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; Scrutiny Digest 7 of 2026
APH bill page notes