This bill is currently before Parliament.
Health, care & disability
People applying for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which funds disability supports, face a new test of how disability affects daily activities.
The government said the scheme was growing faster than expected and lacked adequate powers to oversee more than $50 billion in yearly payments. It said fraud could expose participants to poor services, exploitation and harm. National Cabinet, the meeting of federal, state and territory leaders, set a goal in January 2026 to limit yearly cost growth to 5 to 6 per cent or less. The minister also said one in five plans received an unscheduled review each year, producing an average 20 per cent funding increase.
Since the NDISThe national scheme that funds eligible disability supports. was established in 2013, it has grown beyond early cost expectations, while fraud and weaknesses in oversight exposed pressure on a scheme paying more than $50 billion a year. Independent reports from 2019 to 2024 reinforced the case for reform; in April 2026 the government proposed shifting more than 160,000 people to state-run foundational supports, and Mark Butler MP introduced this bill on 14 May before the House passed it on 2 July after amendments.
Henry Pike (Liberal National Party) argued the reforms used blunt cuts that could remove about 21 per cent of participants, or 160,000 people, from the scheme. He said the sector received the large bill at short notice and that too many implementation questions remained unanswered. He also warned that giving the minister greater control over prices could put political pressure on provider payments. Melissa McIntosh (Liberal) argued the bill would do too little about fraud, citing an agency taskforce estimate that up to 10 per cent of claims were improper or criminal.
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
85 days
Updated 07 Aug 2026.
Meaning
People applying for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which funds disability supports, face a new test of how disability affects daily activities.
Participants seeking an early plan review must show a significant, lasting change in their support needs or circumstances.
Participants can receive funded supports only for conditions that meet the scheme's disability or early-help rules.
Participants with older plans can have funding reduced for specified support groups. Parliament agreed to crossbench and government changes before approving the amended bill.
Participants with older plans receive renewed plans with end dates. Unspent money does not roll over, while one-off funding is removed.
Participants who cannot be contacted can have plans suspended. The final government changes require at least five contact attempts over three to four months.
Providers must keep support and payment records, while claims must be lodged within 90 days. The agency gains stronger investigation and enforcement powers.
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
This bill will also limit unscheduled plan reassessments. Unscheduled plan reassessments are a key driver of spending growth, and the agency has not been able to reduce the number of plans undergoing an unscheduled reassessment. One in five plans are currently subject to an unscheduled reassessment every year. And the average result of these reassessments is a 20 per cent increase in plan value. Some requests for plan reassessments are made by intermediaries, such as support coordinators and plan managers, and some requests are made even without the knowledge of the participant. This billMinister's second reading speech
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
Provide a mechanism to directly manage the financial sustainability of the Scheme by reducing the funding for specified groups of supports across the Scheme.National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) explanatory memorandum
Currently, old framework plans do not have an end date, and most plans do not undergo a plan reassessment. Instead the agency regularly extends plans, and rolls over any unspent funds from the previous plan period to the next one. This inflates the value of participants' plans over time, beyond what was originally considered to be reasonable and necessary. This bill will ensure all plans have an end date, and any unspent funds from the previous plan will not be carried over to the renewed plan. The renewed plan will be based on the previous plan, but will remove one-off funding for things liMinister's second reading speech
(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]
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 Agency’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) from participants and prospective participants can be used as part of those investigations. Require that providersNational Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) explanatory memorandum
Context
Since the NDISThe national scheme that funds eligible disability supports. was established in 2013, it has grown beyond early cost expectations, while fraud and weaknesses in oversight exposed pressure on a scheme paying more than $50 billion a year. Independent reports from 2019 to 2024 reinforced the case for reform; in April 2026 the government proposed shifting more than 160,000 people to state-run foundational supports, and Mark Butler MP introduced this bill on 14 May before the House passed it on 2 July after amendments.
The NDISThe national scheme that funds eligible disability supports. is established
The National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 created a national system of tailored disability support to replace uneven state-based arrangements.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) explanatory memorandum ↗The ANAO examines NDISThe national scheme that funds eligible disability supports. fraud controls
The Australian National Audit Office’s National Disability Insurance Scheme Fraud and Control Program report became one of the independent references later considered in developing this bill.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) explanatory memorandum ↗The Royal Commission and NDISThe national scheme that funds eligible disability supports. Review report on scheme weaknesses
The Royal Commission documented systemic violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation, while the NDISThe national scheme that funds eligible disability supports. Review recommended more consistent and robust eligibility assessments.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) explanatory memorandum ↗Provider registration taskforce completes its work
The NDISThe national scheme that funds eligible disability supports. Provider and Worker Registration Taskforce’s recommendations informed the bill’s stronger provider governance and regulation measures.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) explanatory memorandum ↗Government proposes moving more than 160,000 people to foundational supports
The plan relied on states and territories delivering alternative supports, while experts and states warned their systems might not be ready for the increased demand.
ABC News ↗Mark Butler MP introduces the bill
The bill responds to faster-than-expected growth and fraud by proposing tighter eligibility, plan, provider and payment controls.
Parliamentary timeline ↗House passes the bill
The House agreed to the third reading after considering crossbench and government amendment packages.
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
Key criticism
Henry Pike (Liberal National Party) argued the reforms used blunt cuts that could remove about 21 per cent of participants, or 160,000 people, from the scheme. He said the sector received the large bill at short notice and that too many implementation questions remained unanswered. He also warned that giving the minister greater control over prices could put political pressure on provider payments. Melissa McIntosh (Liberal) argued the bill would do too little about fraud, citing an agency taskforce estimate that up to 10 per cent of claims were improper or criminal.
The government said the changes would protect participants, improve support quality and give the agency powers to oversee more than $50 billion in payments each year.
Reduced access and support
Critics argued the bill could exclude eligible people or reduce genuine supports through tighter eligibility tests, funding controls and reassessment rules. They were particularly concerned about participants in regional areas and people without reliable alternative services.
Safeguards and consultation
Opponents said the reforms needed fuller Senate scrutiny, adequate consultation and stronger protections before proceeding. Concerns included unclear drafting, accessible information for multicultural communities and safeguards against participants losing support unfairly.
Further sources
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 proposed protections, so they were not added to the bill.
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, leaving the bill's existing consultation arrangements unchanged.
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, retaining the bill's narrower reassessment conditions and review arrangements.
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, although the minister said related issues would be addressed through another proposal.
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, so these additional limits and safeguards were not adopted.
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 protection, although the minister expressed support for its purpose and offered to continue working on the issue.
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 delay, allowing the bill's existing commencement timetable 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 safeguard, leaving the bill's determination-making process less constrained.
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 restriction, preserving a broader power to reduce funding across 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 House rejected this version of the safeguard, while the minister said other changes to the same section would be supported.
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, retaining the proposed annual review, agency-board advice and ministerial pricing decision 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, leaving those additional participant safeguards out of the bill.
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 agreed to the package, relaxing the proposed related-entity prohibition while retaining separation and conflict safeguards.
Passed 90 to 33. Support came from Labor, Greens, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal, Nationals, and One Nation. Liberal Party had split recorded votes. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The House agreed, allowing the bill to proceed to its final House vote 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 proposed statement, so it was not added to the second-reading motion.
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 proposed statement, so the call was not added to the second-reading motion.
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 proposed statement, so it was not added to the second-reading motion.
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. Liberal Party had split recorded votes.
The House rejected the criticism and then agreed to the bill's second reading.
Did not vote: Nationals
Crossbench amendments restrict funding reductions to specified supports, protect daily living assistance, expand plan reassessment and appeal rights, require accessible assessments, strengthen consultation and transparency, and delay reforms until foundational supports are operating.
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 preferred methods, with written contact where needed and safeguards for participants in hospital or experiencing 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, Nationals, and Liberal Party. Opposition came from Labor.
The suspension succeeded, permitting the proposed challenge to be considered immediately.
Passed 29 to 25. Support came from Liberal, Greens, Nationals, and Liberal Party. 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, One Nation, Liberal, and Liberal Party.
The proposed change was not agreed.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Mark Butler supports the bill, saying it will refocus the NDISThe national scheme that funds eligible disability supports. on people with permanent and significant disability, improve safeguards and integrity, and make the scheme financially sustainable for future generations.
Read in Hansard ↗Melissa McIntosh opposes the bill, arguing that its vague reforms could harm people with disability and must undergo proper Senate scrutiny before proceeding.
Read in Hansard ↗Julian Leeser says the coalition will support the bill because a sustainable and well-governed NDISThe national scheme that funds eligible disability supports. is necessary, while warning that this is not a blank cheque and demanding proper consultation and scrutiny of the rules.
Read in Hansard ↗Kate Chaney opposes the bill as drafted, arguing that it risks removing genuine support from people with disability and should be changed to target waste and fraud while adding stronger safeguards.
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 Albanese Labor government understands that securing the future of the NDIS means confronting the problems that threaten its sustainability, integrity and public confidence. The reality is that, under the previous government, NDIS growth reached 22 per cent annually with no moderation in sight. Costs were escalating rapidly, fraud and exploitation were increasing, oversight was inadequate and confidence in the long-term sustainability of the scheme was being eroded. We cannot protect the NDIS by pretending these issues do not exist. We protect it by fixing them. That is what this bill seeks to do. These reforms are about restoring the scheme to its original purpose, supporting Australians with permanent and significant disability with reasonable and necessary supports while ensuring the scheme remains sustainable for future generations.”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 ↗
“The Albanese Labor government supports the NDIS unequivocally. We believe in it, we defend it and we are determined to ensure it survives and thrives for future generations. That means ensuring the scheme remains sustainable not only financially but also socially and politically. The long-term success of the NDIS depends on maintaining the trust and confidence of the Australian people. It's about ensuring we honour the contract and agreement between all our citizens. Australians want to know that the scheme is fair. They want to know that the supports are going to those who need them the most. They want to know that the safeguards are strong, and they want to know that the system is focused on delivering meaningful outcomes for participants.”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 ↗
“We are committed to ensuring the NDIS delivers essential supports to Australians with significant and permanent disability not just today but for generations to come. Our responsibility is to build a NDIS that is fair, consistent and empowering—one that places people with significant disability at its heart. I commend this bill to the House.”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 needed to repair problems in the NDISThe national scheme that funds eligible disability supports. and get the scheme back on track after years of maladministration.
“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
Rowan Holzberger supports the bill, arguing that the NDISThe national scheme that funds eligible disability supports. must be stabilised for those it was designed to serve while broader disability supports are established outside the scheme. He says rejecting it risks the NDISThe national scheme that funds eligible disability supports. collapsing.
“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 · 18 support · 2 oppose · 3 mixed
“Disappointingly, there are very few measures in this bill that directly target that misconduct. A digital payments platform, claim timeframe changes, receipt retention requirements—these are the only real changes the government is making to address fraud. You know it, I know it, Australians know it and participants on the NDIS know it. That is why the coalition has called for a Senate inquiry into this bill. That is why submissions are currently open to participants, families, carers, providers and advocates right across Australia. And that is why these proposed changes must be properly scrutinised before vulnerable Australians are asked to place their trust in reforms that the government still cannot fully explain. People with disability deserve transparency, deserve honesty and deserve certainty about what these changes will mean for their lives going into the future.”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.”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 ↗
“Further to the legislation, aside from veterans, the NDIS is a mess. It is a total shamble. It is chaotic. Deputy Speaker and Member for Bendigo, I'm sure your office has been—just as mine has been and just as everybody who sits in this place has been—inundated in recent years with complaints, concerns and suggested changes to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I am a supporter of the NDIS. The member for Capricornia, who spoke before me, is a supporter of the NDIS. And, when the former Labor New South Wales cabinet minister John Della Bosca was around, it was his job, before the NDIS was legislated and after former prime minister Gillard had put the scheme up for discussion—he was seeking support. I was the first federal member from New South Wales to endorse the everyone counts campaign. It wasn't something that had been funded. It wasn't something the coalition had come out and said, 'You need to support the NDIS'—but I knew the work that Kurrajong Waratah in particular had done in the early intervention space in Wagga Wagga for nigh on six decades, and I knew that if that organisation supported it then it was incumbent upon me to do the same.”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 ↗
“Susan McHugh also warned that this bill could do real harm to people with mental health disabilities if it is not amended. She makes the point that brief one-off assessments do not properly capture conditions that come and go, that suspending plans when a participant is uncontactable can be dangerous, as a lack of response may actually be part of a crisis, and that extra compliance demands mean very little if the pricing system still fails to reflect the real cost of complex support. That is a serious warning from a local provider on the ground, and this parliament should listen.”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
Sam Birrell conditionally supports the bill, backing measures to strengthen NDISThe national scheme that funds eligible disability supports. integrity but warning that access restrictions, funding limits and automated decisions could harm participants. He says the coalition will scrutinise the reforms through a Senate inquiry and will not support changes that create uncertainty or put vulnerable Australians at risk.
“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 the bill's effort to make the NDISThe national scheme that funds eligible disability supports. sustainable and tackle fraud and inefficiency, but says reforms must protect vulnerable Australians and be properly scrutinised.
“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 ↗
“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.”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 unclear
“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 · 1 support · 8 oppose · 2 mixed
“I do not believe the bill as currently drafted passes that test. I'll explain why, drawing on the extensive community engagement I've conducted since these changes were announced on 22 April. Following the government's announcement, I heard immediately from Curtin constituents who were worried—parents of children with disability, adults managing complex permanent conditions, carers who've built their lives around a support system that for the first time recognised their family member as a full citizen with the right to genuine support.”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 ↗
“We are a multicultural nation. Australia's diversity is not an edge case to be managed; it is the reality of who we are, and any policy that fails to account for that reality will fail a significant proportion of the people it is meant to serve. Over 63 per cent of constituents in Fowler speak a language other than English at home. Many are navigating not only the complexities of disability but language barriers, cultural differences and the deep challenges that come with building a life in a new country. I believe these communities are already underrepresented in the NDIS, not because disability does not exist in Fowler—it absolutely does—but because the system as it stands was not built with them in mind. Families have fallen through the cracks not because they lacked need but because the system lacked the cultural responsiveness to meet them where they are. This bill, in its current form, asks us to make that system harder to access. That is not reform, that is retreat.”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 ↗
“I rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. The intent of this bill is to ensure a sustainable NDIS for future generations by slowing growth of scheme costs, reducing fraud, strengthening provider regulation and improving governance. I recognise the need to rein in the NDIS, to make it sustainable, fair and protected from fraud and poor providers. Like me, many providers and families in Mackellar support sensible reforms. We want the scheme to work for the people it was designed to support, and we want to ensure that public money is used well. However, several core issues must be addressed before this bill proceeds to ensure that participants are not left without important supports they need. Such issues include the ministerial power to cut support determinations, the ministerial pricing power, changes to the permanence test, the hierarchy of evidence for reasonable and necessary supports, the reliance on automation and the lack of readiness for alternative supports outside the NDIS. Until these issues are fixed, the risk of unintended consequences and people being left behind without adequate support is simply too high.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“When we're looking at the challenges around the NDIS, what does this bill do? There are some parts of it that I do support in relation to integrity and responding to fraud, but there is much more that the government can do. This bill takes some positive steps towards better managing fraud, with plan managers to be the gatekeepers for other providers by setting up a provisioning model for the plan manager cohort. I do wonder, though, whether we are putting all of the burden on plan managers and not enough of the burden on the government department to actually curtail the number of providers that we have in Australia.”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 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
