Fraud gap
Critics said the bill still does not directly deal with fraud by unregistered providers, leaving a major gap in oversight.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding)
Current status
This bill became law on Apr 8th, 2026.
Policy area
Health, care & disability
What does this bill do?
The bill would allow much larger financial penalties for the most serious breaches of NDIS rules, instead of using the same penalty for every breach.
Why was it introduced?
NDIS penalties treated minor and serious breaches alike, weakening deterrence, and fault requirements could delay action against banned workers. The bill introduces higher penalties for serious contraventions and strict-liability offences so the Commission can act faster to keep unsafe providers and workers out.
Broader context
The NDIS watchdog already had rules, fines and banning orders, but the penalties did not clearly separate minor breaches from serious harm. When it became clear this weak deterrence and fault-based proof could slow action against banned workers, the bill proposed much larger penalties for the worst misconduct and quicker powers to keep unsafe people out of participant work.
Key criticism
The main worry was that the bill would still leave major gaps in stopping fraud, especially by unregistered providers. Some also warned that the stronger powers in the bill could go too far unless there were clearer limits and safeguards for privacy, fairness and people’s ability to work.
Who supported it?
The Labor government introduced this bill. It passed on the voices.
Introduced in Senate 26 Nov 2025
Passed Senate 31 Mar 2026
Passed House 01 Apr 2026
Became law 08 Apr 2026
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 08 Apr 2026
Final passage
Passed without a counted vote
Members called out ‘aye’ or ‘no’ — no individual votes were recorded.
Passage speed
126 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
What does this bill do?
-
The bill would allow much larger financial penalties for the most serious breaches of NDIS rules, instead of using the same penalty for every breach. This is meant to better deter serious harm and misconduct.
-
The bill would expand banning orders so they can cover people who provide services to NDIS providers, not just providers and workers. This means some outside businesses or advisers could also be banned from the scheme.
-
If a person is banned from NDIS work and keeps working anyway, the bill would make that breach easier to enforce. This is meant to help the NDIS CommissionThe independent regulator that registers NDIS providers and enforces quality and safeguarding rules. act faster to stop unsafe people working with participants again.
-
The bill would let the Commissioner order someone to stop NDIS-related advertising or sales conduct that undermines the scheme. This targets harmful or misleading promotion to participants.
-
The bill would let the National Disability Insurance AgencyThe agency that administers the NDIS, including paying some participant claims. pay a claim even if some documents are late or missing, if there is a genuine reason. This is meant to stop payments being delayed unnecessarily.
Show source excerpts
-
There is currently no mechanism under the NDIS Act to differentiate between penalties based on gravity of harm or seriousness of the conduct. This "one size fits all" approach can limit the effectiveness of penalties as a credible deterrent against future offending behaviour, particularly for NDIS providers claiming significant NDIS payments.
Explanatory memorandum -
What we are proposing is to broaden the NDIS Commission's banning order powers to capture those who provide services to NDIS providers.
Chisholm, Sen Anthony second reading speech -
Under strict liability, the NDIS Commission can take more immediate enforcement action to stop the conduct based solely on the fact of the breach.
Explanatory memorandum -
The Commissioner will be given a new power to issue an antipromotion order restricting a person from engaging in promotional conduct in connection with the NDIS where that conduct undermines the objects of the NDIS Act.
Chisholm, Sen Anthony second reading speech -
This allows the NDIA to pay amounts in relation to a claim if there are genuine reasons why the documents and information cannot be provided, or the timeframe has not been complied with. This will act as a safeguard to ensure payments are not withheld unnecessarily when it is appropriate to make payment.’
Explanatory memorandum
Context
Broader context for this bill
The NDIS watchdog already had rules, fines and banning orders, but the penalties did not clearly separate minor breaches from serious harm. When it became clear this weak deterrence and fault-based proof could slow action against banned workers, the bill proposed much larger penalties for the worst misconduct and quicker powers to keep unsafe people out of participant work.
- 11 Nov 2025
Second NDIS reformThe second package of NDIS law changes, including stronger watchdog powers and payment-rule fixes. package includes stronger watchdog powers
It said later legislation would strengthen the NDIS CommissionThe independent regulator that registers NDIS providers and enforces quality and safeguarding rules. and make some NDIA payment rules more workable.
Australian Government Department of Health, Disability and Ageing ↗ - 26 Nov 2025
Banned worker could keep working while regulators proved breach
Bill materials said that delay could leave vulnerable participants exposed to someone already barred from the scheme.
Explanatory memorandum ↗ - 26 Nov 2025
Introduced bill brings bigger penalties for serious NDIS breaches
It proposed much larger fines for the worst misconduct instead of treating minor and serious breaches the same.
Explanatory memorandum ↗ - 27 Nov 2025
Senate sends tougher NDIS bill to inquiry
That started formal scrutiny of the proposed stronger penalties, broader bans and faster enforcement tools.
Parliamentary Library ↗ - 01 Apr 2026
Parliament passes tougher NDIS safeguarding laws
The passed bill widened bans and added new offences and much larger fines for serious misconduct.
Australian Government Department of Health, Disability and Ageing ↗
Legislative route
How did it move through Parliament?
House Senate
Introduced 26 Nov 2025
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
Second reading opened 26 Nov 2025
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Scrutiny of Bills review 04 Feb 2026
This review looked at whether the bill limited personal rights or gave too much law-making power without enough safeguards. It raised concerns about privacy, personal rights and powers being left to later rules, and asked the minister to respond.
Considered in published report
Scrutiny Digest 2 of 2026Community Affairs report: recommend passage 20 Mar 2026
This inquiry considered submissions and hearing evidence, then recommended the bill be passed. It supported stronger NDIS safeguards and regulator powers overall, but warned that broader banning orders, higher penalties, easier-to-enforce offences, privacy issues and people’s ability to work still needed close scrutiny.
Referred; report published
Committee report (20 Mar 2026)Second reading debate 31 Mar 2026
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
Senate second reading agreed 31 Mar 2026
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
Senate agreed to amendment packages 31 Mar 2026
Senators examined the bill in detail and considered amendments clause by clause. Amendment: 1 Government, 3 Opposition and 3 Australian Greens agreed to.
Committee of the Whole debate
Senate third reading agreed 31 Mar 2026
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
Introduced 31 Mar 2026
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
Second reading opened 31 Mar 2026
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Second reading debate 31 Mar 2026
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
Second reading debate 01 Apr 2026
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
House second reading agreed 01 Apr 2026
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
House third reading agreed 01 Apr 2026
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
Key criticism
The main case against this bill
The main worry was that the bill would still leave major gaps in stopping fraud, especially by unregistered providers. Some also warned that the stronger powers in the bill could go too far unless there were clearer limits and safeguards for privacy, fairness and people’s ability to work.
Even so, the main Senate committee supported the bill overall, so the criticism was about gaps and safeguards rather than rejecting the bill outright.
Broader powers
The committee warned that wider banning powers and higher penalties could unfairly affect people’s ability to work unless the limits and safeguards are clear.
Privacy
The scrutiny committee warned that some new powers could intrude on privacy and other personal rights if the protections are not clear.
Partial fix
Some support for the bill was qualified because it was seen as only part of the answer, with more action on fraud still needed.
Further sources
Votes
Recorded votes
How the bill itself passed
The bill passed both chambers on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage.
Passed Senate passed the bill
Senate agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed
Senate passed the bill
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Passed House passed the bill
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed
House passed the bill
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Amendments at a glance
These amendments were agreed on the voices without a counted division.
Senate
Carried Extended NDIS whistleblower protections to former workers and banned unauthorised disclosure of a discloser’s identity, with defined exceptions and penalties.
Extended NDIS whistleblower protections to former workers and banned unauthorised disclosure of a discloser’s identity, with defined exceptions and penalties.
Carried
Extended NDIS whistleblower protections to former workers and banned unauthorised disclosure of a discloser’s identity, with defined exceptions and penalties.
Extended NDIS whistleblower protections to former workers and banned unauthorised disclosure of a discloser’s identity, with defined exceptions and penalties.
Passed on the voices
The chamber agreed to this amendment without a counted vote — the presiding officer judged the ayes louder than the noes, and no member called for a division.
Carried Barred the CEO from demanding claim information unless satisfied the request would not unreasonably interfere with or prejudice the person’s privacy.
Barred the CEO from demanding claim information unless satisfied the request would not unreasonably interfere with or prejudice the person’s privacy.
Carried
Barred the CEO from demanding claim information unless satisfied the request would not unreasonably interfere with or prejudice the person’s privacy.
Barred the CEO from demanding claim information unless satisfied the request would not unreasonably interfere with or prejudice the person’s privacy.
Passed on the voices
The chamber agreed to this amendment without a counted vote — the presiding officer judged the ayes louder than the noes, and no member called for a division.
Carried Removed the bill’s new requirement to tell participants a plan variation could increase or decrease funding.
Removed the bill’s new requirement to tell participants a plan variation could increase or decrease funding.
Carried
Removed the bill’s new requirement to tell participants a plan variation could increase or decrease funding.
Removed the bill’s new requirement to tell participants a plan variation could increase or decrease funding.
Passed on the voices
The chamber agreed to this amendment without a counted vote — the presiding officer judged the ayes louder than the noes, and no member called for a division.
The parliamentary record also shows 1 Government, 3 Opposition amendment agreed without a counted division.
Parliamentary debate
Who spoke, and what they said
Start here — lead voices
Sponsor speech Supports
Anthony Chisholm
The speaker argues that the bill is needed to strengthen the integrity and safety of the NDIS by giving the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission stronger powers, tougher penalties and broader enforcement tools against fraud, abuse and non-compliance.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead opposing voice Opposes
Anne Webster
Anne Webster criticises the bill as failing to deliver real integrity or safeguarding for NDIS participants, especially in regional Australia, and argues it centralises power without adequate oversight, provider regulation or accessible safeguards.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead supporting voice Supports
Henry Pike
Pike says the coalition will support the bill, welcoming its stronger penalties, enforcement powers and cooling-off period as sensible measures to tackle fraud and safeguard the NDIS.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead voice Supports
Louise Miller-Frost
Louise Miller-Frost strongly supports the bill, arguing it will strengthen NDIS integrity and safeguarding through tougher penalties, stronger enforcement powers and participant protections.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
Labor
7 speakers · 7 support
Labor
7 speakers · 7 support
-
Chisholm ★ The speaker argues that the bill is needed to strengthen the integrity and safety of the NDIS by giving the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission stronger powers, tougher penalties and broader enforcement tools against fraud, abuse and non-compliance.
“This Bill will give the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission more of the powers it needs to be more responsive to protect participants from abuse, neglect, and exploitation.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Miller-Frost ★ Louise Miller-Frost strongly supports the bill, arguing it will strengthen NDIS integrity and safeguarding through tougher penalties, stronger enforcement powers and participant protections.
“The bill does three things. It ensures that fraud and non-compliance are stamped out, and, to this end, ensures the NDIS develops a culture of compliance. It ensures that NDIS lives up to the values of its original charter, and, most importantly, it ensures that participants are protected when all that they and their families and carers are trying to do is navigate their care and live dignified and rewarding lives. I commend the bill to the House.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Jordan-Baird Alice Jordan-Baird supports the bill, arguing it will protect NDIS participants by cracking down on fraudulent and abusive providers through stronger offences, penalties and regulatory powers.
“Ms JORDAN-BAIRD (Gorton) (12:35): I'm proud to rise in support of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding) Bill 2025. Former prime minister Julia Gillard put it best when her Labor government established the NDIS in 2013:”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Ng Gabriel Ng argues that the bill will strengthen integrity and safeguarding in the NDIS by expanding penalties, registration conditions, enforcement powers and information-sharing, while supporting participant safety and public confidence in the scheme.
“The NDIS is a cornerstone of our social safety net. It reflects our values as a nation and our commitment to fairness and inclusion. This bill takes an important step towards achieving those goals and ensures that the NDIS remains focused on what matters most: supporting people with disability to live with dignity, independence and opportunity. I commend the bill to the House.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Berry Carol Berry supports the bill, arguing it will strengthen the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, improve compliance and fraud prevention, and better protect participants from unsafe or unsuitable providers.
“This bill is an extremely important part of that work, and I commend it to the House.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Jarrett Jarrett supports the bill, arguing it will strengthen integrity and safeguarding in the NDIS by addressing fraud, abuse and noncompliance while protecting vulnerable people with disability.
“Ms JARRETT (Brisbane) (12:04): I rise in support of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding) Bill 2026. I joined the Labor Party at the age of 15 because I grew up around people whose lives were pretty difficult or who ended up in very difficult situations, including with a disability, through no fault of their own. I saw and lived around people who saw how important it was to look out for each other, especially for those who are vulnerable and especially those who are at risk of being left behind. As a result, I vehemently believe in equality, social justice, care and community.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Coker Libby Coker strongly supports the bill, arguing it protects NDIS participants and restores integrity through tougher criminal offences, larger penalties, stronger banning powers, anti-predatory conduct measures and better whistleblower protections.
“Ms COKER (Corangamite) (12:30): The National Disability Insurance Scheme is one of the most important social reforms in Australia's history. It was built on the simple but powerful idea that people with disability deserve dignity, choice and control. But that promise only holds if the scheme is protected. That's what this bill is all about. The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding) Bill 2026 delivers tough new laws to protect participants and safeguard the scheme from fraud. It is about restoring integrity, it is about enforcing accountability and it is about making it absolutely clear that exploitation has no place in the NDIS.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Coalition
4 speakers · 2 support · 1 oppose · 1 mixed
Coalition
4 speakers · 2 support · 1 oppose · 1 mixed
-
Pike ★ Pike says the coalition will support the bill, welcoming its stronger penalties, enforcement powers and cooling-off period as sensible measures to tackle fraud and safeguard the NDIS.
“The government has done the right thing in setting up the Fraud Fusion Taskforce. However, they did report to Senate estimates a few weeks ago that they think that up to 10 per cent of NDIS claims are inappropriate, mischievous or outright criminal. That should be setting off alarm bells across the system. This bill will assist in tackling some of that. But when you've got 10 per cent of a $50 billion scheme that is potentially—what were the words—inappropriate, mischievous or outright criminal, the government needs to get very serious about this very quickly. As an opposition, we're going to be encouraging the government to do that. But we will be supporting the bill. I think the amendment from the member for Lindsay is entirely appropriate and sums up where the coalition thinks the government should be heading in this important area of public policy.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Penfold Penfold says the bill contains sensible integrity and safeguarding measures for the NDIS, including stronger penalties and expanded regulator powers, but argues it is only an incremental response to widespread fraud and exploitation.
“This bill is a step in the right direction, but it is not the leap that is required. The Australian people deserve to have their taxes spent judiciously and meaningfully, and, most importantly, Australians living with disability deserve a system that works for them, not for those who seek to exploit it.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Rebello Leon Rebello clearly supports the bill, saying the coalition will back it as part of improving NDIS integrity and safeguarding participants.
“Mr REBELLO (McPherson) (12:10): The coalition will be supporting the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding) Bill 2026. We are supporters of the NDIS.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Webster ★ Anne Webster criticises the bill as failing to deliver real integrity or safeguarding for NDIS participants, especially in regional Australia, and argues it centralises power without adequate oversight, provider regulation or accessible safeguards.
“This bill fails that test.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
Full record
- Act title
- National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding) Act 2026
- Act number
- Act No. 41, 2026
- Became law
- 08 Apr 2026
- Takes effect
- 08 Apr 2026
- Registered
- 10 Apr 2026
- Administered by
- Department of Health, Disability and Ageing
- No instruments are listed on the Act’s official Authorises tab at the time of generation.
- Introduction to passage
- 126 calendar days -- Introduced on 26 Nov 2025 and passed both Houses on 01 Apr 2026.
- Introduction to assent
- 133 calendar days -- Royal assent followed on 08 April 2026.
- Recorded divisions found
- 0 -- No directly attributable divisions have been extracted yet.
- Second reading chambers captured
- House of Representatives, Senate
- Same-day passage through both Houses
- No -- The bill cleared the House on 01 Apr 2026 and the Senate on 31 Mar 2026.
- 26 Nov 2025
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.
- 26 Nov 2025
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.
- 31 Mar 2026
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
- 31 Mar 2026
Senate · 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.
- 31 Mar 2026
Senate · Committee of the whole: amendments considered
Detailed Senate review
Senators examined the bill in detail and considered amendments clause by clause. Amendment: 1 Government, 3 Opposition and 3 Australian Greens agreed to.
- 31 Mar 2026
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
- 31 Mar 2026
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.
- 31 Mar 2026
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.
- 31 Mar 2026
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
- 01 Apr 2026
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
- 01 Apr 2026
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.
- 01 Apr 2026
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; report published
This inquiry considered submissions and hearing evidence, then recommended the bill be passed. It supported stronger NDIS safeguards and regulator powers overall, but warned that broader banning orders, higher penalties, easier-to-enforce offences, privacy issues and people’s ability to work still needed close scrutiny.
Referred to Committee (27 Nov 2025): Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (20 Mar 2026)
Committee report (20 Mar 2026)Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
Considered in published report
This review looked at whether the bill limited personal rights or gave too much law-making power without enough safeguards. It raised concerns about privacy, personal rights and powers being left to later rules, and asked the minister to respond.
Considered by scrutiny committee (4 Feb 2026): Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; Scrutiny Digest 2 of 2026
Scrutiny Digest 2 of 2026