National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

The order of the day having been read for the resumption of the debate on the question—That the bill be now read a second time— And on the amendment moved thereto by Mrs McIntosh, viz.—That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that:

(1) in 2023, the Government announced a target growth rate for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) of 8 per cent and was unable to achieve it;

(2) in January 2026, the Prime Minister announced a new target growth rate for the NDIS of 5 to 6 per cent, which the Government again failed to meet;

(3) in April 2026, the Health Minister announced yet another new annual target growth rate for the NDIS of 2 per cent over the next four years, despite the Government’s ongoing inability to meet any of their previously announced target growth rates;

(4) the Government and the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) have also been unable to clearly quantify or comprehensively address the scale of fraud within the NDIS;

(5) the NDIA Fraud Fusion Taskforce estimates that up to 10 per cent of NDIS claims are inappropriate, mischievous or outright criminal;

(6) the Government must do more to prevent the fraud and rorting that is rife within the NDIS;

(7) the changes in the bill will do little to remove bad actors from defrauding participants and taxpayers; and

(8) robust integrity systems are critical to not only protect taxpayer funds but also to protect NDIS participants from exploitation by unscrupulous providers”—

And on the amendment moved thereto by Ms Le, viz.— That all words after “House” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

“(1) notes that:

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

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

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

And on the amendment moved thereto by Ms Chaney, viz.— That all words after “notes that” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debate resumed.

Mr Holzberger9:16:53 AM

Dr M Ryan moved, as an amendment to the amendment proposed by Ms Chaney—That all words after “the bill” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

“is being examined by the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, with a submission closing date of 29 May 2026, giving just two weeks for contributions;

(b) action 25.2 of the NDIS Independent Review called on the Department to undertake ‘deep public consultation on proposed legislative reforms’ including with people with disability, families, carers, Disability Representative Organisations, providers and workers;

(c) the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability found that ‘people with disability are not sufficiently involved in government decision-making processes and developing laws and policies that may impact their human rights’;

(d) Article 4(3) of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities requires the Government to ‘closely consult with and actively involve persons with disabilities, through their representative organisations’ when developing legislation that affects them;

(e) guidance from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet states that consultation on legislation ‘should not generally be less than a month’, and that where substantial feedback is expected, consultation should be even longer; and

(f) short timeframes are inherently inaccessible and people with disability may require additional time to participate meaningfully in consultation processes; and

(2) calls on the Government to extend the submission deadline for the Senate inquiry so that participants, families, carers, and disability representative organisations have at least four weeks to respond”.

Debate ensued.

Ms France9:44:52 AM

Ms Price9:58:15 AM

Ms Claydon10:10:43 AM

Mr Conaghan10:25:52 AM

Mr Thistlethwaite10:40:18 AM

Mr Small10:51:19 AM

Dr Freelander11:06:30 AM

Mr Thompson11:21:46 AM

Ms Byrnes11:36:53 AM

Dr Webster11:52:02 AM

Mr Wallace12:07:18 PM

Mr Venning12:22:32 PM

Ms Landry12:37:03 PM

Mr McCormack12:47:53 PM

Ms Watson-Brown1:03:00 PM

Mr Rebello1:09:46 PM

Mr Birrell addressing the House—

It being 1.30 pm, the debate was interrupted in accordance with standing order 43, Mr Birrell was granted leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed, and the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for a later hour this day.

Minutes

Captions