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

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory—Independent ACT Whip) (11:56): I begin by thanking people with disability and their families, carers and loved ones who have emailed, called and pulled me aside on the street here in Canberra to talk about the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 and the concerns they have.

I held a community town hall with Independent MLAs Thomas Emerson and Fiona Carrick, and had over 100 people attend, on a weeknight. We heard stories of people's genuine fears about what will happen if this bill passes in its current form and what it will mean for the most intimate parts of their lives, including who gets them out of bed, who helps them have a shower and who helps them go to the bathroom.

Overwhelmingly, people told me that they're not opposed to reform; they want it to happen. But, as press gallery journalist of the year James Massola said, reform should be done with a scalpel, not a sledgehammer. The NDIS is one of the largest social programs, and its growth rate must be brought in line with other social programs in Australia.

It is appropriate for the government to seek a growth rate of five to six per cent; that's in line with programs like Medicare. And I agree that this is the way we need to go if we want to make sure this program is available for the next generation of people with disability. I also support cracking down on fraudulent providers and exploitation, ensuring funding reaches participants rather than bad actors; more consistent and evidence based decisions; functional capacity assessments, if properly designed with people with disability; clearer boundaries between the NDIS, health and other service systems; and properly funded foundational supports.

While I broadly support the architecture of this bill and the intent to ensure that the scheme is sustainable, maintains its social licence and, critically, supports Australians who need that support, there are two areas of this bill that I have major concerns with. The first is around the cut to people's social and community participation funds—a 50 per cent arbitrary cut made across the board, totally indiscriminately.

I don't think this can be done safely. We heard that this will isolate people—people who are already more isolated than the general population. The disability royal commission warned what can happen when people with disability are isolated, when they are segregated.

Violence, abuse, exploitation—this funding is a safeguard against all those things. It's what the NDIS was designed to do—ensure that people with disability can be genuinely included in their communities. It's not just there to keep people alive; it's to ensure that they can participate.

One Canberran told me that, once this is cut, they won't have the funding to go and check on their ageing father anymore. That's what she uses her funding for. When it's indiscriminate, we don't know what will happen.

I agree with the Disability Discrimination Commissioner that we will be leaving people in unsafe situations. Witness after witness to the Senate inquiry into this warned about that. Clearly, the government has taken what could be seen as much-needed reform and added this immediate budget saving on top.

This 50 per cent cut across the board to SCCP is not a policy decision; it's a budget decision. These cuts aren't even necessary to bring the rate of growth down to the government's target. Analysis from the Grattan Institute shows that other reforms in this package do most of the work, but they are slow.

Clearly, the government saw a big chunk of money that they could be saving immediately and did not think through the consequences, as became clear during the Senate inquiry. When questions were put to the department about things like the impact this would have on Australians with Down syndrome who use a big chunk of this funding to actually get to work, they didn't seem to have answers.

Clearly, this was not something they'd consulted on; this was a decision of government. As is the phrase in estimates and inquiries, it's a decision of government taken around the cabinet table, which then gets put to the department, who are told, 'Build this into your reforms, into your legislation. The analysis shows that if we don't cut SCCP, if we actually honour existing plans and arrangements, then the NDIS will grow at three per cent per year.

That is still a real cut in population adjusted terms, and it sits well below the long-term NDIS rate of five to six per cent per year. Again, these cuts aren't needed to bring the scheme under control. This is purely a budget-saving measure.

I have real fears for what this will mean for participants and their families when this goes through. The other area which should and does concern almost all senators in this place is the unprecedented inclusion of automated decision-making powers in this legislation. Automation has a legitimate role in calculations, routine processing and in detecting fraud, but the bill goes so much further than that.

Evidence from the Human Technology Institute was that, subject to a ministerial determination, almost any major NDIS decision could be automated, including decisions involving judgement and discretion. They described this as unprecedented. The explanatory memorandum talks about human oversight, but those protections are not expressed in the bill.

It's deeply worrying when you have rhetoric from government saying, 'Well, no, the intent is not to do it this way,' and yet, in the bill, the parliament will be handing extraordinary powers to the executive, the minister and the NDIA when it comes to automated decision-making. One of the other concerns about the framework is that it could also remove established internal review pathways for some automated decisions.

What a perverse outcome of this legislation it will be if participants have fewer rights to challenge a decision, simply because a machine made it. You would think that there would be more accountability if we're handing decision-making to an algorithm. I think that Australians, rightly, have very little trust in algorithms when you look at the havoc that social media algorithms are wreaking on society, the black box nature of these algorithms when it comes to social media companies, and our own government and what they've rolled out with Support at Home assessments.

We're told that we couldn't possibly look at the algorithm because it's sensitive and they don't want people to know how to game the system, yet we've had expert after expert saying that this is not the way to treat older Australians and it is not a fit algorithm. Now we're saying, 'When it comes to the NDIS, let's roll that out at scale—let's keep rolling that out, potentially allowing ADM to raise debts and then not having a way to appeal them.' It is astounding, in the wake of the robodebt royal commission, that the parliament is looking at legislation that expands these sorts of powers when it comes to automated decision-making and the use of algorithms without the right of participants to appeal those decisions.

This is a very serious thing for us to be doing as a Senate. ADM means harm can be produced at scale. Robodebt taught us that, and the robodebt royal commission, in recommendation 17.1, recommended an overarching act to deal with automated decision-making and the use of algorithms.

Recommendation 17.2 was for a much-needed independent body that can look at these algorithms so we don't have to turn up to these inquiries where the department tell us, 'Don't worry, everything's great—this is a good algorithm,' but every expert that we ask questions of says that this thing stinks and is clearly not providing the level of care that Australians need.

I'll be moving a second reading amendment proposing that these provisions not commence until after we have those safeguards in place, the overarching act that deals with ADM algorithms across departments and agencies, and an independent body to evaluate these algorithms. I also have serious concerns as a senator for the ACT. So much of what I've heard from Canberrans are concerns around the sequencing and foundational supports.

Thriving Kids was announced on 20 August 2025, almost a year ago, and is still not operating. It currently only covers children aged zero to eight with developmental delay or autism and low to moderate support needs. Governments have not agreed on the next foundational support cohorts, funding, commencement dates or services.

There's no clear arrangement for adults, people with early stage neurological conditions or complex needs, or cross-border communities such as Canberra. Yet access changes are due to begin in 2028. That leaves about 18 months to design, fund, staff and deliver a nationwide range of supports.

I'm supportive of these changes, but I'm really concerned about the short runway left to complete this job, given the huge impact that this will have on Australians and their families across this great country. People cannot be denied access to the NDIS on the assumption that another service exists when it remains only a commitment. One of the really worrying submissions to the Senate inquiry was the one from the states and territories, which basically said, 'We don't know what we need to do, how much it's going to cost or who we're providing services for.' None of this has been discussed or agreed, and yet the Commonwealth is charging on with this bill, with huge cuts to people's budgets, and we're told that the states and territories are going to have to pick up the slack.

When I asked the department about the $13-odd billion of savings, they pointed to, I think, a $200 million fund for community organisations. Anyone can see that $200 million worth of grants and other supports does not cover a $13 billion cut. I recognise that this bill will pass this week, and, while I cannot support in its current form, this is clearly not the end of the work for senators in continuing to apply scrutiny to government decision-making, continuing to apply scrutiny to the decisions of the NDIA, continuing to listen to NDIS participants and their families, and committing to listen to Canberrans.

I encourage government to be open and willing to change course if things go wrong. We've seen that in aged care, with the introduction of an algorithm that we're told is going to be a great thing. Again, I give credit to senators Allman-Payne and Ruston, who've done outstanding work in highlighting just what can go wrong when the government doesn't get it right.

I would urge the government to keep an open mind with this, to continue to consult and to make changes where appropriate.