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

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory—Independent ACT Whip) (18:25): Minister, I know we're running out of time. I do have a few questions. I first wanted to echo a few of the things that Senator Steele-John said.

I'd really like to thank Canberrans for their input and guidance in my consideration of this bill. Hearing directly from Canberrans, listening to them, is the most important part of my job. I vote in this place on behalf of them and I've received hundreds of emails and calls to my office about this.

I've had many people stop me on the street to talk about it and I held a town hall meeting on this bill that was attended by about a hundred people with disability and their loved ones. I've heard, very clearly, the genuinely held fears and the uncertainty when it comes to what this bill will mean for the most intimate parts of their lives and what it'll mean for their families.

I also heard, very clearly, that people do want reform. People with disability know better than all of us how poor governance, fraud and poor-quality services rob people of dignity and undermine the scheme. I voted for the second reading of this bill because I agree with its intent to reform the scheme, to ensure it is sustainable over the long term and to put it at the government's target growth rate of between five and six per cent.

I think we all want this scheme to endure. It should become as foundational in our society as Medicare. That requires sustainability.

It requires social licence. The government has provided quite a long list of amendments, as have the Greens, and I've also introduced a few for discussion and consideration by the Senate. But, as I said in my dissenting report, there are some red lines in this bill for me.

The biggest one was the support determinations and the indiscriminate cut of 50 per cent, the minister said, to social and community participation funding. I often hear that, on average, this measure will reset social and community participation funding to where it was a few years ago. I think the word 'average' does a lot of heavy lifting.

It conceals that the people who are most at risk of isolation—people in SILS, people with intellectual disability and people with Down syndrome—use most of their SCCP funding. For them, a cut of 50 per cent will mean a lot for their lives. I take the evidence of the Disability Discrimination Commissioner, Women with Disabilities Australia and the many witnesses at the inquiry and I thank the Senate for facilitating a longer inquiry into this.

We heard that this will leave people in unsafe situations because it risks isolating them. We know that isolation increases the risks of violence, abuse and exploitation, and social and community participation is an essential safeguard against this. The indiscriminate nature of this cut means that we will not know its impact until harm happens, and I can't support that.

Based on what I've heard from Canberrans, that is something that I cannot support, even though I support the intent of these reforms. Minister, I note that this concern was raised by Senator Steele-John earlier. I heard your response and I understand the government's point of view.

I'll leave it to you if you want to respond again to what I've just said, but I do have some specific questions, so I'll just move on to them. I've heard from lots of people in the community about how support determination will impact them. The Disability Discrimination Commissioner shared in the inquiry that she believed a cut of this magnitude across all plans would leave people in unsafe situations.

Can I ask how the government will actively assess whether this policy is leaving people in unsafe situations, and how the government plans to respond if we do see more people being isolated and exposed to violence or exploitation.