Shadow Portfolio — 27 May 2026

Melissa McIntosh's second-reading contribution on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 delivered a structured attack on three fronts: the government's repeated failure to meet its own cost-containment targets, the scale of fraud inside the scheme, and the absence of adequate scrutiny before legislating further changes.

The government set an 8 percent NDIS growth target in 2023, revised it to 5–6 percent in January 2026, and revised it again to 2 percent in April 2026 — and missed each target in turn [TA-260526-house-fe3d2ac10a60:s005]. McIntosh framed this sequence not as difficult economic management but as a credibility problem: a government that cannot reliably project, let alone control, the scheme's trajectory.

The scale of the stakes sharpens the critique — the scheme now supports more than 760,000 Australians at approximately $50 billion a year and is projected to reach $70 billion by the end of the decade [TA-260526-house-fe3d2ac10a60:s005].

On integrity, McIntosh cited the NDIA Fraud Fusion Taskforce's own estimate that up to 10 percent of NDIS claims are inappropriate, mischievous or criminal. Her demand for stronger integrity systems drew cross-portfolio support from the Health Minister's press-club speech, which she invoked to show that even within government, concern about dodgy providers and scheme size is acknowledged.

Using the government's own minister against the bill is a deliberate framing device, positioning the opposition as responding to bipartisan concerns rather than opposing reform per se.

The opposition's constructive counter-position has two planks. First, a technical advisory group should be established to develop a new functional capacity assessment for new participants from 2028, with all existing participants reassessed between 2028 and 2030. Second, the bill should not proceed without a Senate inquiry — submissions close this Friday, with public hearings scheduled for the week of 8 June.

The call for a Senate inquiry is the most immediately consequential procedural demand, and it signals the opposition's intent to slow the legislative timetable rather than vote the bill down outright.

McIntosh grounded the argument in constituent correspondence and family experiences — a rhetorical pattern consistent with her recent contributions on government spending and vulnerable Australians. The overall opposition positioning is to accept the need for NDIS reform in principle while contesting both the government's competence to deliver it and the adequacy of consultation with the disability community before the bill passes.