Executive Summary
A strong and sustainable NDIS is essential for people with disability to live independently, safely, with dignity and choice. Through our work as Legal Aids, clients with disability tell us the NDIS supports they receive significantly help them in their daily lives. The future of the NDIS should be secured through considered and tested law reform grounded in lived experience, fairness and accountability — prioritising sustainable support for people with disability over cost saving.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 (the Bill) proposes significant changes to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (the NDIS Act), including to access, plan reassessment, support funding, renewals, review rights and decision-making.
If enacted, the measures will have life-changing consequences for people with disability: narrowing access to the Scheme, constraining reassessment pathways, increasing evidentiary and procedural barriers, narrowing the connection between impairment and supports, permitting reductions to support funding through delegated powers, and weakening practical access to review. The Bill also risks entrenching disadvantage for those already facing structural barriers, including First Nations peoples, people in rural and regional areas, people with multiple or episodic impairments, children, women, and those with limited informal supports.
Reforms of this scale must strengthen the Scheme's fairness, transparency and integrity — not diminish the rights and supports of the people it exists to serve. NLA is concerned many of the most consequential details will be left to future Rules and Ministerial determinations, with inadequate consultation, insufficient legislative clarity, and limited evidence the safeguards needed to protect participants will exist. This risks shifting the NDIS towards a system that is harder to access, harder to navigate and less accountable.
As a primary provider of legal support to people navigating complex NDIS review and appeal processes, NLA is concerned several measures will shift responsibility away from the Scheme and onto families, carers and other overstretched service systems, while increasing pressure on the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART), courts, advocates and legal assistance services. NLA strongly recommends the Bill be amended so that access is not significantly curtailed, supports are not reduced, important safeguards continue and review rights remain.
Amendments are critical to: set key protections out in primary legislation; narrow or remove excessive delegated powers; preserve fair, accessible and timely review pathways; ensure reforms are co-designed with people with disability and tested for implementation; and provide additional investment in legal assistance, including the NDIS Appeals Program, to meet the predictable increase in disputes.
NLA supports reform to secure a sustainable NDIS that meets the needs of people with disability and the community. The Bill in its current form risks that future without significant amendment to its content and further careful consideration and consultation on its implementation.
List of Recommendations
NLA recommends:
Schedule 1 – Access and planning
Part 1 – Functional capacity definition
1. That any amendments to the functional capacity assessment framework ensure fairness by considering:
(a) a person's ability to access and meaningfully participate in the assessment, particularly people in rural, regional and remote communities;
(b) the compatibility and consistency of the assessment process and method with culturally safe practices, particularly for First Nations communities;
(c) the appropriateness of the assessment method for evaluating a diverse range of impairments, including complex, interrelated, or episodic impairments; and
(d) the capacity of the framework to accommodate fluctuations in functional ability over time, rather than relying solely on a single point-in-time assessment.
Part 2 – Unscheduled plan assessments
2. That, to ensure participants retain appropriate access to reassessments, the Bill be amended to remove s 48A(2) and (3), and s 48A(1) be redrafted as follows:
“For the purposes of paragraph 48(2)(b), the conditions are that:
(a) a participant's plan is insufficient to meet their current support needs; or
(b) a participant's plan is scheduled for automatic renewal within 3 months; or
(c) significant change in the participant's functional capacity; or
(d) alteration in the participant's personal or environmental circumstances.”
3. That proposed s 48(2) of the Bill be amended to require a reassessment when a person receives an impairment notice that includes a new impairment.
4. That proposed ss 48(2) and (2A) of the Bill be amended to remove restrictions on both the formal requirements for making a reassessment request and who can make a reassessment request, to ensure this does not create unnecessary and arbitrary barriers for participants.
5. That proposed s 48(3) of the Bill be amended to reduce the timeframe for the CEO to decide whether to conduct a reassessment to 30 days instead of 90 days.
6. That the Bill be amended to enable the NDIA on internal review and the ART on external review to conduct a reassessment as part of its review power, where the participant has sought review of a decision not to conduct a reassessment.
7. That the Bill be amended to ensure the following review rights remain available:
(a) an automatic review where the CEO has failed to make a decision in relation to a reassessment request within the prescribed time; and
(b) a review of a decision by the CEO that the s 48A criteria have not been met.
8. That the transitional provisions in the Bill be amended so that the new reassessment criteria apply only to reassessment requests made after the day the item commences.
Part 3 – Link between impairment and supports
9. That Schedule 1, Part 3 – Strengthen link between an impairment and need for support – of the Bill does not proceed in its current form.
10. That, if Schedule 1, Part 3 of the Bill proceeds, s 34(1)(aa) be amended to retain a sufficient causal connection rather than requiring that a need arise "directly from a qualifying impairment", and to make clear that a support may be reasonable and necessary where the qualifying impairment is a material or contributory cause of the need, even if the need is also affected by another impairment, comorbidity, environmental factor or personal circumstances.
11. That the existing statutory recognition of environmental factors and the impact of another impairment be retained in s 32K(3A), s 32L and the note to s 34(1) of the NDIS Act.
Part 4 – Support determinations and funding caps
12. That the Bill be amended to remove provisions introducing support determinations (s 34A) or funding caps (ss 33(2EA) and 33(2EB)) that reduce the funding available for participants for reasonable and necessary supports.
13. That, if support determinations (s 34A) and funding caps (ss 33(2EA) and 33(2EB)) are retained, the Bill be amended to incorporate clear statutory safeguards, including that:
(a) support determinations (s 34A) and caps (ss 33(2EA) and 33(2EB)) apply only to specified classes of supports, rather than having broad or Scheme-wide application;
(b) support determinations (s 34A) and caps (ss 33(2EA) and 33(2EB)) be made through the Category A rules process, rather than by Ministerial instrument; and
(c) an intersectional impact analysis and survey report be tabled alongside any future instruments when introduced, with a minimum 15-day disallowance period before commencement.
14. That, if support determinations (s 34A) and funding caps (ss 33(2EA) and 33(2EB)) are retained, the Bill be amended to ensure that participants who are subject to support determination reductions in funding or funding caps can seek an exemption where there is an impact on their functional capacity or a risk to their own or another person's safety, health or wellbeing.
15. That the Government ensure that communication to participants about any reduction in total funding is clear and transparent, with accessible pathways to support to assist participants to understand the implications for how funding is spent.
16. That, to ensure appropriate safeguards for any debts accrued, the Bill be amended to enable debts arising as a result of decisions made under ss 182(1) and (3) of the NDIS Act to be reviewable under s 99.
Part 5 – Plan renewals
17. That the Bill be amended to include a right for participants to opt in to a plan reassessment by making a request three months before the end date of their current plan.
18. That the Bill be amended to enable plans created under the plan renewal powers to be subject to the same review rights as other decisions resulting in a new plan.
Part 6 – Reasonable and necessary supports
19. That the Bill be amended to remove s 34(1)(g) on the basis this can be addressed through the NDIS supports lists or other rules.
20. That the Bill be amended to remove s 34(1A), or, if retained, that s 34(1A)(a) be redrafted as follows: "must consider whether comparable supports which would achieve the same outcome are available at a substantially lower cost".
21. That the Bill be amended to replace proposed s 34(1E) and (1F) with the content of the current Rules, which allow for the balanced consideration of the consensus of expert opinion, published literature and lived experience of the participant.
22. That, if s 34(1E) is retained:
(a) the Bill be amended to insert the word "likely" in s 34(1E)(b) and to omit s 34(1E)(c);
(b) s 34(1E)(c) not be confined to a participant's use of the support in a previous plan, but extend to any evidence of the participant's prior use of the support where such evidence is available; and
(c) the Bill be amended to refer only to "evidence as to outcomes for the participant".
23. That, if s 34(1F) is retained, the Bill be amended to remove the word "limited" from s 34(1F)(a) and (b).
24. That the Bill be amended to remove proposed provisions s 34(1G)–(1K) and retain Part 3.4 of the current Supports Rules in relation to family support.
Part 7 – Plan suspensions
25. That Schedule 1, Part 7 – Plan Suspension etc – of the Bill not proceed.
26. That, if Schedule 1, Part 7 of the Bill is retained, the Bill be amended to introduce a more limited suspension power, similar to s 26(3)(b)(i), in relation to participant non-compliance with s 50.
27. That the Bill be amended to remove s 30(1A) to ensure participant status cannot be revoked where the participant is not contactable.
28. That the Bill be amended to require that a plan cease to be suspended if the participant contacts the NDIA or provides the information requested, similarly to s 36(4)(c). This should occur by operation of statute without needing a formal decision. The CEO must be required to identify a different basis within the Act to re-suspend the plan if the CEO still considers there are grounds to do so. In the alternative, the Bill be amended to provide clear guidance as to when the CEO should cease a suspension, and a decision not to cease a suspension under s 40A(4) be a reviewable decision.
29. That, if Schedule 1, Part 7 of the Bill is retained, the Bill be amended to remove:
(a) proposed s 30(1A), which provides the power to revoke participants; and
(b) proposed s 32D(5), which undermines protections in s 36.
30. That the Bill be amended to provide the following safeguards in proposed s 40A:
(a) a requirement that the CEO must consider whether the suspension of a participant's plan would expose the participant to a risk of harm;
(b) amendments to s 40A(3) and (4) to provide that a plan ceases to be suspended where the participant contacts the NDIA or provides the information requested; alternatively, that the legislation provide clear guidance as to when the CEO should cease a suspension, and that a decision not to cease a suspension under s 40A(4) be a reviewable decision; and
(c) that, in consultation with the disability community and sector, the Bill be amended to provide clear definitions of "not contactable" and specify what constitutes "reasonable attempts" to contact a participant.
Part 8 – Permanence and treatment
31. That Schedule 1, Part 8 – Tightening meaning of permanence to reduce access where an impairment can be treated – of the Bill not proceed. NLA does not consider there are any changes to the current drafting that would rectify the significant issues presented by Schedule 1, Part 8.
Part 9 – Eligibility based on access to other services
32. That Schedule 1, Part 9 – Eligibility based on access to other services – of the Bill not proceed.
33. That, if Schedule 1, Part 9 is retained, ss 25B(2) and (3) of the Bill be amended to state that the "impairment was wholly or solely caused", and that the definition of "work-related injury" in s 9(b) be removed.
34. That, if Schedule 1, Part 9 is retained, the Bill be amended to remove the rule-making powers under ss 25B(1)(a), (1)(b) and (4), and that s 25B be limited to motor vehicle accident and workers' compensation schemes.
35. That the Government ensure that any rules related to aged care allow First Nations people under 65 who are receiving an aged care package to access any additional supports under the NDIS.
36. That the Bill be amended to ensure that, if a person has impairments that overlap with excluded impairments, assessment for access is undertaken as if the excluded impairment provisions do not apply.
Schedule 2 – Fraud measures
37. That the Bill be amended to allow for a special circumstances waiver in similar circumstances to those introduced for social security debts by Schedule 2 of the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Act 2025.
38. That s 182(4) of the Bill be amended to include a reasonable excuse provision in relation to the record retention requirements, and to allow participants to demonstrate their entitlement to an NDIS amount in question by other means.
39. That s 53(3)(b) of the Bill be amended to limit civil penalties to situations involving intentional or reckless non-compliance.
40. That the Bill be amended to align the record retention requirements for plan nominees under s 45B(8) with the requirements for participants, noting that nominees may do any act that a participant may do under, or for the purposes of, the Act (s 78).
41. That clear operational guidelines be developed, alongside educational efforts, to ensure plan nominees understand their obligation to inform the NDIA of an event or change of circumstance likely to affect their ability to act.
42. That s 90(5A) of the Bill be amended to include a new subsection — "(c) and it is reasonable in the circumstances to do so" — to provide protection in instances where there is a reasonable excuse, inadvertent or unintentional non-compliance, or where removing the nominee would create an unacceptable risk of harm to the participant.
43. That the Government further consider how the proposed amendments in Schedule 2 to introduce new powers and functions for the NDIA to undertake enforcement and compliance activities will work within the current regulatory framework shared with the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission.
Schedule 3 – Governance arrangements
44. That the Bill be amended in accordance with the recommendations contained in the submission to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee by the Human Technology Institute at the University of Technology Sydney dated 29 May 2026, aimed at safeguarding the quality of decisions made using computer programs and automated decision-making, and mitigating their detrimental impact.
45. That the Bill be amended to prohibit the use of computer programs to take administrative action where the decision made, or the outcome of the operation of the law, is either:
(a) a decision or outcome that is not reviewable under the Scheme; or
(b) a decision or outcome that results in a debt.
Schedule 4 – New framework planning
46. That the Bill be amended to include requirements in s 32D(6) for a decision-maker to:
(a) be satisfied that the needs assessment report reflects the participant's need for supports under the NDIS; and
(b) be satisfied, having regard to the needs assessment report and any other information, that the reasonable and necessary budget provided under the plan meets the participant's need for supports under the NDIS.
47. That the Bill be amended to provide a safeguarding mechanism in the NDIS Act to ensure adequate human oversight and discretion and to give effect to the NDIS Act's Objects and Principles. This could be done by incorporating discretionary ranges and a manual adjustment mechanism into the rules where the budget methodology does not produce a budget that adequately provides for a participant's demonstrated support needs.
48. That the Government hold further, targeted consultation that includes adequate provision of information, including draft Rules, assessment tools and sample documents (including sample support needs assessment (SNA) budget method outputs, and notices) to assist stakeholders to meaningfully test the legality, fairness and operation of the proposed rules. This should include:
(a) draft copies of all proposed rules relating to new framework planning;
(b) the full budget setting method, including any structured decision-making model or algorithm, showing clearly how the model operates and how particular factors will be weighed and converted to flexible or stated funding amounts;
(c) the documents that will be provided to participants explaining how their specific flexible and stated funding amounts have been determined; and
(d) the documents explaining how the changes will operate in practice, including examples of: notices of impairments; notices to have a new framework plan; support needs assessments; support needs assessment reports; and statements of participant supports.
49. That the Government consider transitional rules allowing additional consultation and testing before rules are finalised, noting that the current timeline may not permit proper scrutiny of the proposed amendments before they commence.
50. That the NDIA and Department of Health, Disability and Ageing (DHDA) collect and publish robust data relating to the transition to new framework plans to ensure any systemic risks can be identified early, including:
(a) how many participants have commenced the transition to new framework plans, and at what stages of the process they currently sit;
(b) the characteristics of participants transitioning, such as age, location, and whether they are First Nations; and
(c) the nature of changes observed by the NDIA between old framework plans and new framework plans, including whether budgets have increased, decreased or remained stable, and whether participants have experienced changes to key supports or lost access to supports previously available under their old framework plans because those supports were not included as stated supports.
51. That the Bill be amended to remove ss 32K(3C) and 32K(3D) to ensure that a funding amount cannot be less than the actual cost of providing or acquiring the support, or group or class of supports.
52. That, if ss 32K(3C) and 32K(3D) are retained in their current form, the Bill be amended to ensure that participants who are subject to a funding reduction for their flexible or stated support funding amounts as a result of new provision s 32K(3B) can seek an exemption where there is an impact on their functional capacity or a risk to their own or another person's safety, health or wellbeing.
53. That the Bill be amended to remove the addition of "directly" in s 32L(2).
54. That any NDIS rules relating to the support needs assessment and the support needs assessment report make clear that a support may be reasonable and necessary where the qualifying impairment is a material or contributory cause of the need, even if the need is also affected by another impairment, comorbidity, environmental factor or personal circumstances.
55. That the Bill be amended to include an express requirement that assessors are appropriately trained or qualified, having regard to the nature of the participant's impairments and support needs, as follows:
(a) subsection 32L(4B): the Minister must, by legislative instrument, determine one or more classes of qualifications for the purposes of this subsection; and
(b) subsection 32L(4C): a person must not undertake an assessment under subsection (4A) unless the person holds at least one qualification determined under this subsection.
Schedule 5 – Transitional rules
56. That the Government commit to working with people with disability and the disability sector in a timely and meaningful manner to secure the NDIS by strengthening trust, safeguards and rights. This must include robust and accessible consultation processes to ensure that the consequences of these reforms are understood and planned for, before any transitional rules are enacted.
Other considerations
57. That the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee's inquiry timeframe on the Bill be extended to allow genuinely accessible hearings, engagement and consultation with the disability community.
58. That the Bill be amended to include a legislative requirement for an independent review, by an appropriately skilled and qualified reviewer, of the operation of the amendments, to be undertaken 12 months after the Bill's commencement and in close consultation with people with disability and the disability sector. The review must include the impacts of the amendments for people with disability seeking to access the Scheme, participant outcomes, review and appeal rights, and systemic impacts resulting from any increase in people seeking review or appeal of NDIA decisions.
59. That the Government release any modelling that has been undertaken on the systemic impacts of the proposed reforms, including increased demand on the ART.
60. That the Government closely monitor the impact of the reforms on demand for review and appeal of NDIA decisions, in close partnership with disability advocates and legal assistance providers.
61. That the Government ensure people with disability have access to necessary advocacy and legal assistance during the transition to the new framework, and in relation to reviewing decisions, through urgent and continued funding of the advocacy and legal assistance sector.
62. That the Government consider grandfathering provisions to ensure that any changes to the disability criteria for access do not operate retrospectively to apply the new criteria to people who are currently on the NDIS. This would be in line with the Government's approach to implementing budget measures, and other significant changes impacting people with disability, such as the changes to the disability support pension in 2006.
