PWDA Submission Of NDIS Amendment Bill 2026

PWDA submission to Inquiry the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

29 May 2026

PWDA welcomed the opportunity to respond to the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme (the NDIS) is undergoing the most sweeping restructure since it started in 2013.

Changes announced in the 2026-27 Federal Budget, alongside the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill, will alter every aspect of the NDIS. The proposed cuts and reforms will significantly change eligibility, access, and day-to-day supports.

These changes will ultimately undermine the core purpose of the NDIS – supporting people with disability to live independently and participate fully in the community.

PWDA's submission addresses the concerns of our members and the disability community.

PWDA urges the Parliament to ensure that any reform to the NDIS is grounded in evidence, subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, and developed in genuine partnership with people with disability. At a minimum, more time is needed to review the proposed changes, and the Bill must be amended to:

• safeguard participant rights, including access to independent review and human oversight of decisions
• ensure that financial sustainability measures cannot override participant safety, dignity, participation and human rights
• limit broad ministerial powers and strengthen transparency and accountability mechanisms
• protect participants from suspension, revocation, or loss of supports due to disability-related barriers
• require that implementation of reforms is contingent on the availability of accessible, funded and operational alternative supports

PWDA remains committed to working constructively with Government to achieve genuine reform that strengthens the Scheme, protects participants, and delivers on the promise of an inclusive Australia where people with disability can live with autonomy, safety and full participation in the community.

Recommendations

• Recommendation 1 – Require reporting on the implementation of Foundational Supports prior to the commencement of parts of the Bill.
• Recommendation 2 – Amend the timetable for Schedule 1, Parts 4 to 9 to require the Minister to table in Parliament an update comprising:
  • The status of Foundational Supports, including Thriving Kids, in all states and territories
  • A breakdown of levels of progress in each state and territory specifying whether the supports are funded, established and operational.
• Recommendation 3 -The Australian Government publish detailed, transparent economic modelling to substantiate the projected $37 billion in cost savings over four years. This modelling should clearly articulate the assumptions, data sources, and counterfactual scenarios underpinning the analysis, including the anticipated impacts on individuals transitioning out of the NDIS. In particular, the Government must provide evidence on potential cost‑shifting to State and Territory systems (such as health and social services).
• Recommendation 4 – All substantive decisions affecting NDIS eligibility, participant supports, and funding levels be set out in primary legislation, ensuring they are subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, debate, and disallowance processes, rather than determined through ministerial instruments.
• Recommendation 5 – The introduction of mandatory transparency and consultation safeguards, including advance public release of proposed rule changes, meaningful engagement with people with disability and their representative organisations, and minimum notice periods to ensure participants are informed and able to prepare for any changes affecting their plans.
• Recommendation 6 – Amend Schedule 1, Part 1, item 4 inserting section 9B to remove the requirement to assess functional capacity in the absence of supports, assistive technology, and environmental adjustments, and instead require that assessments reflect real‑world conditions, including supports in use.
• Recommendation 7 – Amend section 9B to require explicit recognition of psychosocial disability, episodic and fluctuating conditions, communication needs, and environmental barriers, and mandate public release and independent evaluation of assessment methodologies and thresholds prior to implementation.
• Recommendation 8 – Amend Schedule 1, Part 2, item 21 inserting section 48A to restore the ability for providers, advocates, and other authorised representatives to request reassessments on behalf of participants.
• Recommendation 9 – Amend section 48A to include a risk‑based reassessment pathway requiring the NDIA to initiate reassessment where there is evidence of risk of harm, homelessness, hospitalisation, carer breakdown, family violence, or loss of employment or education, and require interim supports during the 90‑day decision period.
• Recommendation 10 – In the proposed subsection 48A(1), after paragraph (d), insert: "(e) alternatively to (a)-(d), the participant demonstrates that:"
  1. "the supports are no longer available; or"
  2. "the plan is insufficient to meet the participant's reasonable and necessary support needs; or"
  3. "new evidence relevant to the participant's support needs has emerged."
• Recommendation 11 – Amend sections 32K, 32L and 34 to ensure that supports addressing secondary impacts, co‑occurring conditions, and broader functional needs remain eligible, and that the definition of reasonable and necessary supports is not restricted solely to the primary qualifying impairment.
• Recommendation 12 – Insert a provision clarifying that reasonable and necessary supports must continue to be determined on a holistic assessment of functional impact, not a narrow impairment‑specific test.
• Recommendation 13 – Remove Schedule 1, Part 4, item 34 inserting section 34A (Ministerial power to reduce funding for groups of supports).
• Recommendation 14 – If section 34A is retained, amend it to require the Minister to be satisfied that any funding reduction will not create a material risk of harm, loss of independence, social isolation, institutionalisation, or reliance on informal care, and require publication of impact analysis and consultation outcomes prior to any determination.
• Recommendation 15 – A support determination that is reasonably likely to result in a material reduction in funding for a group of supports must be accompanied, at the time the determination is tabled in each House of the Parliament, by:
  • a statement of reasons for the determination
  • an assessment of the likely impact of the determination on participants, in particular those already experiencing negative impacts for example LGBTQIA+ and First Nations participants and those from CALD backgrounds
  • actuarial or financial analysis relied upon in making the determination; and
  • a summary of consultation undertaken with people with disability, and representative organisations.
• Recommendation 16 – At a minimum, require that no cuts to SCCP supports occur until commensurate Foundational Supports are fully operational.
• Recommendation 17 – Amend Schedule 1, Part 5, item 50 inserting section 50A to allow partial carryover of unspent funds where required for continuity of supports, contingency planning, or where underspend is reasonable.
• Recommendation 18 – Amend section 50A to require participant consent, advance notice, and review rights where plan renewal results in reduced funding or changes to supports.
• Recommendation 19 – Amend Schedule 1, Part 6 (including sections 17B and subsection 33(2EA) - (2EB) to ensure financial sustainability considerations cannot override participant safety, dignity, independence, employment, education, or community participation.
• Recommendation 20 – Require that any Ministerial determinations setting maximum funding, intensity, or staffing ratios include mandatory exceptions where application would result in harm or reduced participation.
• Recommendation 21 -Amend Schedule 1, Part 7 inserting section 40A and subsection 30(1A) to prohibit suspension or revocation based solely on inability to contact a participant where disability‑related barriers exist.
• Recommendation 22 – Require mandatory safeguards prior to suspension, including accessible communication, engagement with nominees or advocates, supported decision‑making, and documented consideration of factors such as homelessness, hospitalisation, psychosocial disability, and communication barriers.
• Recommendation 23 – Remove or substantially amend Schedule 1, Part 8 inserting section 25A (appropriate treatment requirement) to ensure that access is not contingent on exhaustion of all treatments.
• Recommendation 24 – Amend section 25A to require that any treatment considered "appropriate" must be demonstrably accessible, affordable, clinically suitable, culturally safe, and available within a reasonable timeframe for the individual.
• Recommendation 25 – Amend Schedule 1, Part 9 inserting section 25B to ensure participants retain access to the NDIS where there is any delay, dispute, or gap in access to alternative systems.
• Recommendation 26 – Insert provisions requiring interim NDIS supports while eligibility for other schemes is being determined, and remove requirements that applicants prove ineligibility for other systems prior to access.
• Recommendation 27 – Amend Schedule 2 provisions relating to provider registration (including section 10C and amendments to section 73C) to require staged implementation, proportional compliance requirements, and exemptions or tailored pathways for small providers and thin markets.
• Recommendation 28 – Require the Government to demonstrate and fund the capacity of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission to effectively monitor and enforce expanded registration requirements prior to rollout.
• Recommendation 29 – Amend Schedule 2 compliance and enforcement provisions (including amendments to sections 53, 54, 56 and Part 3C) to include explicit safeguards limiting information‑gathering powers and requiring proportionality, necessity, and disability‑appropriate engagement.
• Recommendation 30 – Amend section 45B to introduce flexible and accessible record‑keeping requirements, including alternative forms of evidence and exemptions where participants are unable to comply due to disability.
• Recommendation 31 – Insert safeguards to prevent automatic debt creation where records are missing, requiring NDIA to demonstrate misuse of funds before raising a debt.
• Recommendation 32 – Amend section 45A to extend the claims period beyond 90 days or introduce discretion for late claims where delay is reasonable or unavoidable.
• Recommendation 33 – Require exceptions for complex supports, administrative delays, and participant vulnerability to prevent non‑payment for valid supports.
• Recommendation 34 – Amend provisions relating to plan management commissioning (including amendments to sections 73C, 73E, 73F) to preserve participant choice by allowing access to non‑panel providers where participants have an established relationship.
• Recommendation 35 – Require transparent selection criteria, ongoing review of panel performance, and mechanisms for participant‑driven choice outside the panel.
• Recommendation 36 – Amend Schedule 3 provisions (including new sections 34B and related amendments) to require independent oversight of pricing decisions and limit Ministerial discretion.
• Recommendation 37 – Legislate a requirement that pricing determinations must reflect evidence‑based cost modelling and ensure market sustainability, with mandatory consultation and published rationale.
• Recommendation 38 – Limit potential hard to participants byamending Schedule 3, Division 5 (including sections 59B-59E) to prohibit automated decision‑making for any action that results in access refusal, funding reduction, suspension, revocation, or debt creation.
• Recommendation 39 – Require mandatory human review prior to any adverse decision and ensure all automated decisions are subject to full merits review, including access to the Administrative Review Tribunal.
• Recommendation 40 – Provide explicit legislative assurance that independent review through the ART will be retained and accessible with no erosion of procedural fairness or review rights.
• Recommendation 41 -Delay full rollout until independent evaluation confirms the model does not reduce participant control, flexibility, or access to supports.
• Recommendation 42 – Amend Schedule 4 provisions relating to new framework planning to require co‑design with people with disability and mandate person‑centred planning principles in legislation.
• Recommendation 43 – Amend Schedule 5 transitional rule‑making powers to remove or significantly limit the ability to modify the Act through rules.
• Recommendation 44 – Require all rules that affect eligibility, funding, or supports to be subject to exposure draft consultation, impact analysis, and parliamentary disallowance for rules and instruments affecting eligibility, functional capacity, support reductions, funding methodology and alternative supports.