National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2391
Submission NDIS Amendment Bill 2026
Context Committee: Community Affairs Legislation Committee Date referred: 14 May 2026 On 14 May 2026 the Senate referred the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 (“The Bill”) for inquiry and report.
Submission
- Scheme Growth Constraint/Cuts
The Bill provides powers enabling a range of cuts aimed at reducing NDIS cost growth in coming years.
When foreshadowing this Bill at his speech to the Press Club1, the Minister announced a cost growth target of 2% pa. In real terms, assuming price indexation of around 3% pa, the government’s target is about a 1% pa cut to the Scheme cost, or a 4-5% total reduction over four years.
So why do we need ALL the cuts announced by the Minister and enabled by this Bill? These add up to nearly 20% in savings. • Reduced fraud: we’ve not seen government put a firm figure on the savings it hopes to achieve by eliminating fraud (which we find a little odd, given the constant focus on fraud in communications); however, if a percentage of 5% is applied, this would be close to $2.5bn pa. Some government estimates put the rate of fraud and misuse above this2. • A 20%+ cut to Community Participation spending, based on the Minister’s figures quoted in his speech and in the questions and answers that followed3, saves $2.5bn pa4. • A reduction of 160,000 participants, even if the average plan for these participants is just $25,000 pa, saves $4bn pa. • A reduction in Support Coordination and Plan Management funding of 30% saves $600m pa.
We add up these savings and arrive at total cost savings of over $9.5bn pa. From a current annual spend of $50bn pa, this is about 19%, which is a LOT more than the 4-5% the government needs to achieve its growth target of 2% pa.
The government does not need to “cut” so much to achieve its budget goal. The cuts are unnecessarily punitive.
We strongly urge that the focus be on constraining cost growth rather than cutting current supports.
1https://www.health.gov.au/ministers/the-hon-mark-butler-mp/media/minister-butler-speech-at-the-national-press-club-22-april- 2026?language=en; 2https://www.9news.com.au/national/ndis-fraud-laid-bare-in-parliament/7cdb0b4d-c8af-4617-bf28-f1e55940d7e4 3https://iview.abc.net.au/show/national-press-club-address/series/0/video/NC2611C013S00 4In fact the government has since announced a 50% cut to 04 plan budgets, which should achieve in excess of 20% in actual savings.
1
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2391
Submission NDIS Amendment Bill 2026
- Cuts to 04 (Community Participant) Funding
The proposed cuts to 04 funding in particular will hurt participants more than the value of the savings.
The government has announced that community participation budgets will be cut by 50% if this Bill is passed, and justified this by saying the cut is higher than the intended budget saving, because some participant plans do not utilise all of their 04 budgets.
My Supports has many significant concerns about this proposed cut to Community Participation budgets.
-
The “flat” 50% cut proposed will affect participants using most or all of their 04 budget most greatly, and affect those not using their full budget less or not at all. In practice, participants utilising their budgets are the ones who need it most; this measure hits them hardest.
-
In many cases, cuts to 04 funding have flow-on effects that apparently have not been considered by the government proposal. o If the participant utilising 04 funding is a SIL resident, the participant has to stay home more; will the NDIA increase SIL funding accordingly? o If the participant lives with other (informal) supports, cuts to 04 have a dramatic impact on unpaid carers; this affects their ability to work and may have significant social as well as economic impacts.
-
The proposed cuts to the 04 category creates even greater risk and further disadvantage for people living in rural and remote communities, particularly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who already face significant barriers to accessing essential services. o NDIS reforms must prioritise equality and culturally safe systems that genuinely meet the needs of indigenous and rural communities rather than apply a once size fits all approach such as the proposed “inclusive communities” and reducing 04 funding.
-
“Commissioning” Services (Support Coordination, Supported Independent Living)
The Bill enables some proposed changes that don’t appear to be aimed at significant budget savings, but which harm participant choice and control. Examples include: • “Commissioning” SIL: In his speech, the Minister said that there will be a government-selected “panel” of SIL providers. Participants greatly this will concentrate SIL services in larger, more traditional providers, and limit participant choice. It will harm innovation which ultimately benefits participants. • “Commissioning” Support Coordination: likewise, we don’t believe there is a large cost saving in contracting the Support Coordination function. We fear this change is likely to further disempower participants who have justification for seeking budget reviews. We strongly believe participants should be able to choose the Coordinator who plays such a KEY role in the use of their NDIS plans and funding.
The rationale for the proposed commissioning model has not been explained. My Supports opposes the significant reduction of participant choice and control. If stronger quality control is needed, address this through better registration and audit, not through the commissioning model.
2
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2391
Submission NDIS Amendment Bill 2026
- Increasing Registration; Reducing “Fraud”; Differentiated Pricing
If Minister Butler’s rhetoric is to be believed, the main aim of the Bill is reduction of fraud and misuse of NDIS funds. In principle this is something that My Supports strongly supports.
There appear to be at least two mechanisms enabled by this bill with the intent of achieving a reduction in misuse of funds; (a) increased registration requirements, and (b) introduction of a stronger payments system. Both of these measures are supported in principle, if designed and implemented well. • There is a misconception – supported by government rhetoric linking “fraud” and “unregistered providers” – that registration prevents fraud. In practice, the registration, reporting and audit requirements My Supports is subject to as a registered provider are almost all focused on service quality and risk management. • The burden of registration and compliance is increasing every year. To date this has not been recognised in pricing frameworks. We welcome the government acknowledgement that differentiated pricing between registered and unregistered providers is needed. We suspect that – given the government’s cost saving goals – the implementation of differentiated pricing may be via a price reduction for unregistered providers; we strongly advocate for some increase (in real terms) in pricing for regulated providers. My Supports has measured the cost of registration at 6.8% of revenue (we have provided this evidence to the NDIA on multiple occasions). • Improving payment systems is a measure that is supported. However we caution about two risks in implementation: o The NDIA’s track record in designing and implementing systems is chequered, to say the least. We fear that a larger NDIA payment system will suffer process and system faults. We urge that a strong project management approach with sufficient time for testing and incorporation of stakeholder feedback be incorporated into this process. o There are fears that the proposed system may significantly increase the bureaucratic burden on providers, and potentially create a longer lead time for payments. Providers generally are not carrying large amounts of working capital and the cost of capital has been under-funded in the NDIS DSW Cost Model (which is used to determine pricing). Care should be taken to design efficient processes and not to materially impact payment timeframes.
- Ministerial Powers for Pricing
The Bill transfers the ultimate power for pricing decision-making to the Minister, with the NDIA providing pricing advice to the Minister.
My Supports has strongly argued for many years that the NDIA has had an inherent conflict of interest in price-setting, and has managed this conflict poorly. It has covered up errors in its pricing model and its annual price review process is largely a “tick-a-box” process with no discernible impact on pricing decisions.
My Supports does not support the transfer of pricing decisions to the Minister. The 2023 NDIS Review5 recommended pricing be the responsibility of an independent pricing authority like IHACPA and we strongly urge this pathway.
If the Minister is to be responsible for pricing decisions, significant improvements in the transparency and accountability of the pricing consultation and decision-making process is a very high priority.
3
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2391
Submission NDIS Amendment Bill 2026
- Ministerial Powers to Reduce or Remove
Under The Bill, the Minister is granted sweeping discretionary power to reduce or eliminate funding for specified categories and groups of supports across the entire scheme, without evaluating individual participant circumstances.
This is an extraordinary power and The Bill should not pass with these clauses included. There must be stronger transparent process before funding for specific categories or groups of supports is reduced or removed.
Conclusion
The cost-cutting measures introduced via the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 (“The Bill”) are draconian in scope, and significantly greater than are needed to achieve the government’s target of 2% pa cost growth.
If the “reduction of fraud and misuse” narrative is to be believed, then focus amendments on stronger controls to ensure NDIS funds are spent in accordance with the Scheme’s objectives. Improve registration and payments frameworks.
Reduce or remove the cuts to community participation budgets. These are ill-considered and will have a disproportionate impact on people’s lives.
There are some elements of the proposed reforms that are not justified by “cost reduction” – these remove participant choice and control, and include commissioning models. These should be separated from the current Bill, and if there is a rationale for these changes, return to these proposals after this rationale is explained and consultation processes completed.
Pricing frameworks should be the domain of an independent pricing authority, as in the case of aged care, and not the domain of the Minister. The Minister should not have unilateral powers to reduce or remove funding at category levels.
4
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2391
Submission NDIS Amendment Bill 2026
About My Supports
My Supports is a national registered NDIS service provider with services in all states and the ACT; our turnover exceeds $60m pa and we employ over 1000 staff nationally.
We were founded in 2015 by people with a disability and families. The founders – Jim Cairns, Rex Baker and Terry Mader – wanted to empower people with a disability to play a greater role in designing and delivering services. Today, 70% of My Supports’ staff have a disability and/or personal experience as a carer.
We operate through 120 local teams, backed by small but strong national teams including clinical, IT, rostering, people & culture, finance and funding and marketing. We are a registered provider with the capability to safely support clients with complex (physical & psychosocial) needs.
We operate a range of NDIS services including SIL and in-home/community support services for people with disabilities. www.mysupports.com.au
Our key contact relating to this submission is the CEO Dr Andrew Young, who has more than 25 years experience in leadership in not-for-profit and social enterprise organisations, including as head of marketing and strategy for The Smith Family, CEO of CanTeen Australia, CEO of the Centre for Social Impact, CEO of Stride Mental Health and CEO of My Supports. Andrew is a person with disabilities and a parent of an NDIS participant.
Andrew can be contacted at or on .
5