National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 321
RAC submission · NDIS Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026
Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
NDIS Reform Advisory Committee · 1 June 2026
Page 1 of 32
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 321
RAC submission · NDIS Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026
Summary
This submission is made by the NDIS Reform Advisory Committee (RAC). The RAC reports to the Disability Reform Ministerial Council (DRMC) on the implementation of National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) reforms, on effective processes for engaging the disability community in those reforms, and on how to ensure that diverse community perspectives are central to reform processes and outcomes.
The RAC Co-Chairs reported to the DRMC on 22 May 2026 clear, consistent and near-uniform community view about the suite of fundamental changes to the NDIS flagged for the first time at the National Press Club (NPC) on 22 April 2026. The Treasurer’s Budget speech on 11 May 2026 and the text of the Bill and its Explanatory Memorandum (EM) have – it is clear – further consolidated community views. Those views include genuine shock, incomprehension, widespread participant and family concern, and fear that the NDIS and its inter-government framework is being partially dismantled.
The Bill should not proceed in its current form. It should be redrafted in genuine partnership with the disability community, in the sequence the NDIS Review recommended, with the rights framework intact, and with the Scheme’s joint-venture architecture preserved. The savings the Government seeks can be substantially made through provider integrity, fraud enforcement, pricing reform, and reducing administrative legal contest — measures the Bill addresses only in part. They should not be made by cutting the supports of disabled Australians.
This submission has been authored by Co-Chairs El Gibbs and Dougie Herd with input from all members of the RAC, and their endorsement.
Page 2 of 32
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 321
RAC submission · NDIS Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026
Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee 1
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 1
Summary 2
Contents 3
Recommendations 4
The RAC and this submission 5
The Bill will cause material harm to people with disability 6
The Bill misrepresents the foundations of the NDIS 11
The Bill inverts the NDIS Review 15
The Bill undermines the joint governance and concentrates power in the Minister 18
Detailed Bill analysis 20
Schedule 1 20
Schedule 2 26
Schedule 3 28
Schedule 4 29
Conclusion 30
Appendix I 31
About the NDIS Reform Advisory Committee 31
Page 3 of 32
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 321
RAC submission · NDIS Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026
Recommendations
The RAC recommends that the Senate Committee report to the Senate that:
-
The Bill not be passed in its current form. Material amendment is required to align it with the founding architecture of the NDIS Act 2013, the NDIS Review, the Disability Royal Commission, and Australia’s CRPD obligations.
-
A whole-of-government cost accounting be published before further legislative reform proceeds, setting out projected cost shifts from the NDIS to State and Territory hospital systems, Commonwealth income support, mainstream mental health services, housing, and the criminal justice system.
-
Access changes and budget reductions be tied legislatively to the prior availability of foundational supports for the affected cohort, in line with NDIS Review Recommendation 24 and the Government’s own quotation of that recommendation in the Explanatory Memorandum.
-
The Ministerial power to reduce funding across support categories by legislative instrument (Schedule 1 Part 4) be removed. Population-level reductions are inconsistent with the individualised, needs-based foundation of the Scheme.
-
The Henry VIII clause in Schedule 5 be removed. Modification of primary legislation should be undertaken by primary legislation, not by Ministerial legislative instrument.
-
The Ministerial pricing determination power (Schedule 3 Part 1) be made subject to a sunsetting requirement and to the agreement of host jurisdictions, by analogy with Category A NDIS rules.
-
The new Section 17B ‘principles relating to scheme sustainability’ be amended so that sustainability is articulated as a consideration alongside, not in substitution for, the participant-directed planning principles previously contained in Section 31.
-
The parental presumption in Section 34(1G)–(1J) be removed. It imposes a comparator test that is inconsistent with the individualised, needs-based foundation of the Scheme and with CRPD Articles 7 and 23.
-
The evidence hierarchy in Section 34(1E)–(1F) be amended to remove the priority ranking of types of evidence and instead require the CEO to consider all relevant evidence.
-
The parliamentary process for the Bill be extended, to allow Disability Representative Organisations and the wider disability community a meaningful opportunity to engage. The current timetable is inconsistent with Article 4(3) of the CRPD.
Page 4 of 32
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 321
RAC submission · NDIS Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026
The RAC and this submission
The NDIS Reform Advisory Committee (RAC) was established in 2025 as part of the Commonwealth Government’s response to the independent NDIS Review. Recommendation 24.2 of the Review proposed that an Advisory Committee report to the Disability Reform Ministerial Council (DRMC) on implementation progress and risks, including the approach to inclusion of, and accountability to, people with disability. The DRMC agreed Terms of Reference for the RAC on 21 February 2025. The Minister for the NDIS, Senator the Hon Jenny McAllister, announced the full membership on 19 August 2025 (Appendix I).
The RAC’s structure intentionally reflects the intergovernmental architecture of the NDIS. Eight members were nominated by State and Territory governments; three were selected through a national public expression of interest process; two Co-Chairs were appointed by the Minister for the NDIS. The majority of RAC members are people with disability, some are NDIS participants or their parents or family members, some are advocates, peer supporters and some, as well, are providers. The RAC’s formal role is advisory: to monitor implementation, to advise on engagement processes, and to ensure that the diverse voices of the disability community are heard by the DRMC.
This submission has been prepared in the very short window the Senate Committee’s timetable has allowed. Between Minister Butler’s National Press Club speech of 22 April 2026, the Treasurer’s Budget speech of 11 May 2026, the Bill’s Second Reading on 14 May 2026, and the submission deadline of 1 June 2026, approximately five weeks have elapsed. As far as the RAC has been able to ascertain, no Disability Representative Organisation — funded or unfunded — was consulted on the content of the Press Club speech, the Budget, or any draft of the Bill’s text. The RAC itself was not engaged in the development of the Bill’s provisions.
Despite this compressed process, a clear and remarkably consistent view has emerged within the disability community in barely four weeks. The RAC Co-Chairs and members have attended a wide range of events and considered responses from across the disability community. We have consulted extensively, as per our Terms of Reference, and discussed the details of the Bill at length in our 22 May meeting with officials. The Co-Chairs also reported this consensus view to the DRMC on 22 May 2026. This submission reflects that consensus, the RAC’s own analysis, and our understanding of the current state of community sentiments.
Page 5 of 32
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 321
RAC submission · NDIS Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026
The Bill will cause material harm to people with disability
The disability community’s fears of harm, to NDIS participants and the NDIS as a rights-based lynchpin of a modern social and economic contract between citizens and their governments, are real. A leading disabled people’s organisation put it this way:
“Budgets are about choices. This Budget chooses to directly cut the supports people with disability rely on to get out of bed, go to work, care for their children and participate in community life. You cannot build an inclusive community with budget savings that damage people with disabilities’ basic rights.” Megan Spindler-Smith Acting Chief Executive Officer People With Disability Australia 12 May 2026
That such harm will arise from the implementation of this legislation is beyond dispute. The NDIS Minister, the Hon. Mark Butler MP, acknowledged that reality during his speech to the National Press Club on 22 April:
“[Reducing funds for] Social and community participation, I understand, will have a material impact on existing participants. Getting that spending back to where it was a few years ago is going to mean a reduction in the number of hours that participants have to spend on that.” (our emphasis)
The Bill’s Explanatory Memorandum (EM) and Impact Analysis points to what the Minister’s “material impact” means to NDIS participants across all aspects of the Bill.
In particularly, the cuts to social and community participation and capacity building disregard real, individualised need for reasonable and necessary supports. They are to be imposed on every participant’s plan within the designated categories by means of a new, arbitrary power vested in a single Commonwealth Minister and without merit review safeguards.
Simultaneously, the Bill creates a new authorising framework for limiting, curtailing and/or directly cutting NDIS plans across the entire participant base, rather than determining plans on the basis of individual circumstances, support needs and goals of each participant.
The RAC also has concerns that a range of the new powers rely on non-public data, and are in contradiction to public evidence, the NDIS Review and the RAC expertise.
Page 6 of 32
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 321
RAC submission · NDIS Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026
On 12 May 2026, Sophie Cusworth, Chief Executive Officer of Women with Disabilities Australia said of the foreseeable consequences of the Treasurer’s Budget speech:
“The Government is delivering some of its biggest Budget cuts through the NDIS and women and girls with disability will be hit hardest, and at a time when many are already at breaking point.”
The disability community is concerned that the Bill is a fiscal consolidation and transfer of power away from its current inter-governmental framework. Fiscal consolidation is a legitimate policy choice for any government to make. But it is a choice, not something fated to occur. Better alternative choices were and are possible.
The community is also strongly of the unified view that risks of harm (not the more ambiguous notion of “impact”) are present in the Bill. That risk of harm is real. And where a risk of material harm to disabled Australians could exist in any Bill before the Senate, it necessitates the most-careful scrutiny over an inclusive, extended period; not the Bill’s expedited assent.
Page 7 of 32
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 321
RAC submission · NDIS Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026
Impact of the changes on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
It is in the context of these budget-driven planning changes proposed by the Bill that individuals and organisations in the disability community have rightly questioned the Explanatory Memorandum’s extraordinary comfort with the assertion that the Bill adheres to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD)
Specifically:
● Article 3(C) which seeks to promote “full and effective participation and inclusion in society.” ● Article 19 — Living independently and being included in the community. ● Article 29 — Participation in political and public life. ● Article 30 — Participation in cultural life, recreation, leisure and sport.
In November 2012, Prime Minister Julia Gillard MP said of the old disability support system in her Second Reading speech introducing the NDIS Bill that created the Scheme said that it was needed because the old system was:
“A system that reacts to crisis. A system that metes out support rationed by arbitrary budget allocations, not real human needs.” The Hon. Julia Gillard MP Parliament House 29 November 2012
The 2026 Amendment Bill does exactly what Prime Minister Gillard said was the problem in 2012.
Section 3(1)(a) of the NDIS Act 2013 provides that an object of the Act is to give effect to Australia’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Somewhat perversely, however, the Explanatory Memorandum states that:
“Some elements of the changes, such as those measures which limit access to the Scheme or reduce the volume or quantity of supports, may appear on their face to be retrogressive.”
Explanatory Memorandum, Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights, May 2026
Nevertheless, the Explanatory Memorandum also asserts that the Bill “engages the foundational principles of the CRPD by implementing measures that protect and preserve the capacity of the NDIS” (EM, p.153). The EM seeks to support this claim – not with any regard to meeting participants’ needs – but through imprecise references to:
● “fighting fraud and stopping rorts”,
Page 8 of 32
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 321
RAC submission · NDIS Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026
● reducing growth to less than half the rate of inflation (see NPC speech), ● “clarifying eligibility requirements” (which involves requiring every current adult participant and many child participants to undergo a mandatory eligibility re-assessment) ● and the delivery of unspecified and undefined “quality services and supports” despite there being less money available through participant plans.
Article 4(3) of the UNCRPD provides:
“In the development and implementation of legislation and policies to implement the present Convention, and in other decision-making processes concerning issues relating to persons with disabilities, States Parties shall closely consult with and actively involve persons with disabilities, including children with disabilities, through their representative organizations.” — UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 4(3)
This obligation is binding on Australia. It has not been honoured by processes leading up to the Bill’s development and release. The whole process and the proposed current parliamentary timetable conflicts with Article 43(3) and calls into question the frequently stated commitment to ensure “Nothing About Us Without Us” is a guiding principle of co-design, consultation and engagement rather than a slogan.
The 10-week dash chronology to the most substantial changes to the NDIS Act (2013) in its history
Date Event
22 April 2026 Minister Butler announces the reform package at the National Press Club. No prior consultation with the disability community on the content.
11 May 2026 Treasurer’s Budget speech confirms the integrated package of Budget measures and Bill’s reforms. It quantifies savings.
14 May 2026 Bill introduced; Second Reading speech moved immediately; referred to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee. Joint Statement by twelve DROs issued the same day.
29 May 2026 Submissions to the Senate Committee close. Fifteen calendar days, ten business days, from introduction of the Bill.
16 June 2026 Committee due to report.
30 June 2026 Government target for Royal Assent.
7 July 2026 Major operative provisions commence ‘seven days after Royal Assent’.
Page 9 of 32
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 321
RAC submission · NDIS Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026
The disability community’s response
“We are deeply disappointed by the extraordinarily short timeframe of approximately one month for the Senate Inquiry to report … The Senate Inquiry timeline does not allow time for written submissions, public hearings, and meaningful engagement with the disability community to occur. Any inquiry process must be genuinely accessible with real opportunities to engage. This process fails to reflect people’s support needs, and inclusive outreach to communities that are too often left out.” — Joint Statement of twelve national Disability Representative Organisations, 14 May 2026
The Joint Statement is endorsed by: ● First Peoples Disability Network Australia, ● People with Disability Australia, ● Disability Advocacy Network Australia, ● Australian Autism Alliance, ● Australian Federation of Disability Organisations, ● Children and Young People with Disability Australia, ● Community Mental Health Australia, ● Down Syndrome Australia Consortium, ● Inclusion Australia, ● National Ethnic Disability Alliance, ● Physical Disability Australia, and ● Women With Disabilities Australia.
Page 10 of 32
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 321
RAC submission · NDIS Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026
The Bill misrepresents the foundations of the NDIS
Much has been said and written over the last few years about the foundations and history of the NDIS. Some of it has simply been wrong. Some of it misunderstands the past. Sadly, some of it seeks to deliberately misrepresent and re-interpret the facts of NDIS history and design intent.
These kinds of misunderstanding, re-interpretation and (sometimes) misrepresentations of originating intensions and foundational principles are also of widespread concern across disability community organisations, NDIS participants, their families and supporters. It is not that people constantly worry about what was – or was not – the case nearly 15 years ago. People are worried about the consequences that forgetful, misunderstanding or misrepresenting alternative histories may have on what happens next to the NDIS and the broader ecosystem of support.
It helps, therefore, to remind ourselves of what actually happened, what was said and what was done: to confirm some basic facts about the “original intent”.
The Productivity Commission (PC) Report of 2011 was crystal clear about what it saw as the problem. They put it this way.
“Current disability support arrangements are inequitable, underfunded, fragmented, and inefficient and give people with a disability little choice. They provide no certainty that people will be able to access appropriate supports when needed… The central message of this report is that a coherent and certain system for people with a disability is required — with much more and better-directed resourcing, a national approach, and a shift in decision-making to people with a disability and their carers” (our emphases; PC Report 2011)
Recommendation 3.2 of the PC Report stated that participants should receive, “individually tailored, funded supports through the NDIS.” This original intent is unambiguously negated by the proposed Section 34A ministerial power to impose universal cuts on all participants or sub-sets while over-riding or bypassing the NDIA Board or CEO.
Recommendation 8.1 of the PC Report makes a related point:
“… subject to the assessed individual budget and appropriate accountability requirements, the arrangements should maximise the capacity for a person to choose the supports that meet their needs best and that promote their participation in the community and in employment.”
This original intent also seems to be incompatible with of the proposed Bill and the Explanatory Memorandum.
Page 11 of 32
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 321
RAC submission · NDIS Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026
The PC Report also signalled its “original intent” in “Section 1.5 Some design elements for a new scheme”. In table 1.2 (on page 105 of Volume 1) the Report sets out “Objectives [of the NDIS] and some indicators.”
Correctly, financial sustainability is identified as one key objective. But it is important to note it is but one among seven key objectives in the table. All seven were intended to be understood as interdependent objectives of a rights-based, individualised and person-centred NDIS. Financial sustainability was to be delivered in total, across all governments, not through individual support allocations.
The concerns expressed in the disability community are that the Bill alters the framework of the original design intent of the NDIS in fundamental and diminishing regards.
Having regard to financial sustainability has never NOT been a part of the NDIS. It is an essential part of the whole. But not the sole or driving purpose of the NDIS. The Scheme’s purpose is to support people with disability to live good, ordinary lives. Sustainability is part of how we reach that end.
The community has expressed to the RAC concerns that Schedule 1 of the Bill shifts the balance and place of fiscal sustainability from the whole Scheme – as part of its enabling architecture, the duties of the NDIA Board, and the operational leadership of the CEO – onto 760,000 individual participant plans. Scheme design, sound policies by the Board and coherent, rules-governed operations are at risk of becoming secondary to legislated blunt Ministerial instruments.
The insurance principle over a participant’s lifelong need for supports as originally intended – vanishes. Schedule 1 in particular makes that migration through several connected changes.
● Item 60 — amendment to s 3(1)(d), the objects clause. The current object of providing reasonable and necessary supports is subordinated by inserting “so far as is consistent with the financial sustainability of the Scheme.” Sustainability moves from being a consideration in pursuing the Act’s objects to being a limit on the objects themselves.
● Item 61 — amendment to ss 4(5) and 4(11) strips “reasonable and necessary” from the General Principles, substituting “NDIS.” A rights-bearing legal concept will become, therefore, ‘just another’ administratively defined category.
● Repeal of s 31 and insertion of new s 17B — “Principles relating to scheme sustainability.” Section 31’s participant-directed principles (individualised, directed by the participant, control over one’s own life, choice and independence, tailored and flexible) are proposed to be replaced by measures framed around sustainability and equity at the level of plans. NDIS plans would cease to be the mobilising framework for participant autonomy. They would become, instead, the NDIA’s operational instrument for comparing wholly different individuals against narrow definitions of Scheme sustainability and a mythical unicorn known as inter-participant equity.
Page 12 of 32
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 321
RAC submission · NDIS Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026
● Amendment to s 34 — the sustainability and a comparator tests (“participants with similar needs and circumstances”) are inserted context-free into the reasonable-and-necessary determination. Sustainability would no longer be a consideration for the CEO when exercising operational functions across the Scheme generally; it would become a mandatory consideration in the determination of each individual participant’s supports (with profound ramifications for the delayed support needs assessment processes of New Framework Plans). It would become an indicator of staff performance defined through financial KPIs and targets entirely divorced from and irrelevant to the lives of participant plans being judged, measured and trimmed as required to meet the corporate targets.
The fundamental operational test would shift from “what does this participant need?” to “what is consistent with what we have decided participants with similar needs should receive, within scheme affordability as set out in the Forward Estimates of the Budget?”
● New ss 33(2EA)–(2EB) and 32K(3C)–(3D) — funding caps by support category, regardless of individual cost or actual support needs.
● New s 34A — Ministerial power to reduce funding by support category through legislative instrument.
The widely held view in disability community organisations is that – in these areas – the Bill makes the most significant departure from the “original intent” of the NDIS since 2013. Under the current Act, sustainability was intended to constrain how the NDIS / NDIA as a public service system is run; under the Bill, sustainability constrains what each participant can have. The unit of analysis for sustainability shifts from the whole scheme to individual plans.
The Prime Minister’s Second Reading speech in 2012 was also, of course, foundational and defining in parliamentary terms (not least because of the Commonwealth’s Acts Interpretation Act). Beyond Parliament the speech simultaneously signalled a 21st Century paradigm shift and generational achievement.
Prime Minister Gillard said:
“The risk of disability is universal, so our response must be universal.” 29 November 2012
“The [2012] legislation aims to support the independence and social and economic participation of people with disability. It clearly recognises the right of people with disability to exercise choice and control over the planning and delivery of their supports. The legislation is designed to ensure that people with disability can access reasonable and necessary supports, that there is an assurance of support over a person’s lifetime, and that the scheme remains sustainable over the long term.” same speech
Page 13 of 32
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 321
RAC submission · NDIS Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026
Emma Bennison, Chief Executive Officer of Disability Advocacy Network Australia (DANA) expressed widely held views of risks surrounding back-to-the-future, counter-factual strategies for ecosystem and NDIS reforms that are being rushed through without inclusive, thoughtful consideration. It’s a bad idea.
Ms Bennison put it this way in an Op-Ed article on 24 April1.
“Before the NDIS, inclusion was not the norm. It was patchy, fragile and often conditional … To return to a model built on goodwill and informal support is to ask people with disability to resume that vigilance. To accept that participation is conditional and dependent on the generosity of others. That is not a step forward. It is a regression.” — Emma Bennison, CEO, DANA
1 https://dana.org.au/op-ed-we-cant-rebuild-a-past-that-never-existed/
Page 14 of 32
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 321
RAC submission · NDIS Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026
The Bill inverts the NDIS Review
The 2023 NDIS Review has been used as a justification for much of this Bill. The Review’s own text, and its Co-Chair’s own framing, place the matter the other way.
What the Review actually said
“We are recommending that all governments work together to plan and fund a new system of support. The NDIS is one part of this system. But it must also include more support for people with disability who are not eligible for the NDIS, through foundational supports. We know this is a big change. That’s why we recommend a staged, careful transition over the next five years.”
— Independent NDIS Review (2023), Final Report Guide for People with Disability and their Families
“Changes to access and budget setting processes should be implemented together. Foundational supports must be in place.” — NDIS Review (2023), Final Report Guide
“Each of our 26 recommendations is important — but cannot be considered on its own. They are a package.” — NDIS Review (2023), Final Report Guide
“Community-wide foundational supports are non-negotiable. They must be rolled out nationally to secure the fairness, trust, and sustainability of the Scheme.” — Professor Bruce Bonyhady AM, NDIS Review Co-Chair, NDIS 2.0 speech, Geelong, 6 September 2023 The Government’s own analysis
The Government’s Impact Analysis even quotes the Review’s sequencing rule.
At section 5.2.3:
“It should be noted that the NDIS Review explicitly acknowledged that changes to access will be needed to support the rollout of foundational supports stating ‘Changes to access and budget setting processes for children and young people should only be implemented once widespread foundational supports are in place’.” — EM Impact Analysis, s 5.2.3, citing NDIS Review (2023)
But the Bill does it differently. Having quoted the Review on sequencing of change, the Impact Analysis describes the Government’s compliance with it for children covered by Thriving Kids. It does not describe equivalent compliance for any other part of the proposed new arrangements.
Page 15 of 32
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 321
RAC submission · NDIS Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026
What the Bill does
Measure Review’s sequencing rule Bill’s implementation
50% cut to social, civic and Should follow availability of Commences 1 October 2026. No community participation foundational supports for adults. foundational supports exist on budgets. that date.
10% cut to Capacity Building Daily Should follow availability of Commences 1 October 2026. Activities budgets. alternative supports. CBDA funds therapy supports for ~99% of participants. No alternative supports exist on that date.
Reassessment of all existing Should follow availability of Assessment tool not yet designed. participants; removal of ~160,000 foundational supports, with at Foundational supports for cohorts by 2030. least two years’ notice for other than some children under existing participants. nine remain at ‘in-principle agreement’ stage.
Most changes commence ‘seven Review recommended a five-year The Government’s target is Royal days after Royal Assent’. transition. Assent by 30 June 2026 — with major operative changes commencing seven days later.
The Bill does not implement the Review’s sequencing or development path to an inter-governmental, all jurisdictions ecosystem of supports of which the NDIS is one, major component of an inclusive whole. Instead, the Bill initiates a fiscal-cut framework that uses the Review’s language.
The Review’ framing
The NDIS Review stated its overarching strategic view about NDIS reform in these terms:
“Our view is that you can’t fix the NDIS without fixing everything around it. For this reason our recommendations go beyond the NDIS. We want to create a new system of support, including accessible and inclusive mainstream services, a new system of foundational supports as well as the NDIS2.”
Building on the PC Report’s model the NDIS Review proposed a new structure approach. It is intended to be integrated and progressive (both in terms of support needs and funding methodology). It is critically dependent on a shared strategic commitment across all governments within a federated model, but with more cohesive, integrated and complementary structures, services and operating environments.
2 https://www.ndisreview.gov.au/resources/reports/our-final-report-guide-people-disability-and-their- families-2023
Page 16 of 32
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 321
RAC submission · NDIS Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026
To build the framework over time to secure a more effective, targeted NDIS within a new, evolving and expanding ecosystem it is essential the Commonwealth, States and Territories work in partnership; informed by, engaging with and involving disabled people and their organisations. National Cabinet and the DRMC have their roles to play.
Regrettably, there are proposals in the Bill that make the partnership more difficult to secure and sustain. Those elements should be removed from the Bill.
Page 17 of 32
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 321
RAC submission · NDIS Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026
The Bill undermines the joint governance and concentrates power in the Minister
The original NDIS Act 2013 created a federated joint venture. The Commonwealth, the States and Territories, an independent National Disability Insurance Agency, and the disability community itself all held meaningful authority within the partnership. Rule-making was tiered by category and requires engagement with all jurisdictions. Pricing was an Agency function requiring a Board decision, conducted through an Annual Pricing Review with public and intergovernmental consultation. Individual support decisions were made through participant-directed planning. The Disability Reform Ministerial Council provided the principal and essential intergovernmental governance forum.
The Bill materially alters each element. The cumulative effect is the displacement of joint stewardship by Commonwealth Ministerial fiat.
Four concentrations of power
Bill provision New power What it displaces
Schedule 1 Part 4 – Budget Minister may, by legislative Individualised, needs-based, reduction power. instrument, reduce funding across participant-directed planning under an entire support category by any the 2013 Act. The original Act percentage, applied to every assigned the test of ‘reasonable and participant simultaneously, without necessary’ to the participant’s plan, sunsetting. not to a Ministerial determination.
Schedule 3 Part 1 – Pricing Pricing of NDIS supports transferred Annual Pricing Review conducted determination power. to the Minister, by legislative by the independent NDIA Board, instrument, not subject to with public consultation, sunsetting or host-jurisdiction intergovernmental consultation, agreement. and data analysis.
Schedule 3 Part 2 – Computer programs may form the Human decision-making with Automation provisions. ‘state of mind’ of the CEO in parliamentary disallowance over relation to participant matters, governing rules. The Robodebt governed by Ministerial Royal Commission’s findings about instruments. algorithmic decision-making in respect of vulnerable cohorts are directly engaged.
Schedule 5 – Henry VIII Minister may, by legislative Parliamentary sovereignty. clause. instrument made within 12 months Modification of primary legislation of commencement, modify the by subordinate instrument is the operation of provisions of the NDIS central concern of Senate Scrutiny Act 2013 itself. of Bills Committee jurisprudence on Henry VIII clauses.
Page 18 of 32
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 321
RAC submission · NDIS Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026
The NDIA’s role and accountability
The Bill does not reform the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA). It does not address the persistent, long-lasting operational concerns that the Government, the disability community, and successive reviews have raised about NDIA performance. The Bill transfers some powers away from the Agency while leaving its operational deficiencies untouched. This is the worst of both worlds: the Agency’s independence is degraded; its capacity is not improved.
Page 19 of 32
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 321
RAC submission · NDIS Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026
Detailed Bill analysis
This section outlines specific feedback and questions raised by the RAC members, including the Co- Chairs, to each Schedule.
Schedule 1
Schedule 1 contains many changes, including to the definitions of core NDIS legislation about access, supports, plan changes and many more which will significantly limit access to the NDIS, and to overturn key Federal Court cases that have assisted in making the Scheme fairer.
Part 1
The RAC has significant concerns about the lack of engagement with people with disability, particularly with those with technical and professional expertise in assessments and the Scheme in general. The proposed Technical Advisory Group has no requirement to have disability specific assessment expertise on it.
The proposal to remove all consideration of an individual’s circumstances from the functional capacity assessment goes against best practice in this area. For example, the International Classification of Function recognises the role of a person’s environment3 in the assessment of capacity, but this is explicitly ruled out in the Bill. To wholly disregard the holistic functional capacity standard set by the WHO decades ago is a retrograde measure. It rejects the social model of disability that has informed Australian policy for decades. It re-medicalises an entire population. The NDIS Review engaged people with disability specifically on this question, and did not recommend this approach.
Additionally, the NDIS Review set out specific measures that needed to be included with a move to any kind of access assessment, including co-design with the disability community, and significantly more time to implement changes.
The RAC members raised very strong concerns about the impact of this change on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with disability, people with an intellectual disability, people without informal supports and women, among others. The same impairment will have very different functional impacts depending on a person’s circumstances.
RAC members also raised concerns about people with disability who moved into the NDIS from previous state systems, often living now in the same group homes. The impact of a new assessment process on this community has not been considered.
Part 2
3 https://icd.who.int/browse/2026-01/icf/en#1141487728
Page 20 of 32
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 321
RAC submission · NDIS Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026
RAC members raised concerns that limiting the reasons a plan reassessment could be granted could leave people with disability without vital supports, often at a time of crisis. Additionally, there is limited scope for addressing non-ongoing changes in circumstances. It is also unclear what mechanisms are in place to ensure that no person with disability is harmed by being left without their ongoing NDIS support.
Severely restricting unscheduled reassessments has been explained in part because “one in five plans are currently subject to an unscheduled reassessment every year. And the average result of these reassessments is a 20 per cent increase in plan value.“ (Bill’s Second Reading speech, 14 May 2026.) However, the framing of this ‘problem’ implies that a ‘broken’ system of re-assessment is an out-of- control cost driver.
The Explanatory Memorandum relies on unpublished internal NDIA analysis to characterise unscheduled reassessments as a mechanism that ‘frequently increase the value of a plan.’ The NDIA’s own publicly available Quarterly Report for the same period (Q2 2025-26, to 31 December 2025) presents a more complete picture. Page 80 reports that “Median plan budgets increased by 2.7% over the 2-year period to 31 December 2025” which is less than half the CPI inflation rate. Page 81 reports that “Participants who entered the NDIS in the year ending 30 June 2020 or later had lower average plan budgets relative to those who entered the NDIS in earlier years.”4
Page 83 reports that “During the 6 months to 31 December 2025, 13% of active participants had at least one plan reassessment” with the following outcomes (and downward trend compared to the previous year).
● 56% increased at reassessment by more than 5% (compared to 60% in the 6 months to 31 December 2024) ● 25% decreased by more than 5% (compared to 17% in the 6 months to 31 December 2024) ● 20% remained within 5% (compared to 23% in the 6 months to 31 December 2024).
The assertion that reassessments produce a 20% average increase in plan value seems to misrepresent a scheme-level aggregate as a typical individual outcome. It obscures the fact that one in four reassessments produces a plan reduction.
Behind all assessments – planned or unscheduled – is that in every case NDIA delegates considered in detail the reasons underpinning each re-assessment request and made an informed decision based on each participant’s support needs at the time.
Part 3
This section removes the agreed amendments from 2024 that acknowledged the need to ensure that the whole of a person with disability is considered when deciding on support. The previous agreement
4 https://www.ndis.gov.au/publications/quarterly-reports
Page 21 of 32
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 321
RAC submission · NDIS Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026
was negotiated in good faith by wide range of disability organisations. It was agreed by the Parliament and has been in operation for over 12 months. The RAC believes this is a retrograde step and should be removed from the legislation. There has not been any public data about financial impacts of this measure on the Scheme and the 2024 additional explanatory memorandum said there were no financial impacts5 from the ‘whole of person’ amendments.
This also does not take into account the complexity of a person’s disability/ies, where impairments overlap and intersect, and the real material impossibility of isolating impairments within one person. The RAC opposes this measure.
Part 4
The RAC has very serious concerns about this part which grants the Minister extraordinary powers over the individual lives of people with disability and their families.
The NDIS is an individualised support system that provides reasonable and necessary supports to people with disability. These proposed amendments will change that fundamental principle, and allow this, and future Ministers, the powers to make wholesale changes with no safeguards or limits.
The proposed cuts of 50% to social and community participation, and 10% capacity building, are cruel and contradict the findings of the Disability Royal Commission. The RAC has asked for modelling on the impact on communities who have no other way to access the community, but that has not been forthcoming.
The table below shows the differential impact on people with different primary impairments in the Impact Analysis, but does not provide a comprehensive separate evaluation or analysis of the impact on different communities or on people who rely on Supported Independent Living funding.
Social, Civic and Community Participation (SCCP) budget cuts
Avg SCCP 30% cut 50% cut Participants % of Primary disability allocation 6 month 6 month with SCCP group (6 months) impact impact
ABI 18,008 21% $24,600 −$7,380 −$12,300
Autism 131,847 20% $11,200 −$3,360 −$5,600
Cerebral Palsy 12,284 18% $28,100 −$8,430 −$14,050
Developmental Delay 231 0% $3,600 −$1,080 −$1,800
Down Syndrome 9,329 28% $28,900 −$8,670 −$14,450
5
https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems% 2Fr7181_ems_4a8b3f2f-ce7f-420f-9f30-bf76aee5767e%22
Page 22 of 32
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 321
RAC submission · NDIS Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026
Avg SCCP 30% cut 50% cut Participants % of Primary disability allocation 6 month 6 month with SCCP group (6 months) impact impact
Global Developmental 153 0% $5,500 −$1,650 −$2,750 Delay
Hearing Impairment 5,679 15% $7,200 −$2,160 −$3,600
Intellectual Disability 76,412 26% $23,000 −$6,900 −$11,500
Multiple Sclerosis 9,570 17% $14,600 −$4,380 −$7,300
Other 8,252 18% $18,800 −$5,640 −$9,400
Other Neurological 20,697 17% $21,800 −$6,540 −$10,900
Other Physical 13,429 19% $15,200 −$4,560 −$7,600
Other Sensory / Speech 479 18% $7,900 −$2,370 −$3,950
Psychosocial Disability 63,131 30% $18,700 −$5,610 −$9,350
Spinal Cord Injury 5,118 14% $19,700 −$5,910 −$9,850
Stroke 9,947 19% $20,500 −$6,150 −$10,250
Visual Impairment 8,732 34% $13,233 −$3,970 −$6,617
All participants (avg) 393,298 52% $17,500 −$5,250 −$8,750
Original Source: Explanatory Memorandum Impact Analysis, Figure 10. NDIA Office of Impact Analysis, as at 31/12/ 2025.
All allocation figures are six-month committed supports as reported in Figure 10; they are not annualised. Cut impact columns are calculated on the same six-month basis. The Government has announced a 50% reduction in allocated funds; resulting in up to 30% cuts on average for utilised funds.
Note on the ‘All participants’ average: the scheme-wide average of $17,500 is materially inflated by participants in Supported Independent Living (SIL), whose average six-month SCCP allocation is $84,030 — approximately 10% of the SCCP cohort. Non-SIL participants average $29,985 per year (six-month basis: ∼$15,000). The average for all may overstate the impact on some participants and almost certainly understates it for participants in SIL (among the most isolated of all participants).
The RAC opposes this measure in total.
Part 5
The RAC believes this section is unnecessary and may cause unintended gaps in the continuity of support. Additionally, this removes the incentives for people with disability and families to plan longer term with support budgets, and to manage them over a longer timeframe, which is envisaged in New Framework Planning. Instead, this will increase the likelihood of plan spending to the limit of the plan. This may also lead to changes in New Framework Planning.
Part 6
The RAC is very concerned that financial sustainability may be applied to an individual’s plan and supports, making the NDIS different to other public services such as the Pharmaceutical Benefits
Page 23 of 32
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 321
RAC submission · NDIS Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026
Scheme and Medicare, which assess sustainability as a whole. This is an unreasonable and potentially damaging addition.
The 2024 legislation brought significant changes, through Transitional Rules for Section 10 of the NDIS Act, to what NDIS supports are approved and what substitutions can be made. The permanent rules have yet to be finalised, but the RAC has discussed the impact of Section 10 on the lives of people with disability across the country, and concerns about the costs associated with limiting supports funded under the Scheme.
The additional powers for the Minister to make decisions about the maximum funding amounts, intensity or ratios for individual supports across the whole Scheme will entrench group models of support, restrict innovation and community and mainstream access by people with disability. For example, if the Minister decides to limit support for people who live in group homes, this will cause an increase in restrictive practices (legal harm to people with disability) and block people from leaving this model of support even if that has been found to be reasonable and necessary.
RAC members also raised serious concerns about the increased expectation of family and carer- provided informal support, particularly for people with complex support needs and adults with disability who wish to not be supported by their family.
Part 7
RAC members again have concerns that this part does not take into account the real lives of many people who rely on the Scheme, and for who official correspondence is not accessible. There must not be a power to remove people from the Scheme without a risk assessment and ensuring of continuity of support. The RAC gave very similar advice for the previous NDIS legislation.
Part 8
Many RAC members – reflecting widespread community sentiment – expressed very strong concerns about the changes to the NDIS legislation that would impose unreasonable, expensive and unattainable tests before access would be granted. The proposal to reduce access if a treatment is ‘appropriate’, which removing the safeguards and reasonable measures of ‘available’ and affordable. This will be a ‘reverse means-test’, making access to the Scheme available for those who can afford or who can access some treatments. This also disregards safety, risk and individual complications and will target the most marginalised people with disability the most.
Additionally, the RAC was concerned that the list of treatments that needed to be done before access could be granted has not been decided, nor is the process for this decision clear. The RAC is also concerned about the increased risk of the use of restrictive practices on people with disability.
Part 9
The RAC, as representatives of states and territories, particularly noted this part of Schedule 1, and that much of the previous disability system has been rolled into the NDIS. People with disability are often significantly excluded from other service systems, as found by the Disability Royal Commission, including people with severe disabling chronic illness. Disability support needs are different to health, education or other systems, and those other systems now rely on the NDIS to meet the disability needs
Page 24 of 32
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 321
RAC submission · NDIS Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026
of people with disability. This part will only increase the barriers to support and create large service gaps that led to the introduction of the NDIS in the first place.
Page 25 of 32
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 321
RAC submission · NDIS Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026
Schedule 2
Part 1
The RAC supports action to increase the regulation of providers and end the large-scale exploitation of people with disability, including ‘sharp practices’, over servicing and over billing. However, the proposed registration model is not sufficient, nor appropriate to address these key issues. Registration, in and of itself, does not equate to quality. Both the NDIS Review and the Registration taskforce, as well as the Disability Royal Commission, recommended a wider range of regulatory enforcement, and structural reforms that would increase the accountability of providers.
Innovative practice, and the needs of people and families that self-manage, must be allowed to flourish, while there is increased action to address low level fraud and rip offs. The current NDIS Integrity inquiry6 has heard about how widespread these issues are, across all kinds of providers, including registered providers, and how inadequate the remedies are. This section does little to address this.
Consumer advocates believe an increase in powers to regulate unfair trade practices7, such as ‘sharp practices’ would go a long way to stopping them. Without action to prevent providers from ripping off people with disability, registration alone will be insufficient to address quality or fraud.
Part 2
The RAC has significant concerns about the impact of this section, and the large civil penalties proposed, on people with disability and their families. Proposals to impose fines of up to 60 penalty units ($19,800 currently) on people with disability and their families are extremely disproportionate to the civil breaches being discussed, such as not communicating the NDIA, or missing obligations as a nominee.
People with the most significant disability and their families have long reported that the administrative load of the NDIS is high, and difficult to comply with8. Imposing fines of this size instead of addressing the administrative complexity of the Scheme will hurt those with the least.
People with disability, their families and other nominees must be exempt from any civil penalties. The NDIA must also undertake a review of their administrative practice to ensure that loads are reduced for people with disability and families.
6
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/National_Disability_Insurance_Scheme/N DISIntegrity 7https://cprc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/UTP-Consumer-Sector-Submission_FINAL_DEC2024.pdf; https://cprc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Submission-Unfair-trade-practices-Treasury-November- 2023.pdf 8https://assets.csi.edu.au/assets/research/Administering-Inequality-The-National-Disability-Insurance- Scheme-and-Administrative-Burdens-on-Individuals.pdf
Page 26 of 32
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 321
RAC submission · NDIS Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026
Part 3
This section extends the significant powers granted to the NDIA in the 2024 legislation9, specifically to strengthen information gathering measures. It is unclear why this is being added to, or what protections are in place for people with disability who may not understand the consequences of these requests.
Part 4
Retention of records is good practice; however, it is vital that the NDIA delivers consistent and accessible standards for what is required, along with support for people with disability and families to ensure they know what is required.
Part 5
The change to claim times from 2 years to 90 days is unreasonable, and the evidence for this change is not clear. People with disability and their families may have very good reasons for the delays of longer than 90 days, such as the length of time to get a service or support. The RAC does not support the change in this form.
Part 6
The RAC supports increased regulatory measures to ensure that people with disability and families are getting value from their NDIS supports. This includes measures to increase the quality and integrity of plan management services. However, there are specialist small plan managers who provide services to people with disability and families with complex needs, and in specific geographic areas, that need to be preserved in this change. This kind of innovative provider practice is vital to the NDIS.
Page 27 of 32
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 321
RAC submission · NDIS Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026
Schedule 3
The NDIS was established as a joint venture between state, territory and the Commonwealth governments, bringing together a disjointed and fragmented set of services into a cohesive national program. The governance of the Scheme has continued with the agreements on Foundational Supports, including Thriving Kids, and the significant financial contribution of the states and territories to the NDIS.
The RAC reflects this governance, with representatives from all states and territories, as well as communities, and state and territory officials. This has allowed the RAC to engage on reform questions deeply, with key understandings of the impacts of those reforms in northern West Australia, regional Queensland, suburban Sydney and Tasmania, among others. This knowledge and expertise gives the RAC robust knowledge of how disability supports can work better across the country.
The governance of the Scheme was established for very good reasons - people with disability live and work across the country, and all governments have a stake in ensuring support is available and dignified, no matter where they are.
The proposals in this section dismantle much of this governance and go against specific recommendations from the NDIS Review. The RAC does not support the measures in this section.
Part 1
The NDIS Review specifically recommended the transfer of pricing to the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority, which did consultation about this in 202410. There was strong support for this measure, however there has been no progress on delivering it.
Pricing must not sit with a single Minister of any Government, particularly along with the other powers over price setting in Schedule 1, Part 6. This allows far too much control over key aspects of the Scheme in a single person. There are almost no safeguards against decisions that will cause significant harm.
Part 2
Automation of government functions, particularly in human services, needs to be approached slowly, carefully and with very significant safeguards. The lessons from the Robodebt Royal Commission, and the problems with the new Aged Care Assessment tool, need to be heeded as this is developed. At the minimum, the automation of administrative functions must be only at a low level, have well developed safeguards and appeal rights, oversight, public reporting and have human decision making embedded.
10 https://www.ihacpa.gov.au/resources/fresh-approach-ndis-pricing-have-your-say-fact-sheet
Page 28 of 32
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 321
RAC submission · NDIS Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026
Schedule 4
The RAC has been deeply involved with the development of New Framework Planning (NFP), including consulting on the rules and policy. The proposed additional measures in this section apply pricing limits and add financial sustainability considerations to individual budgets, going against the goals and aims of NFP. Governments should consider financial issues for a program as a whole, not at the individual level.
Schedule 5 Transparency and accountability are vital in the governance of the NDIS, including proper scrutiny of transitional rules, and engagement with states and territories. The Disability Reform Ministers Council is an essential safeguard for setting rules about the Scheme.
Page 29 of 32
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 321
RAC submission · NDIS Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026
Conclusion
The disability community has been preparing the country for the next stage of NDIS reform since before the NDIS Review reported in 2023. The community knows that change is necessary. The community has, repeatedly, asked for that change to be done with us, not to us. The community has not been listened to in the design of this Bill.
The Bill in its current form does material harm to current and future participants. It misrepresents the founding intentions of the NDIS. It inverts the Review on which the Government relies. It demolishes the federated joint venture and concentrates unprecedented power in the Commonwealth Minister.
It is, on the Government’s own admission, retrogressive against the rights framework the NDIS Act exists to give effect to. And it has been progressed under a timetable that breaches Australia’s binding obligation to consult.
We ask the Senate Committee to recommend against the Bill’s passage in its current form.
We ask the Committee to commend to the Parliament a different course: do the reform the Review recommended (taking into account the reasoned critiques from the community made since the Review’s final report was handed to Government almost three years ago).
Proceed in accordance with the interdependent sequence the Review foresaw would be essential. Ensure that the rights framework underpinned by domestic law and UN Treaty obligations remains intact. Protect and preserve the inter-governmental joint venture that the NDIS represents, ensuring that the disability community in all parts of Australia remain essential co-designers of what comes next.
That is the reform the Scheme deserves. It is the reform the disability community has earned. It is the reform the country could be proud of.
The RAC is ready to assist the Committee further if invited. The whole community wants to contribute and are essential ‘stakeholders’ in creating the better NDIS and support ecosystem that Australia needs and deserves.
NDIS Reform Advisory Committee 1 June 2026
Page 30 of 32
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 321
RAC submission · NDIS Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026
Appendix I
About the NDIS Reform Advisory Committee
Origin The NDIS Reform Advisory Committee (RAC) was established in 2025 as part of the Commonwealth Government’s response to the independent NDIS Review (2023). Recommendation 24.2 of the Review’s final report proposed: “An NDIS Review Implementation Advisory Committee should report to the Disability Reform Ministerial Council every six months or as needed. During the limited period for which the Advisory Committee exists, it should report regularly to the Disability Reform Ministerial Council on implementation progress and risks, including the approach to inclusion of and accountability to people with disability.” — NDIS Review (2023), Final Report, Recommendation 24.2 Structure and reporting The structure, composition and reporting framework of the RAC reflect the intergovernmental, shared-governance, joint-venture arrangements that have, until now, characterised Australia’s national commitment to the NDIS. The RAC reports to the Disability Reform Ministerial Council (DRMC) through its Chair, the Commonwealth Government’s NDIS Minister. The DRMC agreed Terms of Reference for the RAC at its meeting on 21 February 2025. Core responsibilities (as agreed by the DRMC) • Monitor and advise the DRMC on the implementation of NDIS reforms, against the Response to the Independent Review into the NDIS and the Implementation Roadmap (Recommendation 26). • Advise the DRMC on effective processes for engaging with people with lived experience. • Monitor and advise the DRMC on how the NDIS reforms are being implemented with respect to engagement with people with disability — including process, timing, community views and policy substance. • Ensure that the diverse voices, views and lived experience of people with disability are heard by the DRMC during the implementation of reforms. Membership Following a public process calling for expressions of interest — with the involvement of Ministers in each State and Territory — the Commonwealth’s NDIS Minister, Senator the Hon Jenny McAllister, announced the RAC’s membership on 19 August 2025. The RAC’s structure was intentionally designed to reflect the intergovernmental framework of the NDIS: • Eight of the thirteen RAC members were nominated from within their home jurisdictions. As with the NDIS itself, the States and Territories are fundamental to reform. • Three RAC members were selected through an Australia-wide public call for expressions of interest. • The two Co-Chairs were appointed by the Commonwealth’s NDIS Minister. • The majority of RAC members are disabled people. • The majority of RAC members are NDIS participants and/or parents or family members of NDIS participants.
Page 31 of 32
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 321
RAC submission · NDIS Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026
The RAC membership
● Co-chair – Ms. El Gibbs ● Co-chair – Mr. Dougie Herd ● Australian Capital Territory representative – Ms. Renee Heaton ● New South Wales representative – Mr. Jeramy Hope ● Northern Territory representative – Ms. Annie Rily ● Queensland representative – Mr. Nigel Webb ● South Australia representative – Ms Katharine Annear ● Tasmania representative – Ms. Clare Waiss ● Victoria representative – Ms Catherine McAlpine ● Western Australia representative – Ms. Carrie Clark ● Community representative – Mr. Sebastian Langdon-Macmillan ● Community representative – Mr. Elvis Martin ● Community representative – Ms. Kelly Treloar
The RAC has 3 ex-officio members drawn from the Disability Senior Officials Group (DSOG) and Department of Health, Disability and Ageing (DHDA). • Ms. Mhairi Cowden, Deputy Director General | Disability, Department of Communities, Western Australia • Ms. Carley Northcott, Executive Director, Disability Reform and Complex Needs, Victorian Department of Families, Fairness and Housing • First Assistant Secretary, NDIS Strategy & Policy Division, Commonwealth Department of Health, Disability and Ageing
Page 32 of 32