Submission 333 - Attachment 1
2025-2026
The Parliament of the
Commonwealth of Australia
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment
(Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
(Dr M Ryan)
These amendments were informed by consultations with over 60 community members in Kooyong, including those in the disability community.
Drafting was informed by the Justice and Equity Centre, People with Disability Australia,
Occupational Therapists Australia, Inclusion Australia, the Summer Foundation and other
prominent disability advocates.
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit “Sections 1 to 3”, substitute “Sections 1 to 4”. [statutory review]
(2) Clause 2, page 3 (after line 3), at the end of the clause, add:
(3)Despite subsection (1), the provisions mentioned in items 3 to 6 of the table do not commence until the day after the Minister has caused to be tabled in each House of the Parliament a statement setting out: (a)the status of foundational supports, including Thriving Kids, in each jurisdiction; and (b)whether the Minister considers those supports referenced in (a) to be established, funded and operational; and (c)the basis for that view, including consideration of the availability and accessibility of supports for persons likely to be affected by the commencement of those Parts. [delayed commencement]
Amendment (2) explainer and rationale Recommendation 26 of the NDIS Independent Review states that “changes to access and budget setting processes can only be implemented once the recommended foundational supports are in place to offer support outside the NDIS”.
This amendment would require the Minister to report to Parliament on the status, funding and operational readiness of foundational supports before Schedule 1, Parts 4–9 commence, including the availability, accessibility and adequacy of supports for people likely to be affected.
1
Submission 333 - Attachment 1
(3) Page 3 (after line 8), after clause 4, insert:
4 Statutory review
(1)The Minister must cause an independent review of the operation of the amendments made by this Act to be undertaken as soon as practicable after the end of 12 months after the commencement of the last Part of this Act to commence.
(2)The person or persons undertaking the review must be independent of the Agency and of the Department.
(3)The review must consider the following matters: (a)access to the NDIS; (b)participant outcomes, including continuity and quality of supports; (c)review and appeal rights under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013; (d)the viability and sustainability of the provider market; (e)service delivery in thin markets; (f)the interaction between the amendments and any foundational supports or related systems of support.
(4)The person or persons undertaking the review must prepare a written report of the review.
(5)The Minister must cause the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days after the report is given to the Minister. [statutory review]
Amendment (3) explainer and rationale This amendment requires the Minister to commission an independent review of the operation of the reforms 12 months after they commence, with the reviewer being independent of the NDIA and the Department.
The review must assess key impacts of the changes, including access to the NDIS, participant outcomes, review and appeal rights, provider viability, service delivery in thin markets, and how the reforms interact with foundational supports.
It also requires the reviewer to prepare a report and for the Minister to table that report in both Houses of Parliament within 15 sitting days of receipt, ensuring early, transparent parliamentary scrutiny of how the reforms are operating in practice.
2
Submission 333 - Attachment 1
(4) Schedule 1, item 21, page 9 (line 10 and 11), omit “either of both”, substitute “any”. [conditions for conducting reassessment of participant’s plan]
(5) Schedule 1, item 21, page 9 (line 16), omit “and”. [conditions for conducting reassessment of participant’s plan]
(6) Schedule 1, item 21, page 9 (after line 16), after subparagraph 48A(1)(b)(ii), insert: (iii)an alteration in the participant’s plan such that it is insufficient to meet the participant’s reasonable and necessary support needs; and [conditions for conducting reassessment of participant’s plan]
Amendments (4)-(6) explainer and rationale Currently, s 48 of the National Disability Insurance Act 2013 (Cth) provides that the CEO of the NDIA may conduct a reassessment of a participant’s plan at any time, including on the request of a participant (s 48(2)). Currently, participants can request a plan reassessment at any time. The bill proposes to repeal s 48(2), replacing it with a narrower provision containing conditions that must be met for a participant to request reassessment of their plan.
Those conditions do not include that a participant’s plan is insufficient to meet their reasonable and necessary support needs. A participant’s individualised supports being both reasonable and necessary to their needs is fundamental to the NDIS scheme design.
Under this amendment, participants will meet the conditions to request a reassessment where their supports are no longer reasonable and necessary. The CEO will retain discretion in granting reassessments, consistent with the existing s 48(1) of the Act.
This provision is intended to interact with amendment (8) below, such that where the Minister issues a Support Determination that reduces participant funding, the participant’s plan may be insufficient to meet the participant’s reasonable and necessary supports such that the condition for conducting a reassessment under s 48A(1)(b)(iii) is met.
Currently, the legislation includes unintended consequences. Section 50A provides that a participant’s old framework plan is automatically renewed as a new plan immediately after its end date, by force of that section alone. Importantly, this renewal occurs without involvement of the participant, without a new statement of participant supports being prepared, and without the renewal constituting a reviewable decision. This means that a plan can be renewed for a further 12 months without the participant having the opportunity to identify if support needs have changed.
Where the Minister has issued a s 34A Support Determination reducing a participant’s funding, that reduction does not alter the text of the plan (s 34A(4)) but continues to apply to the renewed plan. A participant in this situation - whose funding has been reduced below what is reasonable and necessary, and whose plan has been auto-renewed carrying that insufficiency forward - would have no pathway to request reassessment under the proposed s 48A, because their disability and circumstances may be unchanged.
This amendment addresses that gap by providing that plan insufficiency is itself a condition triggering the right to request reassessment.
3
Submission 333 - Attachment 1
(7) Schedule 1, item 34, page 13 (after line 10), after subsection 34A(4), insert:
(4A)The determination may relate only to supports for social and community participation. [reducing funding]
Amendment (7) explainer and rationale During the Minister’s National Press Club announcement, the Minister represented that social and community participation supports will be reduced. However, the bill as drafted, and confirmed by the Explanatory Memorandum, gives the Minister power to reduce funding across almost any support category - including daily living, transport, assistive technology, specialist disability accommodation, behaviour support, and more.
This amendment would hold the Minister to their word by inserting a new subsection 34A(4A) that legally restricts support determinations to social and community participation supports only.
(8) Schedule 1, item 34, page 13 (lines 11 to 18), omit subsection 34A(5). [reducing funding]
Amendment (8) explainer and rationale This amendment removes subsection 34A(5), which expressly permits a support determination to operate even where it results in funding falling below the cost of supports already assessed as reasonable and necessary.
(9) Schedule 1, item 34, page 13 (after line 18), at the end of section 34A, add:
(6)A support determination that is reasonably likely to result in a material reduction in funding for a class of supports must be accompanied, at the time the determination is tabled in each House of the Parliament, by: (a)a statement of reasons for the determination; and (b)an assessment of the likely impact of the determination on participants; and (c)actuarial or financial analysis relied upon in making the determination; and (d)a summary of consultation undertaken with people with disability and representative organisations.
(7)A support determination to which subsection (6) applies does not take effect unless, within 15 sitting days after the determination is tabled in each House of the Parliament, each House passes a resolution approving the determination.
(8) If a House of the Parliament does not pass a resolution approving the determination within the period referred to in subsection (7), the determination is taken never to have had effect.
(9)In this section material reduction in funding includes a reduction that is reasonably likely to have a significant impact on participants’ access to supports. [Parliamentary approval for support determinations]
4
Submission 333 - Attachment 1
Amendment (9) explainer and rationale Proposed section 34A would allow the Minister to reduce funding for categories of supports across classes of participant plans by legislative instrument. Although legislative in form, these determinations could have significant practical consequences for participants’ access to supports.
This amendment would require additional transparency and parliamentary scrutiny where a support determination is reasonably likely to result in a material reduction in funding. The Minister would be required to table reasons, impact analysis and consultation material. The determination would not take effect unless each House of the Parliament passes a resolution approving it within 15 sitting days of tabling.
Unlike a disallowance model - which requires opponents to act within a timeframe to defeat a measure - positive approval requires the Government to affirmatively secure parliamentary support before a material funding reduction takes effect. This places the burden on the Executive to justify the determination to Parliament, rather than on Parliament to act to block it.
The amendment ensures Parliament has a meaningful and active role in scrutinising significant reductions in the funding of whole classes of participants before they take effect.
(10) Schedule 1, item 34, page 13 (after line 18), after section 34A, insert:
34AA Effect of support determination
If a determination under section 34A has the effect of reducing the funding available to a participant under the participant’s plan, the participant’s plan may be insufficient to meet the participant’s reasonable and necessary supports such that the participant may meet the condition for conducting a reassessment under subparagraph 48A(1)(b)(iii). [effect of support determination]
Amendment (10) explainer and rationale Currently, when the Minister issues a Support Determination under s 34A, participants have no pathway for merits review. The Explanatory Memorandum to the bill reasons that:
‘These determinations are not applied on a ‘plan-by-plan’ basis, but rather have the effect of reducing the funding for certain groups of supports across the Scheme. Changes to funding as result of support determinations are not subject to merits review. This is consistent with the Administrative Review Council’s What decisions should be subject to merit review? 1999 , which provides that legislation-like decisions of broad application are not suitable for merits review. This is because they are subject to the accountability safeguards that apply to all legislative decisions and are not directed towards the circumstances of a particular person.’
In keeping with the individualised nature of the NDIS scheme design and to avoid unintended flood gating of the Administrative Review Tribunal, this amendment proposing that where a Support Determination reduces a participant’s plan, the reduction may satisfy the condition for reassessment under Amendments (4)-(6).
5
Submission 333 - Attachment 1
(11) Schedule 1, item 92, page 35 (line 31) to page 36 (line 4), omit subsection 25A(2). [appropriate treatment]
(12) Schedule 1, item 92, page 36 (after line 12), after subsection 25A(3), insert:
(3A)A person is not required to undertake treatment that is: (a)unreasonably inaccessible or unavailable; or (b)not clinically appropriate; or (c)associated with unreasonable risk. [appropriate treatment]
Amendments (11)-(12) explainer and rationale The government’s proposed section 25A introduces a new precondition to establishing ‘permanence’: a person must have undergone “appropriate treatment” before their impairment can be considered permanent.
The Bill says a person may not have to try ‘all appropriate treatment’ if there are medical reasons not to, or if NDIS Rules say it is not needed (eg the Explanatory Memorandum says this may apply to some psychosocial disabilities) (proposed subsections 25A(3)-(4)).
This section is intended to override the decision of the National Disability Insurance Scheme v Davis [2022] FCA 1002, which established the precedent that financial circumstances must be considered when determining if treatment is ‘available’. The Federal Court’s reasoning is persuasive. The Court interpreted the word ‘available’ to be understood as ‘treatments an individual can, in reality, access. Whether a person can afford a treatment will form part of the factual circumstances a decision-maker may need to examine in deciding if a treatment is one that an individual can in reality access.’
The government’s proposed section 25A(2) would override the ordinary meaning of the word ‘available’ as applied by the Federal Court.
Because permanence is part of both the disability and early intervention access criteria, this directly affects eligibility for entry to the NDIS and continued access where a person’s status is reconsidered. That creates a harsh threshold: people may be required to exhaust treatments that are unavailable, unaffordable or unsafe in their particular circumstances before they can establish that their impairment is permanent and access the supports they need.
For example, if a treatment might result in improvements over many years, but the person would still have substantially reduced functional capacity, they may be prevented from accessing the NDIS in the meantime. It could also make it harder for people with progressive conditions to access the NDIS, even where treatment only slows, but does not reverse, the deterioration of their functional capacity.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that people are not excluded from the NDIS simply because treatment exists in theory, rather than being reasonably accessible in their real lives. This amendment is consistent with the decision of Davis.
6
Submission 333 - Attachment 1
(13) Schedule 3, item 4, page 91 (line 9), at the end of subsection 45C(17), add: ; and (d)any independent pricing advice obtained under subsection (18); and (e)the impact of the determination on the availability of supports, including in thin markets and regional areas. [maximum amounts payable]
(14) Schedule 3, item 4, page 91 (after line 9), at the end of section 45C, add:
(18)Before making a determination under subsection (1), the Minister must: (a)obtain independent pricing advice; and (b)publish that advice; and (c)consult participants and providers. [maximum amounts payable]
Amendments (13)-(14) explainer and rationale Proposed section 45C gives the Minister broad power to set maximum prices for NDIS supports by legislative instrument.
The Independent NDIS Review’s Recommendation 11 and Action 11.3 explicitly recommend transferring NDIS pricing advice to the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority (IHACPA) “to strengthen transparency, predictability and alignment.” IHACPA is required to “consult with… the broader sector when advising the Australian Government on prices.”
This amendment is a more modest safeguard on the government’s proposal. It would require the Minister to obtain and publish independent pricing advice and to consider the effect of pricing decisions on support availability, including in thin markets and regional areas. Its purpose is to improve transparency and reduce the risk that pricing decisions undermine provider sustainability or participant access.
7