NDIS Reform Bill 2026: What the Senate Inquiry Is Revealing

A clear summary of the scrutiny — and what it means for participants

Disclaimer: This article draws on publicly available submissions, modelling, and reporting from the Senate inquiry into the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, as at June 2026. The bill has not been passed into law. This article is for general information only and does not constitute disability support, legal, or financial advice. Visit ndis.gov.au and consult your Support Coordinator or a disability advocate for advice specific to your situation.

---

The NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 is before a Senate inquiry, with hearings under way and a committee report due in the coming weeks.

What has emerged from that inquiry — through tabled Treasury modelling, formal submissions from peak bodies, and the testimony of real participants — is a fuller picture of what this legislation would actually do, and what concerns independent institutions have raised about it.

This article brings together the most important findings in one place, calmly and clearly.

---

What the Treasury Modelling Actually Shows

One of the most significant developments of recent weeks is the tabling of Treasury modelling in the Senate — detailed government projections of where the $38.1 billion in projected NDIS savings over four years would actually come from.

The figures are precise:

• $0.9 billion — approximately 2.4 per cent — from pricing controls and fraud-related measures
• $13.2 billion — from cuts to social and community participation budgets
• $9.3 billion — from tightening eligibility through the new functional capacity test
• The remaining savings from a mix of other structural changes

The government has consistently described its overhaul partly in terms of addressing fraud and waste. The modelling, however, shows that the structural weight of the changes falls on participation budgets and eligibility, not fraud.

At Senate estimates, Greens Senator Jordon Steele-John described a "fundamental disconnect between the government's language, which is often around tackling fraud, and what the numbers say here in the budget papers."

Minister McAllister pushed back, arguing that anti-fraud benefits cannot always be captured on a balance sheet, and that the package as a whole is designed to ensure the scheme remains sustainable for the long term.

Both perspectives are part of the public record. What the modelling establishes clearly is the financial architecture of the bill — and that is useful information for any participant trying to understand how the changes would affect them.

---

241,000 Participants Projected to Leave

Alongside the Treasury modelling, separate departmental modelling has confirmed a number that has been widely reported: under the proposed eligibility changes, 241,000 participants are projected to leave the NDIS by January 2028.

The scheme currently has approximately 775,000 participants — a figure that grew significantly beyond early projections, largely due to unforeseen numbers of children and people with autism joining in the years following the NDIS's establishment.

The government's position is that the new eligibility criteria will focus the scheme on people with the most significant needs, while foundational supports — delivered by state and territory governments — will serve those who transition out.

The concern raised consistently by advocacy organisations is whether those foundational supports will be ready, adequately funded, and available in regional and remote communities within the timeframe the legislation proposes. As of June 2026, the main foundational support announced is the $4 billion Thriving Kids program for children under nine. No foundational supports have been announced for other age groups.

---

The Human Rights Commission: "Risk of Going Backwards"

In a formal submission to the Senate inquiry, Australia's peak human rights institution raised a series of concerns that extend beyond policy disagreement to questions about Australia's international obligations.

Disability Discrimination Commissioner Rosemary Kayess submitted on behalf of the Australian Human Rights Commission:

• The bill risks taking Australia backward on realising the rights of people with disability — contradicting progress made over decades
• The changes may breach Australia's obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, particularly around independent living, personal autonomy, and community inclusion
• A two-week consultation period is "wholly inadequate for reforms of this scale, which have significant implications for people's rights, lives and livelihoods"
• The new ministerial powers to reduce funding across entire categories of the scheme provide limited accountability and restricted ability for participants to challenge decisions
• There is a risk that framing people with disability primarily as a "cost pressure to be managed" — rather than as people with rights — reflects an ableist framing that the commission believes is inappropriate

The commission has called for the bill to be assessed by parliament's human rights committee and for genuine, targeted consultation before passage.

Significantly, this submission comes from an independent statutory authority — not an advocacy group — and carries corresponding weight in the inquiry process.

---

The Government's Own Advisory Committee Raised Concerns

The Senate inquiry has also confirmed what had been reported in May: the government's NDIS Reform Advisory Committee — its own advisory body — privately briefed state and federal ministers to caution that the bill could cause "material harm" to people with disability if the process did not slow down.

The committee was not alone. Submissions raising significant concerns were also made by:

• The Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS)
• The National Mental Health Commission
• Palliative Care Australia
• People With Disability Australia (PWDA)
• Advocacy for Inclusion
• The Business Council of Australia (which raised implementation concerns)

Palliative Care Australia made a particularly pointed observation about the bill's eligibility logic: the legislation acknowledges that some people face barriers to appropriate health treatment due to cost or geography — but also states that it is not the NDIS's role to fill gaps in health services. PCA National Policy Director Josh Fear described this as creating "a dangerous gap" for people with life-limiting illness, who could find themselves "locked out of both systems."

---

The Automated Decision-Making Question

An aspect of the bill that received significant attention from The Saturday Paper is the introduction of automated decision-making within the NDIA — the power for the agency to use computer programs to take certain administrative actions without individual human review at each step.

The government has framed this as an efficiency measure that will allow NDIA staff to focus on complex cases while routine decisions are handled more consistently and quickly.

The disability community's concern is more specific: the I-CAN v6 assessment tool — the central instrument of the new planning framework — has, to date, been tested and trialled primarily on participants with non-complex or non-changing support needs. People With Disability Australia's acting chief executive Megan Spindler-Smith has said the organisation has "really deep concerns" about whether the assessment tool's decision-making is appropriate outside non-complex cases.

The parallel to robodebt — a government automated decision-making system that unlawfully cancelled social security payments for hundreds of thousands of Australians — has been raised explicitly in inquiry proceedings. Minister Tanya Plibersek told parliament that the government's approach requires human oversight of AI decisions. Independent members have asked for clearer legislative safeguards before automation is expanded.

The government's response is that the bill includes appropriate safeguards and that participants will retain the right to seek merits review through the Administrative Review Tribunal.

The inquiry's report, due mid-June, is expected to address these questions directly.

---

Real People, Real Consequences

Beyond the policy submissions, the inquiry's public hearings have brought the human dimension of these changes into clear view.

Janine Watson — a Paralympic Taekwondo athlete and four-time world champion living with multiple sclerosis — has spoken publicly about her most recent NDIS plan, which cut her physiotherapy support from two hours per week to twelve hours per year. She prepared thorough evidence for her review. The MS Australia survey of 939 people found 61 per cent believe the NDIS does not understand their condition, and 42 per cent saw significant cuts after their most recent plan review.

"My new NDIS plan feels generic, as if it was copied from someone else rather than made for me," Watson said.

Shelly Lapel, who is legally blind and lives with complex PTSD, wanted to attend a recent protest rally against the proposed cuts. She could not. She could not afford a carer at weekend rates on her current plan — and had to stay home alone.

"I'm worried. I don't want to get too hopeful," she said, reflecting on what the eligibility changes might mean for her future access to the scheme.

These accounts matter not as anecdote, but as evidence of what inadequate planning and assessment can look like in practice — and why the quality of preparation before any assessment carries real consequences.

---

A Note on What This Inquiry Process Means

The Senate inquiry process is how legislation gets scrutinised independently of the government of the day. Multiple independent bodies — including the Human Rights Commission, the government's own advisory committee, and major health organisations — have formally raised concerns. That is the system working.

The bill has not been passed. As of June 2026, it is still subject to Senate inquiry, and the committee report will inform whether and how it proceeds. The government has set a target of passing the bill by the end of June, but that depends on the Coalition's support, which as of this writing has not been confirmed.

Whatever the legislative outcome, the direction of the NDIS is clear: the scheme is moving toward standardised functional capacity assessments, a more structured planning process, and greater emphasis on how disability affects everyday functioning rather than diagnosis alone. That is the framework that participants and carers need to prepare for.

---

What You Can Do Right Now

Your current plan is not affected. Nothing in the bill, whether passed or not, changes your existing plan before your next scheduled review. No one will be removed from the scheme or have their plan reduced as an immediate consequence of the bill's introduction.

Preparation remains your most powerful tool. The I-CAN v6 assessment is coming, and the more clearly you can articulate how your disability affects your daily life across all 12 functional domains, the more accurately the assessment can reflect your needs. This is true regardless of how the bill evolves.

Know your rights throughout the process. You are entitled to a support person at any assessment, to receive a copy of the assessment report, and to seek internal review and then merit review at the Administrative Review Tribunal if you disagree with an NDIA decision. If you believe an automated decision has been made incorrectly, the ART pathway remains available. See Your rights during the NDIS I-CAN v6 assessment process for a detailed guide.

Connect with an advocate if you have concerns. If you are worried about how the proposed changes may affect your specific circumstances — particularly if you have a psychosocial disability, a fluctuating or progressive condition, or live in a regional or remote area — contact a disability advocate before your next review. Independent advocacy is available through your state or territory organisation and through Disability Advocacy Network Australia (DANA).

Consider making a submission. If you are an NDIS participant, carer, or provider, the Senate inquiry process accepts public submissions. Having your experience on the record is part of how representative democracy works. Check aph.gov.au for the current inquiry details.

---

Where to Find Accurate, Ongoing Information

• ndis.gov.au — Official NDIA updates on the bill and timeline
• aph.gov.au — The Senate inquiry page, including all tabled documents and submissions
• health.gov.au — The Department of Health's updates on the reform consultation
• dana.org.au — Disability Advocacy Network Australia
• pwd.org.au — People With Disability Australia

---

ICANReady was built for this moment — to help participants and carers prepare their I-CAN v6 documentation clearly and thoroughly, across all 12 domains, before their assessment arrives. The clearer your preparation, the more accurately the assessment can reflect who you are and what you genuinely need.

Try ICANReady free →

---

This article draws on publicly available Senate tabling documents, inquiry submissions from the Australian Human Rights Commission (June 2026), People With Disability Australia (May 2026), Palliative Care Australia (June 2026), Treasury modelling tabled by the Department of Finance, ABC News (5 June 2026), The Saturday Paper (6 June 2026), 7NEWS (June 2026), and the Disability Support Guide / MS Australia survey report (May 2026).