NDIS Reform Bill Update — What the Senate Inquiry Found

A clear summary of what emerged from three days of hearings — and what comes next

Disclaimer: This article draws on publicly available testimony, submissions, and reports from the Senate inquiry into the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, as reported by ABC News, SMH, and UNSW as at 14 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.

---

The Senate inquiry into the NDIS reform bill held its public hearings from 9 to 12 June 2026 — three days, 4,000-plus written submissions received in just over a fortnight, and testimony from across the disability sector, government agencies, academic researchers, state and territory ministers, and individual participants and families.

The committee report is due Tuesday 17 June.

This article provides a clear, factual summary of what emerged during the hearings — and what the timeline looks like from here.

---

The 240,000 Figure Is Now Officially Confirmed

Before the inquiry, the government had stated publicly that its changes would result in 160,000 fewer people on the NDIS by 2031 compared to today. What was not clearly communicated was that this figure combined exits with projected new entrants.

During the inquiry hearings, departmental first assistant secretary Anthea Long provided a more complete breakdown:

• 240,000 current participants are projected to exit the NDIS over four years
• A further 110,000 people expected to join the scheme will instead be diverted
• This produces a total of approximately 350,000 fewer participants by 2031 compared to the scheme's projected trajectory without changes
• The scheme would reduce from a projected 940,000 participants in 2031 to approximately 600,000

Ms Long noted these were "high-level assumptions" and that more granular detail — including state-by-state breakdowns — had not yet been modelled.

This last point was significant. Independent Senator David Pocock asked how senators representing states and territories could be expected to support changes when the government could not say how many people in each jurisdiction would be affected.

---

States and Territories: A Joint Submission Against the Bill

All Australian state and territory disability ministers filed a joint submission to the inquiry — an unusual degree of unified state-federal opposition to a piece of legislation.

Their statement was direct:

"There is a significant risk that people with disability will end up in hospitals or other settings that are inappropriate and unable to meet their needs, or have no access to services at all."

The ministers noted they were "not in a position, and have made no agreement, to deliver like-for-like services to people who are exited from the NDIS." They described the pace of reform as focused "heavily on expenditure constraint, without a clearly defined broader ecosystem and with limited consultation," creating "a significant risk of fragmented service delivery."

The ministers called for amendments to limit the minister's new powers, require more granular analysis of the impact before proceeding, and establish meaningful ongoing consultation with state and territory governments.

Minister Butler characterised the joint submission as "extraordinary" given that state premiers had signed agreements to work toward NDIS cost reduction in January 2026. He said he was unsure what states were "trying to do." States responded that while they agreed to cost reduction in principle, the specific mechanisms in the bill were not what they had agreed to at the January National Cabinet meeting.

The Coalition's shadow NDIS minister, Melissa McIntosh, said state and territory unity on the issue was "a rare event" and that the concerns should be heeded.

---

Families and Children: The "Substantial Parental Responsibility" Concern

One theme that received significant attention during the inquiry's first day was a provision in the bill defining "substantial care and support" expected of parents of children with disability.

The bill's language states that parents would be responsible for providing "substantial care and support" — including supervision, personal care, behavioural support, and "other assistance... that, regardless of the child's disability, would reasonably be expected of a parent of a child of a similar age."

Children and Young People with Disability Australia chief executive Skye Kakoschke-Moore told the inquiry this provision risked putting families into crisis by expecting parents to provide the same level of care as a "team of skilled, qualified, experienced support workers."

She also flagged that families had already reported being told by NDIA staff that if they were unable to fulfil their parental responsibilities, they would be referred to child protection services. She said advocates feared this approach would be more frequently applied under the new language.

Deanne Burrows, a Victorian mother whose 16-year-old son Brodie is non-verbal and lives with complex intellectual disability and autism, described Brodie as requiring around-the-clock care including support with feeding, bathing, and communication. She said the possibility of having that support reduced was "a slap in the face," adding:

"Nobody sees what happens behind closed doors. The amount of work to support a child with disability is excessive."

---

Safety and Domestic Violence: The Community Participation Budget Concern

The inquiry also heard testimony about the potential safety consequences of the proposed 50 per cent cut to social and community participation budgets.

Australian Human Rights Commission Disability Discrimination Commissioner Rosemary Kayess told the inquiry that when asked whether sweeping cuts to people's community access budgets could place participants in unsafe situations, her answer was: "We know" it would.

She cited findings from the disability royal commission, which heard extensively that the worst abuse of people with disability occurred in closed and isolated settings.

"That's how they become vulnerable. They end up in either closed environments or isolated environments, and they are at risk of violence, abuse and exploitation."

Women With Disabilities Australia chief executive Sophie Cusworth described a specific scenario: a woman with disability whose social and community participation funding is her "only regular contact she has outside home" — enabling her to attend appointments, access the community, and be seen by people who notice if something is wrong.

"For women with disability, community participation is a safeguard. Under the bill, this category of support is reduced without regard to her circumstances and her isolation grows… the risk of violence increases and becomes easier to hide."

---

Women With Disability: A Disproportionate Impact

Research published by UNSW during the inquiry week provided academic context for the safety concerns: the proposed changes are likely to disproportionately affect women with disability in several interconnected ways.

Women are already significantly underrepresented in the NDIS relative to the population of people with disability — making up only 38 per cent of participants, with access requests from men approved at higher rates from age 15 onward.

The new eligibility rules, which require applicants to exhaust all "appropriate" treatments before accessing the scheme, are expected to create additional barriers for women specifically because:

• Women are more likely to have conditions that are medically difficult to diagnose or treat — including chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and other complex conditions
• Women with disability are more likely to live on lower incomes, making it harder to afford the treatments required to demonstrate exhaustion of options
• Women carry disproportionate caring responsibilities, reducing their capacity to navigate complex assessment and treatment pathways

Researchers also noted that the bill reverses changes made two years ago that allowed the NDIA to consider a person's whole experience of impairment, rather than only directly recognised conditions — a change that had improved access for people with complex, overlapping conditions.

---

What the Government Has Said in Response

Minister Butler, speaking after the inquiry hearings concluded, said he found the state and territory joint submission "extraordinary" but that he remained convinced the reform direction was right.

However, he indicated openness to adjustments:

"I'm not saying that there won't be any change. We've heard some ideas from the crossbench in the debate in the House of Representatives. I've certainly very much heard that people want greater reassurance about what won't change because of the reforms that we're putting in place."

NDIS Minister Jenny McAllister said the government would "action any unintended consequences" identified in the committee report, and reiterated that the NDIS "was never intended to be the only support system available for people with disability."

---

What Happens Next

The Senate report will be the most important document to watch. If it recommends substantial amendments — which the volume and breadth of concerns raised during hearings makes plausible — the government will need to decide whether to accept them, negotiate alternatives, or proceed with the bill in its current form and risk losing the crossbench support needed to pass it.

---

What This Means for You Right Now

Your current plan is not affected. Whether the bill passes, is amended, or is delayed, your existing NDIS plan remains valid until your next scheduled review. Nothing changes automatically.

The I-CAN v6 new planning framework starts from 1 April 2027. This is a separate track from the eligibility bill and is proceeding regardless of the reform bill's legislative status. Participants whose plans come up for review after April 2027 will encounter the new framework.

Preparation remains the most valuable action you can take. The trend of the NDIS — toward standardised functional capacity assessments and greater emphasis on clearly documented support needs — is consistent across all reform scenarios. Participants who understand the 12 I-CAN domains and can describe their genuine daily functional needs clearly and specifically are better positioned in any assessment, under any framework.

If you have concerns about how the proposed changes might affect your specific situation — particularly if you have a psychosocial disability, chronic or complex condition, are a family carer, or live in a regional or remote area — contact a disability advocate. Independent advocacy is available through your state or territory advocacy organisation and through Disability Advocacy Network Australia (DANA).

---

For the latest information on the NDIS reform bill, visit ndis.gov.au or the Senate inquiry page at aph.gov.au. Sources for this article: ABC News (9–14 June 2026), The Sydney Morning Herald (11 June 2026), UNSW Newsroom (June 2026), joint state and territory disability ministers' submission to the Senate inquiry (June 2026), departmental testimony to the Senate inquiry (June 2026).