Protecting the NDIS: What Needs to Change in the Government's NDIS Bill

Every Australian Counts’ proposed amendments

As at 23 June 2026

Every Australian Counts believes the NDIS must be sustainable, fair and centred on people with disability.

We support improving the Scheme, but we do not support changes that reduce supports, weaken rights or shift people into systems that are not ready to meet their needs.

That is why we are calling on Parliament to amend the NDIS Bill before it proceeds.

Our key position

The Bill should not pass in its current form.

Before major reforms move ahead:

People with disability and their representative organisations must be meaningfully involved in designing the changes.
Parliament and the public must be able to scrutinise the details of proposed rules, assessment tools and eligibility frameworks.
No participant should lose supports before alternative services are available and working.

Our proposed amendments

The summary below outlines our key concerns and priorities. For a detailed explanation of each proposed amendment and why it matters for people with disability, see the full amendment package at the end of this document.

1. Put the brakes on until the details are clear

We are calling for:

The Bill to be delayed and substantially redrafted.
More time for scrutiny through the Senate process.
Publication of draft Rules, assessment tools and other key instruments before Parliament votes.

People deserve to know how these changes will work before they become law.

2. No cuts before replacement supports exist

We want a legal safeguard that prevents:

NDIS access restrictions
Support reductions
Participant reassessments
Diversion into alternative systems

until foundational supports and mainstream services are fully funded, operational, accessible and enforceable.

No one should lose support before alternatives are available.

3. Stop powers that allow support cuts below need

We are calling for the removal of provisions that would allow governments to reduce supports below a person’s assessed needs.

At a minimum, any future changes must be:

Co-designed with people with disability
Subject to parliamentary scrutiny
Open to review and appeal
Supported by evidence and impact assessments

The NDIS should continue to provide support based on individual need, not budget targets.

4. Remove funding caps and support ratios that override individual needs

We oppose provisions that could allow:

Funding caps
Limits on support intensity
Limits on support hours
Worker-to-participant ratio caps

where these would leave people without the support they need to live safely and participate in the community.

No cap should prevent a participant receiving 1:1 or 2:1 support when it is necessary.

5. Protect participant choice and control

We are calling for participant-directed planning principles to remain in the NDIS Act.

These principles are central to the original vision of the NDIS and ensure participants remain at the centre of decision-making.

6. Fix the proposed functional capacity assessment model

The proposed eligibility framework raises significant concerns.

We are calling for:

Clear definitions to be included in legislation.
Recognition of environmental, social, geographic and personal factors.
Consideration of fatigue, distress and deterioration.
Independent validation of any assessment framework.
Rights to review and appeal decisions.

Disability cannot be understood through a narrow medical lens.

7. Protect bodily autonomy and access rights

We oppose requirements that could force people to pursue treatments they cannot access, afford or do not wish to undertake.

People should not lose access to the NDIS because they choose not to undergo particular treatments.

8. Retain whole-of-person supports

We oppose changes that would limit supports only to those directly linked to a specific impairment.

People live whole lives.

The NDIS should continue recognising the real-world impact of disability across all aspects of daily life.

9. Stop people being pushed into systems that cannot support them

We are calling for stronger safeguards before anyone is diverted away from the NDIS.

Governments should be required to demonstrate that alternative systems are:

Funded
Accessible
Available
Legally responsible for providing support

before participants can be redirected.

10. Embed co-design and human rights protections

We are calling for:

Formal co-design obligations.
Compliance with Australia’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Ongoing consultation with people with disability and representative organisations.

Nothing about us without us.

11. Create stronger safeguards against harm

We support stronger independent oversight across the disability system.

This includes reforms that allow investigations into whether government decisions or failures have contributed to participant harm.

Additional amendments we support

Gender equity

Require:

Gender Impact Assessments.
An NDIS gender strategy.
Measures to address impacts on women, girls and gender-diverse people with disability.

Informal supports and unpaid care

Remove provisions that assume families and carers can absorb disability support needs.

The NDIS should not rely on unpaid care to fill funding gaps.

Value for money provisions

Ensure cost considerations cannot override:

Individual needs
Clinical evidence
Participant outcomes
Lived experience

Reassessments and plan renewals

Protect:

Participant-requested reassessments.
Review rights.
Opportunities to challenge unsafe or outdated plans.

Suspensions and revocations

Require:

Accessible communication.
Reasonable contact attempts.
Risk assessments.
Adequate notice periods.

People should not lose supports because communication systems fail.

Automated decision-making

Limit automation to low-risk administrative functions.

Guarantee human decision-making and review rights for decisions affecting access, supports, debts or eligibility.

Debts and penalties

Protect participants, families and nominees acting in good faith.

Administrative mistakes should not become punishment.

Provider registration

Target fraud and misconduct without undermining:

Self-management and self directed supports
Participant choice
Trusted support relationships

Include a self directed registration category so that participants who self direct their supports can continue to exercise choice and control and maintain individualised support arrangements.

Independent regulation

Ensure safeguarding and compliance powers remain independent from the NDIA.

Shared decision-making

Require major NDIS decisions to involve:

State and territory governments
Parliamentary oversight
People with disability and representative organisations

Remove broad ministerial powers

Delete provisions that allow future changes to the operation of the Act through delegated powers without proper parliamentary scrutiny.

What we’re fighting for

We support a sustainable NDIS.

But sustainability cannot be achieved by creating unmet need, reducing individual supports, shifting costs onto families or removing participant rights.

The NDIS was built on the principles of choice, control, fairness and dignity.

These amendments would help ensure those principles remain at the heart of the Scheme for future generations.

#ProtectOurNDIS #EveryAustralianCounts

Proposed Amendment Technical Details

Priority	Issue	Suggested amendment	Reason
1	Do not pass in current form	Move that the Bill be delayed and substantially redrafted before passage.	The Bill makes major structural changes without adequate consultation, risk assessments, safeguards, impact analysis (include gender), CRPD compliance, co-governance or implementation readiness.
2	Sequencing safeguard	Insert a commencement condition: no access restriction, support reduction, reassessment or diversion from the NDIS until foundational supports and relevant mainstream alternatives are funded, operational, and accessible.	EAC and other submissions identify a central flaw: cuts and restrictions are being legislated before replacement supports exist.
3	Delete support reduction power	Delete proposed s 34A (Item 34, Part 4, Schedule 1 of the Bill). At minimum, prohibit funding below the assessed cost of reasonable and necessary supports and require Category A Rules, impact analysis, disallowance, merits review safeguards, and ensure parliamentary oversight through the NDIS Joint Standing Committee.	s 34A permits legislated unmet need in the absence of responsibility for individual risk and safety consideration, and allows population-level reductions below assessed support need.
4	Delete s 33(2EA) funding, intensity and ratio caps	Delete Item 68 of Schedule 1, Part 6 of the Bill, which inserts proposed sections 33(2EA) and 33(2EB). At minimum, amend these provisions so that no determination can impose: • a maximum funding amount; • a maximum intensity, frequency or duration of support; or • a maximum worker-to-participant ratio where doing so would create safety risks by reducing a participant’s funding below the amount required to meet their individually assessed support needs. Any such determination should be subject to Category A Rule safeguards, state and territory agreement, parliamentary oversight through the NDIS joint Standing Committee, co-design with people with disability and representative organisations, publication of draft instruments, reasons, evidence, participant impact analysis, human rights analysis, disallowance and merits review. The Bill should also make clear that no cap or ratio can be used to prevent or reduce 1:1 or 2:1 support where that support is necessary for the participant’s safety, dignity, autonomy, health, housing stability, employment or participation.	Caps override individual need, entrench group models and risk unsafe service gaps, particularly for people with complex support needs.
5	Retain s 31	Delete item 66 (Part 6 of Schedule 1 of the Bill) so participant-directed planning principles remain in the NDIS Act.	Repealing s 31 weakens choice, control and individualised planning, and shifts the Scheme towards centralised fiscal control.
6	Functional capacity	Delete or redraft s 9B (Item 4, Part 1, Schedule 1 of the Bill) to include, in the primary legislation, definitions of key constructs against which eligibility will be tested, including ‘activity’ and ‘whole of activity’ ; and ensure functional capacity includes environmental, social, personal and geographic factors, and the personal cost of functioning, including fatigue, distress and deterioration. Delay legislative provisions establishing functional capacity assessments until there is clear evidence that a suitable framework can be developed and implemented fairly, reliably and equitably. Any future functional capacity assessment framework should include provisions for appeals avenues and independent assessment in Administrative Review Tribunal proceedings, ensuring applicants have access to impartial expert evaluation of functional capacity when eligibility decisions are contested.	The current definition risks catastrophically narrowing the threshold for NDIS access, re-medicalising disability, and excluding the real-world circumstances that shape support need. Parliament is being asked to approve a legislative framework to determine NDIS eligibility before the assessment methodology has been proven possible, conceptually or in practice. Legislative reform should follow proven eligibility assessment design, not assume it. Given the significance of the eligibility decisions that will be informed by these functional assessments, implementation risk should be subject to independent scrutiny before legislative authority is granted.
7	Permanence and treatment	Delete or substantially redraft Part 8 Schedule 1 of the Bill (including proposed s 25A (item 92). Do not require people to exhaust unaffordable, unavailable or inappropriate treatment before access is recognised.	The current approach risks reverse means-testing, undermines bodily autonomy and risks coercive treatment expectations; and disproportionately affects people who can’t access specialists or retrieve historical treatment records, and those in regional and remote areas.
8	Whole-of-person supports	Delete Schedule 1 Part 3 of the Bill and items 6 and 10 of Schedule 4 I t that require supports to directly arise from the access impairment.	Participants need support as whole people. Narrow impairment-by-impairment funding ignores real life and reverses recent rights-based changes.
9	Alternative systems	Delete Schedule 1 Part 9 (including proposed s 25B (item 97), or require proof that any alternative system is legally responsible, available, accessible and capable of meeting reasonable and necessary support needs.	People must not be diverted to services that do not exist, are not funded or are not legally required to meet need.
10	CRPD, monitoring and co-design	Insert a statutory obligation to closely consult with and actively involve people with disability and representative organisations in all Rules, tools, pilots, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. Require CRPD Article 4(3) compliant co-design with people with disability and their representative organisations in the development of all Rules, assessment frameworks and implementation measures.	This gives legislative effect to Australia’s CRPD obligations and responds to the absence of meaningful consultation. Current reform efforts lack independent, systemic oversight.
11	Harm monitoring and minimisation	Separate the NDIS Commission as a regulatory body from the NDIA and transition towards the Disability Commission to allow investigations to capture whether actions of state or federal departments have contributed to participant harm in addition to monitoring and registering providers.	Currently the NDIS commission is unable to investigate whether the actions or policies of the NDIA have contributed to harm or death when investigating issues.

Additional amendments by theme

Theme	Suggested amendment	Why it matters
Gender impact	Require a Gender Impact Assessment before passage and for all new Rules. Require an NDIS gender strategy and mitigation plan for women, girls and gender-diverse people with disability.	That the Bill satisfies the Government’s own criteria for a mandatory Gender Impact Assessment. The Bill risks shifting unpaid care onto women and deepening existing inequities.
Informal supports and parental responsibility	Remove informal supports from the reasonable and necessary test, or substantially redraft proposed ss 34(1G)-34(1K) (inserted by item 73, Part 6 of Schedule 1) and related provisions to prevent unsafe reliance on unpaid care.	The Bill risks assuming that families, parents and carers can absorb disability support needs, with foreseeable gendered and safety impacts.
Value for money and evidence hierarchy	Remove or redraft proposed “value-for-money” (ss34(1A)-(1D) and “effective and beneficial considerations” provisions (ss 34(1E) and (1F) – (see item 734, part 6) so they cannot override individual outcomes, lived experience, treating clinician evidence or innovative supports.	Rigid evidence rankings and cheaper-support comparisons risk pushing people into inappropriate supports and group-based models.
Reassessments and renewals	Remove the “unanticipated” requirement from subsection 48A(3) (Item 21, Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Bill. Preserve participant-requested reassessment rights, reinstate deemed refusal review rights where the CEO fails to decide within time, and ensure automatic renewals do not lock in outdated plans. Amend Part 5 of Schedule 1 of the Bill to: (a) give the participant a reasonable opportunity to provide feedback on and request changes to the renewed plan (which the CEO must consider, acting reasonably), and (b) make the renewed plan, and any decisions made pursuant to the amendment recommended in paragraph (a) above, subject to merits review.	Participants need practical and reviewable pathways to respond to changed circumstances and unsafe plans.
Suspension and revocation	Remove immediate revocation for non-contact. Define “reasonable attempts” to contact, require accessible communication, provide at least 28 days after receipt, and require risk assessment before suspension or revocation.	People must not lose NDIS access because communication methods are inaccessible, unstable or unsuitable.
Automated decision-making	Limit automated decision-making to low-risk administrative matters only. Guarantee human decision-making, reasons and merits review for any decision affecting access, plans, claims, debts, reassessment, suspension or revocation.	Robodebt lessons require clear limits, transparency and human accountability in high-impact human services decisions.
Debts and civil penalties	Protect participants, families and nominees who act in good faith. Make debt decisions reviewable. Allow waiver where record failures are reasonable in the circumstances. Exempt participants from disproportionate civil penalties.	Administrative burden should not become a punishment regime for people with disability and families.
Provider registration	Accept the Taskforce advice that not all providers must be registered. Co-design provider, self-directed support and worker registration reforms. Remove or redraft provisions that undermine self-management and self-directed supports.	Provider regulation should target risk and misconduct without removing participant choice or access to trusted supports.
Regulatory powers	Place regulatory and civil remedy powers with the NDIS Commission rather than expanding NDIA’s role as planner, funder and regulator.	This avoids conflicts of role and supports independent safeguarding.
Co-governance and Category A Rules	Require Category A Rules and state and territory agreement and parliamentary oversight for major instruments with policy or fiscal consequences, including support reductions, eligibility frameworks and functional capacity assessment, pricing, and alternative supports.	The NDIS is a shared scheme. Major decisions should not be centralised in the Commonwealth Minister.
Henry VIII power	Delete Schedule 5 transitional rule-making powers that allow the Minister to alter the effect of the Act by legislative instrument.	Primary legislation should be amended by Parliament, not by broad delegated powers.

News hub