Commentary on: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
The Government is aiming to make significant changes to the NDIS Act 2013. Public consultation about the changes ends on May 29. The link is below if youwould like to have your say: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/NDISFutureGenBill
I am taking a moment to share some of my concerns and considerations about the changes. The bill amendments are over 100 pages in of themselves. However, I will endeavour to make it as succinct as possible. Before I do that, I want to do something that I am not seeing a lot of when it comes to commentary about disability and that is acknowledge my conflict of interest and my bias. I currently provide services that are eligible for NDIS funding, so changes to the NDIS Act will impact me financially. In addition, I can only speak for myself and my understanding of what the impacts could happen. People's disability-related needs are complex, multifaceted, and what some people would like may not align with my own thoughts.
1. The Bill name is loaded and sends a pretty strong message about the government's intent.
2. The Bill aims to reverse some of the recent court rulings involving NDIS.
For example: NDIA vs Sutherland indicated that a person doesn't have to show that other government or agency support cannot support them. This will change to it now being a requirement that you have to show that another government or agency cannot support you as part of accessing NDIS.
Another example: NDIA v Eastham and previous changes in 2024 where the NDIS needed to consider the whole person in funding supports. As part of the changes, the NDIS will no longer need to consider the whole person in funding supports and only consider what is directly related to their disability.
My concerns are related to understanding the social model of disability and whether it is even possible to truly separate their NDIS-funded disability from their other needs. For example, a person with Autism and ADHD - it would be almost impossible to separate executive functioning challenges related to their Autism vs executive functioning challenges related to ADHD.
3. Cuts to the number of NDIS participants.
This is the issue that has gained the most traction in the media. We already know a large number of 0-8 year old children will be removed from NDIS for Thriving Kids. However, the number of people who will exit the NDIS system or are new and previously would have been eligible but will no longer be eligible will be 241 000 people by 2031.
To put it in another perspective, as of June 30, 2025 (the numbers are updated yearly), there were 739 414 people accessing NDIS. According to the 2022 ABS Census, approximately 3.2 million people aged 0-64 have a disability. 1.464 million people required assistance (I couldn't find figures for 0-64 years only, so this figure also includes above 65). On balance, the NDIS currently only service approximately half of Australians with a disability. And they want to cut this further.
4. Funding and supports will be based on "arising directly from an impairment or impairments."
It is a subtle wording change, but with significant ramifications. Currently, participants receive funding for their impairment and due to life and environmental circumstances. People with disability are more vulnerable to the affects of adverse life experiences and the negative socio-cultural aspects of living with a disability. There is significant risk to increasing psychosocial adversity, mental health problems, and being able to access the right support in a timely, responsive manner.
In addition, it could have a flow on effect with how providers can provide a service. For example, if am working with an autistic child on developing their regulation skills and social communication skills and they have an adverse life experience such as a death in the family - I may not be able to support the child with this as this issue is not directly related to autism.
5. Tests are based on functional capacity. Funding and supports are related to functional capacity and cannot be for other reasons.
People who become disabled for reasons such as motor vehicle accidents or workplace incidents will no longer be eligible for NDIS.
This is because the NDIS want to introduce the controversial ICAN tool. This tool will be used by people employed by NDIS to interview participants as part of a review and the tool will decide what supports participants can access. Evidence from providers will no longer be considered. However, the NDIS want evidence from providers that the service is value for money, evidence-based, and outcomes focused. This will shape service providers to being more outcomes focused and short-term. If they can't prove the participant is benefiting, then the funding will likely be removed. It disregards the fact that people's disabilities are lifelong and fluctuate over time. For example, A provider can be doing amazing work with a participant, but the participant suddenly experiences many personal issues that could impact on outcomes (e.g., multiple surgeries in a short time period, getting fired from their job and needing to look for work).
Many 'evidence-based' treatments can be harmful to people. ABA is an example of an evidence-based treatment that has caused a lot of trauma in the autistic community. If ABA becomes a recommended 'evidence-based treatment,' then we risk traumatising and retraumatising. The NDIS have also been strong in advocating for reducing restrictive practices. However, some restrictive practices are evidence-based. For example, behavioural interventions that include a consequence of removal of a gaming device as part of helping to incentivise the desired behaviour is considered evidence-based. However, this is a restrictive practice.
Many good practice supports are not evidence-based. There is a ying-yang between research-based and practice-based. Research related to many Many good practices and paradigms are emerging, and yet to have the the time needed for rigorous and repeated research to be conducted to make it a strong 'evidence-based' practice. There are some disabilities that are rare enough that there aren't enough people to study to evaluate whether a treatment is effective. In these situations, what is 'evidence-based' doesn't exist.
NDIS will require people with disabilities try all appropriate treatment before they can access the NDIS. It is required to be evidence based, improve, reverse, or alleviate the impairment, and regularly performed in Australia. This doesn't work for people with neurodevelopmental disabilities (e.g., autism, intellectual developmental disorder. Other disorders that NDIS don't recognise such as Tourette's, Language/Communication disorders, Developmental Coordination Disorder). Nothing will 'cure' or 'treat' their disability. For autistic people in particular, there is a social shift away from autism being something we need to "treat." Waiting for all appropriate treatments also creates a wait to fail approach or increased distress/trauma for the disabled person as they aren't accessing the supports they need.
NDIS will also identify whether another service or agency can provide the support instead of them. A situation that I could see become worse is participants being asked to get a mental health care plan to see a psychologist for matters related to their disability. For example, autism and intellectual developmental disorder are not treatable mental health disorders under a mental health care plan. Therefore, accessing a mental health care plan for these disabilities can be considered fraudulent.
Functional capacity is about what you can and can't do without support. If a tool improves, reverses, or alleviates the impairment, then your functional capacity has improved. A simple example is someone who has difficulties accessing public transport and has a special add-on installed on their wheelchair. Their functional capacity has improved, and therefore needs less funding or may no longer be eligible for NDIS. It completely ignores the fact that disability is lifelong and fluctuates. Your personal circumstance also does not matter. This will have the greatest impact for rural and remote people. It also doesn't matter if say a autistic child's emotional dysregulation gets worse or their stimming behaviours increase or become harmful because you moved homes or they started getting bullied at school.
6. Funding cuts for Improved Daily Living (e.g., therapies) and Social, Civic and Community Participation Funding
Improved daily living will be cut by 10% and social participation funding will be cut by 50% when your plan is reassessed.
7. NDIS decision-making prioritises value for money over what is reasonable and necessary. Choice and control no longer matters when the decision impacts the NDIS 'financial sustainability.'
Even if a support or resource is indicated as reasonable and necessary, if it is not in the "financial sustainability of the NDIS" they may deny the funding.
It may also impact on what services NDIS participants can access. For example, the maximum rate that NDIS will pay for a psychology service is currently $234.83. The maximum rate that NDIS will pay for an occupational therapist is $193.99. What would stop NDIS from deciding that they won't fund psychology because occupational therapy is cheaper. This is despite psychologists and occupational therapists support people differently.
There is wording in the bill regarding NDIS consider what is 'financially sustainable.' However, there is nothing on when the NDIS will be 'financially sustainable' or when the NDIS has successfully been secured for future generations.
8. Targeted reductions in funding.
The minister or NDIS will have power to reduce funding for a group of supports for an amount less than 100%. In other words, remove funding altogether. This will link back to point 5, where they may remove a group of supports if it is not in the financial sustainability of the NDIS. Examples of groups of supports are therapeutic supports, disability accommodation, support coordination, hearing services, prosthetics, group activities.
9. Everyone will roll into the new framework plans, with implications for those on current framework plans.
When you are towards the end of your plan, the NDIS can decide to place you on the new framework plan. Most supports will just roll over. However, if you have one-off supports, that funding will disappear. A forseeable issue I have thought of is related to core supports. If someone is approved to purchase a one-off core support and the item is ordered but yet to be paid for. If the person is rolled over to the new plan and the funding disappears, how will the participant pay for the core support?
The NDIS can also take their time with notifying you. The wording in the bill states that they have to notify you as soon as practicable, but also states that it can be more than 7 days. So you could be rolled into a new framework plan and have no idea. This could be significantly disruptive if you have ongoing supports.
Being transitioned onto the new framework plan cannot be reviewed.
The date the new framework plan starts or any changes to your funding is the day prior to the decision being made. For providers, this means that if a service is provided on the day of the new plan and that service is cut in the new plan, the provider will not be able to bill NDIS and may invoice you as a private rate.
If you are rolled over to a new plan and you don't use all of your funding, that funding will be gone in your new plan. For example, if you have $10 000 for Improved Daily Living but you only used $7 000 of it, your new plan will only be for a maximum of $7 000. This doesn't consider factors such as gaps in service and trying to engage in new service providers, or personal circumstances that prevented you from accessing the service.
10. Plan reviews changes - reductions and focus on functional impairment.
Plan reviews are necessary due to individual circumstances. However, the NDIS want to remove the time, cost, backlog, and administration burden of plan reviews.
Plan reviews can no longer be instigated by the providers whom work with you or your plan managers. This matters especially for children and their developmental changes. I have had clients who had a plan when they were in primary school and it is the same one and they have nearly completed high school. A 12 year old child's needs are going to be vastly different from a 17 year old.
If you run out of funding and request a review, it will be denied.
11. More power to the Minister without oversight.
The new bill will give the minister (currently Jenny McAllister) to have powers such as creating whatever transitional rules she likes in rolling out the changes to the NDIS Act. There will be some limitations such as the rules only lasting 12 months, and they can't create an offense, penalty, tax, or amend another act. The minister will also have the power to decide the pricing guide and the rules of plans and alterations of plans, which will give the power to overule the Monash Medical Model, which is currently used in the decision making. The NDIS review recommended pricing decisions should be made by an independent authority due to conflict of interest. This recommendation has been ignored.
The minister will also have power to decide if something is not appropriate to be funded by NDIS. This is in relation to deciding whether an alternative service provides the support that someone is requesting.
The minister will have the power to decide how personnel authorised to monitor and investigate will perform their duties.
The "safeguard" to this is that the Minister must have regard to the safety of the participants. However, safety is not defined by the NDIS ACT, so we have no idea what safety parameters must be considered.
11. Hiring of NDIA inspectors and NDIA investigators
NDIA will now have it's own enforcement and investigation powers of providers and participants from the day the bill passes. Currently, the NDIA can only issue compliance notices and infringement notices.
For providers, this means that NDIA inspectors and investigators can visit you at any site relevant to your place of business and perform a walk in inspection, verify documentation, and review claims. In some situations, they can do this without a warrant. They will have the power to compel providers to provide access to digital devices (e.g., you are required to give them your password to your computer) and seize digital devices.
This is going to be less relevant for participants, as the powers are much more limited. Self-managed participants are the ones who are most likely to be affected, as there are rules around participants misusing NDIS money.
12. Mandatory registration of some services could be a false sense of security
Supported Independent Living and platform providers will be required to be registered with NDIA. This is likely to be expanded in the future. Most fraud being detected has been NDIA-managed participants - so the NDIA themselves are missing fraud themselves. One could say this is partially affected by their limited powers. Even so, they aren't even effectively applying the powers they currently have.
If this were to be expanded to therapy providers, allied health providers are either registered with AHPRA or are self-governing. The professional and ethical requirements to be a registered allied health provider will be far higher then what would be required to be registered with NDIA. It is an unnecessary duplication that could lead to participants believing that they are safer if providers are NDIA registered.
My speculation is that the NDIS and government are disliking the significant growth in sole-traders such as myself and the growth in participants choosing sole-traders and small businesses over larger providers. So they just want to kill this altogether. It isn't financially sustainable for a sole-trader to register with NDIA. For example, who has a spare $10-15 000 to be audited? This cost can be much more easily burdened by larger providers.
One change I do like is plan managed providers will not be able to offer any other services. This removes conflict of interest and risk of harm to participants. For example, participants being too afraid to speak up if they are abused by their service provider for fear of retaliation through their plan manager.
13. Reducing claim times and increasing new participant waits.
Providers will only have 90 days between the date of service and making a claim. This is from 2 years. This will financially impact small providers who can spend significant time chasing up invoices from self-managed and plan managed clients who may be avoiding paying or getting bounced around by the plan manager.
New participants may now have to wait up to 90 days (up from 21 days) to consider an access request. My speculation is that the NDIS find that 21 days is impossible. So instead of changing the system or hiring more personnel, it is easier to just increase the time they need to process and decide new access requests.
14. Automation is here. The scope is limited...for now
The NDIS will be implementing automated tools. Currently the scope is limited. For example, when the new claims portal comes online, the NDIS will be able to use automation to reject claims (e.g., if the participant has run out of funds), automation of new plans when it is rolled over, automation of compliance notices and infringement notices. The NDIS CEO has oversight of decisions made by automated tools and can investigate and overrule. The NDIS CEO can also review their own decisions, which is a conflict of interest.
The concern is that the wording in the new bill doesn't specify what NDIS can and cannot use automation on.My speculation is that it is worded vaguely so they can more easily implement automated review tools such as the controversial ICAN assessment.
15. There is more, but I'm mindful of the length of outlining some of my concerns.
My Impressions of the NDIS Changes and "Thriving Kids"
Note: I use the terms autism and autistic as this language is more commonly referred to by the autistic community. I acknowledge that some people in the autistic community prefer identity-first language.
A new Code of Conduct for Psychologists comes into effect on December 1. Psychologists must: "participate in efforts to promote the psychological wellbeing of the community." As such, I believe I have a responsibility to promote the wellbeing of those that I most commonly work with.
The Federal Government announced changes to those who can access NDIS from 2027. Those under the age of 18 who have "mild" to "moderate" levels of autism and developmental delays will be transition to the Thriving Kids program.
This announcement has already caused a lot of stress and anxiety from within the community. What the government has announced has the potential to do significant harm to the wellbeing of those affected. Autistic people in particular benefit from consistency, clarity, and fairness. Not only is this announcement unexpected, but there are limited details about this plan making what is going to happen extremely unclear.
The Australian Government in their announcement used language to describe Autism that is outdated, and essentially wrong. Terms such as "mild" and "moderate" are not used because they are essentially meaningless. This language is not used by either diagnostic manual - DSM-5 or ICD-11. Autism is a lifelong disorder, with each autistic person's characteristics being unique and can fluctuate over their life. This means that autistic people who are considered "mild" can appear to "fit in" with society better, but may have more profound difficulties in other areas in their life that may not be as visible. The terms "mild" and "moderate" can be great terms to use when you really want to say "your problems are not that bad." It is evident that many people in our political landscape would benefit from upskilling in neurodiversity, autism, and what it means to be neurodivergent.
The Australian Government have made some suggestions of what Thriving Kids might look like. For example, Inklinks and PACT programs have been suggested. These programs should be treated with caution. These programs have only been around for a few years and lack the long term studies to show their benefit as well as risks. In addition, many people in the community are concerned about these programs as there is an underlying assumption that autistic behaviours can be reduced. Autism is a lifelong disability. As such, although non autistic children could potentially benefit from these programs, all it may be teaching autistic children (and yet to be diagnosed) is how to mask and camouflage. The concern with masking is that this leads to Autistic burnout, which is linked to a decline in wellbeing, increased risk of medical and safety problems, and increased suicidality later in life.
Another suggestion was utilising Medicare services and taking on more of a role in delivering services to autistic children and children with developmental delays. Whilst this may be helpful for some families, I am cautious about whether this will be fully funded and that families will be able to access the services at a frequency that would make positive progress for their child. There is currently ongoing debate whether the Medicare rebate properly services those seeking medical and/or mental health support.
I am mindful that we need to wait for more information before jumping to any conclusions about what this may or may not look like. My desire is for autistic children and children with developmental delays to receive the level of support they need in order to do well in the world. We need this support to be evidence based, affordable for any family to access, include the voices of those with lived experience and those who work tirelessly to support our children with disability, and not lean too heavily on whom talks the loudest.
A key recommendation of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability is to make Australia more inclusive and increased emphasis on "Nothing about us, without us." Has this already been forgotten?
I will be expecting the following to occur (though it is already happening):
- The media being used to whitewash the issue. We don't really have great data related to disability and conclusions are being made on misleading or unrepresentative data. This is risky as decisions made tend to lean towards more of a "one size fits all" approach. It also misses important concerns from those who do not access certain services (both providers and people accessing services).
- Minimisation of autistic people's concerns and issues.
- Increased ableism through the language being utilised by the Federal Government and in the media.
- Community backlash towards autistic persons and children with developmental delays.
- Increased stress from providers who have to consider significant changes to their business models.
- Increased stress and anxiety in schools. There are going to be children may no longer be eligible for services that significantly benefit them and benefit their school functioning. The Australian Government have been clear in wanting education systems to pick up more of the work in supporting children with disabilities. However, what this looks like and what the states will agree to is unclear.
I will continue to support my clients and will continue to advocate for people with disability(s) in the best way that I can.
Carl Tolomei
Created - August 27, 2025.
Last Updated - August 27, 2025