Will the New NDIS Law Leave People Behind?

By Denis Hay  

The new NDIS law changes eligibility, plans and funding. Learn who may lose support, what safeguards exist and what Australia should do next.

Introduction

For many Australians with disability, the National Disability Insurance Scheme is the foundation of an ordinary life. It can provide the assistance needed to leave home, communicate, study, work, build relationships and live with greater independence.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Act 2026 now changes how that support will be allocated.

The legislation passed Parliament on 19 August 2026 and received Royal Assent on 20 August. Some provisions begin on 27 August 2026, while major eligibility and planning reforms will be introduced gradually through 2028.

The government says the new NDIS law will protect the scheme, improve consistency and tackle fraud. Disability organisations agree that reform is necessary, but they warn that tighter eligibility and lower support budgets could expose people to harm if suitable services are not available elsewhere.

That concern must be taken seriously. A reform cannot be called successful merely because it reduces federal expenditure. It must also protect the safety, rights and independence of the people affected.

Quick Answer

Yes, the new NDIS law could leave some people behind.

The greatest risk is not that the NDIS will disappear. It will continue operating and its total expenditure is still expected to grow. The danger is that people may lose individualised support before mainstream or foundational services are ready to meet their needs.

The legislation also contains worthwhile measures. It strengthens action against provider fraud, bans certain kickbacks, improves whistleblower protection and adds safeguards for some participants requiring continuous care.

Whether the reform is fair will depend on how future rules are written, how assessments are conducted and whether governments build reliable alternatives before moving people out of the scheme.

What Does the New NDIS Law Change?

The Act changes access, planning, funding, claims, provider regulation and compliance. The reforms will not all begin at once.

The official NDIS implementation timetable sets out the following stages:

Important details are still being developed through rules, assessment methods and ministerial instruments. Participants therefore need clear notice, accessible information and meaningful opportunities to influence implementation.

Why Does the Government Say Reform Is Necessary?

The government points to three genuine problems: rapid expenditure growth, inconsistent decisions and exploitation by dishonest providers.

The 2026–27 Federal Budget says the reform package will save $37.8 billion over four years. It also provides $2 billion for Thriving Kids as part of a broader $5 billion foundational-support commitment that states and territories are expected to match.

Fraud and poor regulation must be addressed. Public money intended for people with disability should not be lost to false claims, inflated prices, kickbacks or unsafe services.

The Act responds by creating stronger offences for deception and false information, banning certain inducements, improving whistleblower protection and expanding enforcement powers. These changes can protect participants as well as public resources.

However, action against dishonest providers should not be confused with reductions to legitimate participant support. They are different policy measures and must be assessed separately.

Who Is Most at Risk of Being Left Behind?

People Whose Disabilities Are Difficult to Measure

From January 2028, access will depend more heavily on a standardised assessment of functional capacity rather than diagnosis alone.

Assessing actual need can be fairer than assuming everyone with the same diagnosis has the same experience. Yet a standardised tool may miss important differences, including:

• episodic psychosocial disability;
• autism or intellectual disability that presents differently across settings;
• chronic pain, fatigue or cognitive impairment;
• trauma and communication barriers;
• cultural and language differences;
• the ability to complete a task once but not safely or repeatedly; and
• unpaid assistance already being provided by an exhausted family member.

Health Minister Mark Butler has said the reforms are expected to reduce participant numbers from about 760,000 to 600,000 by 2030. He also acknowledged that adults and older children with lower assessed support needs may move to services outside the NDIS. His April 2026 policy explanation stressed that those alternative systems must be rebuilt alongside the eligibility changes.

A sound assessment must consider what a person can do reliably, safely and over time. It must also distinguish genuine independence from dependence hidden by unpaid care.

Participants Who Rely on Social and Community Support

The Act allows the minister to make support determinations that reduce funding in specified categories. The government intends to use this power to reset social, civic and community participation and some capacity-building budgets.

Social participation is sometimes discussed as though it were entertainment. In practice, it may enable a person to attend appointments, shop, volunteer, study, work, form friendships and remain connected to the wider community.

Reducing that assistance can increase isolation and dependence. It may also place more pressure on family carers, hospitals, mental-health services and crisis programs.

The government’s final amendments fact sheet says support determinations will not apply to several critical areas. These include personal care, home and vehicle modifications, mobility equipment, transport, specified consumables and Specialist Disability Accommodation. Certain high-intensity and complex supports are also excluded.

Those protections are valuable, but they do not make participation support dispensable. Human wellbeing involves more than physical survival.

People Waiting for Foundational Supports

The NDIS was never intended to replace accessible health, education, housing, transport and community services. People who do not qualify for individual NDIS plans should still be able to obtain appropriate assistance elsewhere.

The problem is that these other systems are often fragmented, underfunded or difficult to access. A program with a long waiting list is not an effective replacement. Nor is a community service useful if it lacks trained staff, accessible transport or stable funding.

A coalition of disability representative organisations supported reform in principle but warned that it should not proceed without stronger safeguards, transparent modelling and operational alternative supports. Their joint submission to the Senate inquiry reflected concern across a broad section of the disability community.

No participant should lose essential assistance on the assumption that another service will eventually appear.

Participants Affected by Automated Administration

The Act permits computer systems to perform some administrative actions, including elements of claims and payment processing. The NDIA says decisions requiring judgement or discretion will remain with human decision-makers and that information about automated systems must be published.

Automation can reduce routine paperwork. It can also reproduce an error across thousands of cases unless strong safeguards exist.

Any automated action affecting a participant should provide:

1. an understandable explanation;
2. disclosure that automation was used;
3. prompt access to human reconsideration;
4. accessible assistance to challenge mistakes;
5. independent testing for bias and harmful outcomes; and
6. public reporting on errors and overturned decisions.

The lesson from Robodebt is clear. Administrative efficiency can never excuse unlawful, unfair or unaccountable decision-making.

The earlier paragraph remains accurate, but the transcript justifies a stronger replacement. Michael West raises an important cross-agency data-sharing concern; however, it remains unproven that Palantir currently receives or processes NDIS participant data.

Palantir, Data Sharing and the Need for Transparency

Freedom of Information documents reveal that Palantir held extended discussions with the NDIA about possible fraud-detection, payment and “insider threat” applications. The NDIA says these discussions produced no contract, that it has never used Palantir technology and that it has no plans to do so.

Concerns nevertheless remain because Palantir already supplies data-analysis technology to Australian agencies, including AUSTRAC. This raises an unanswered question: could NDIS information shared with another government agency be processed through Palantir systems?

There is currently no published evidence proving that this has occurred. Nevertheless, participants deserve complete disclosure of which organisations and technologies can access their information, how automated actions are generated, and how incorrect decisions can be challenged by a human reviewer.

Sources: NDIA FOI documents, Guardian investigation.

What Protections Were Added to the Law?

Public submissions and parliamentary negotiations led to several improvements:

• a participant can seek review if the NDIA does not decide an unscheduled reassessment request within 90 days;
• foreseeable changes in living, education, work or informal support can support a reassessment request;
• decision-makers must consider possible harm to family relationships and informal carers when assessing reasonable and necessary supports;
• participants requiring continuous 24-hour care can seek a plan variation after a support determination affects them;
• several critical, high-intensity and specialised supports are excluded from support determinations;
• participants can provide alternative evidence when required financial records are unavailable;
• debt notices must explain why a debt exists and allow time for a response; and
• stronger anti-kickback, fraud and whistleblower provisions apply.

These amendments reduce some immediate dangers. They do not settle how the new access test will work or prove that non-NDIS services will be adequate across every state, territory and region.

The Australian Human Rights Commission warned that the reform could reduce access, weaken individualised decision-making and transfer unmet needs to already strained public systems. That warning should guide implementation, even though Parliament has passed the legislation.

Australia Can Afford Proper Disability Support

Discussion of the NDIS often treats the federal budget like a household account. That comparison is misleading.

The Commonwealth operates in Australian dollars and the Reserve Bank is Australia’s central bank. As the RBA explains, Australian currency is issued within this national monetary system.

This does not mean that public spending is limitless. The real constraints include the availability of skilled workers, accessible housing, equipment, technology and services. Spending beyond the economy’s productive capacity can also add to inflation.

Australia’s dollar sovereignty means the central policy question should not be whether the Commonwealth can find Australian dollars. It should be how public resources can be used effectively to provide safe, high-quality support.

Good disability policy can also create wider benefits. It can help participants work or study, enable family carers to remain employed and reduce preventable health emergencies. Poorly designed cuts may simply move costs from the NDIS to households, hospitals, state services and charities.

Financial responsibility should mean preventing fraud, controlling unjustified prices and achieving strong outcomes. It should not mean meeting a savings target regardless of the social consequences.

What Would Fair NDIS Reform Look Like?

A responsible reform program would apply the following safeguards:

1. Guarantee continuity of support. Essential assistance should remain until a suitable alternative is available and confirmed.
2. Co-design assessments. People with disability must help develop and test functional-capacity tools before they determine access.
3. Recognise complex conditions. Assessments must account for fluctuating symptoms, trauma, communication differences and hidden unpaid care.
4. Target exploitation directly. Provider misconduct should be addressed through regulation, audits, price oversight and criminal enforcement.
5. Protect review rights. Consequential decisions must be explained and open to timely human review.
6. Fund independent advocacy. People should not need specialist legal knowledge or a well-connected family to defend essential support.
7. Build services before transition. Governments should publish regional service availability, eligibility rules, waiting times, workforce capacity and funding.
8. Measure human outcomes. Reporting should cover safety, independence, employment, education, participation, carer wellbeing and unmet need, not only expenditure.
9. Strengthen the workforce. Stable employment, proper training and fair pay are necessary for reliable disability services.
10. Maintain parliamentary oversight. Major ministerial instruments should remain transparent, reviewable and supported by evidence and human-rights analysis.

These measures would make sustainability a question of service quality and long-term capacity, rather than a narrow exercise in reducing individual budgets.

What Should NDIS Participants Do Now?

Participants should continue following their current plans unless the NDIA tells them that a change applies. To prepare for later reviews or reassessments, it may help to:

• retain invoices, service agreements and payment evidence for at least three years;
• record changes in functional capacity, living arrangements and informal support;
• keep reports showing how assistance affects safety, independence and participation;
• read every NDIA notice carefully and note any review deadline;
• ask an advocate, support coordinator or legal service to explain unclear decisions; and
• follow the official NDIS reform updates.

The NDIS Appeals Program may provide advocacy or legal assistance to eligible people challenging NDIA decisions before the Administrative Review Tribunal.

Conclusion

The new NDIS law contains reforms that deserve support. Fraud, kickbacks, unsafe providers and inconsistent administration undermine both participants and public confidence.

The law also creates genuine risks. Tighter eligibility, reduced participation funding and reliance on services that are still being developed may leave some people without the assistance they need.

The fairest principle is also the simplest: no one should lose essential support until a safe, accessible and properly funded alternative exists.

Australia has the monetary capacity to fund disability services, but money alone is not enough. Governments must train workers, expand service capacity, regulate providers and listen to people with lived experience.

The success of NDIS reform should ultimately be measured by whether people with disability can live safely, make choices and participate as equal citizens.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does a Medical Diagnosis Automatically Qualify Someone for the NDIS?

No. Eligibility depends on whether an impairment is permanent and causes substantially reduced functional capacity under the legal access criteria. From 2028, a new standardised assessment will play a larger role in that decision.

Can the NDIS Require a Person to Undergo Every Possible Treatment?

No. The legislation refers to appropriate treatment that is widely accepted, publicly available where required and likely to make a meaningful difference. It does not require treatment that is unsuitable, carries serious risks or could have major lifelong effects.

What Is a Support Determination?

It is a legislative instrument through which the minister can adjust funding for specified categories of support. Parliament can scrutinise the instrument, and several critical support categories are excluded.

Is the NDIS Being Abolished?

No. The scheme will continue supporting eligible people with permanent and significant disability. The dispute concerns who will qualify, what individual plans will fund and whether other systems can support those who leave.

Where Can Someone Get Help With an NDIS Appeal?

The NDIS Appeals Program funds disability advocacy and, in some cases, legal representation for Administrative Review Tribunal matters. Community legal centres and disability advocacy organisations may also assist.

Question for Readers

Should any government be allowed to remove NDIS support before proving that a safe and effective alternative is available?

Please share your experience or views in the comments below.

Support Independent Social Justice Journalism

Social Justice Australia is independent and reader-supported. It receives no funding from corporations, political parties or lobby groups.

If this article helped you understand the NDIS changes, please consider making a small one-off or monthly donation. Your contribution helps cover website costs and supports continued research, fact-checking and public-interest analysis.

Support Social Justice Australia

If donating is not possible, sharing this article is another valuable way to help more Australians join the discussion.

Sources

1. NDIS: Securing the NDIS for Future Generations
2. Australian Government: Final Changes to the NDIS Amendment Bill
3. Australian Government: 2026–27 Budget, Strengthening Care and Broadening Opportunity
4. Australian Human Rights Commission: Concerns About the NDIS Reform Bill
5. People with Disability Australia: Joint Disability Representative Organisations Submission
6. Department of Social Services: NDIS Appeals Program
7. Michael West Media: Palantir eyes NDIS

If you found this article insightful, explore more about political reform and Australia’s monetary sovereignty on Social Justice Australia.

Share this article with your community to help drive the conversation toward a more just and equal society.

Click on our Reader Feedback menu. Let us know how our content has inspired you. Submit your testimonial and help shape the conversation today.

This article was originally published on Social Justice Australia