r/NDIS

NDIS not following the law?

There are three participants in our family and WorkCover WA laws say we are employers - even if we only have 2 hours of support a day from independent support workers with their own ABNs. The cost is over $10,000 a year, just over $3000 per "employer". Even though we are all in one family at one address and are not considered employers for any other reason (super, PAYG, etc).

The plan manager said they will pay this ridiculous cost but NDIS is refusing, saying it's a cost they don't cover ?!

WorkCover has advised me to seek legal advice. They will fine me if I don't take out the insurance.

How is this fair on disabled people?

How is it fair that participants in WA have to pay thousands of dollars, potentially out of their own pocket or in fines when no other state creates these barriers for people with disabilities?!

Even if NDIS did pay why should we effectively lose around 50-60 hours a year of support? Other states only charge a few hundred dollars at most for WorkCover so the impact isn't significant.

Why isn't WorkCover WA being scrutinised? They made this law in 2024 to say NDIS participants are "employers", then increased the cost from a few hundred dollars to thousands of dollars. Why are they allowed to increase prices like this but businesses are under scrutiny if they make things more expensive for disabled people.

Don't tell me to use an agency. This has been tried many times over the years and it doesn't work out for so many reasons.

How can NDIS deem that someone needs support by funding a plan, then deny the legally required insurance cover needed to carry out the plan?

Hi! My support coordinator fired my support worker.
Tbh, I feel like they fired them for unjustified reasons and this isn’t the first time a support worker of mine has been fired from them.

I want to keep them on because they have helped me a lot, but I’m worried that I’m going to get my support worker into legal trouble if I keep them on with me?

Thank you ☺️

Hi all. I'm sorry, but this is going to be a long one. I'm writing this out to ask for advice, and because it is weighing on me. I hope you will all be patient, because I'm very disappointed in how my first social work experience in a while has ended up and I really need some advice.

Thank you.

I have struggled to find work, and yesterday, I had my first shift using the Mable App. It went very well, did some gardening for six hours. A few hours into the shift, the client asked me to come up to his apartment once I had finished, and said he wanted to make money. He said he had over $100 000 dollars, and "that you have access to it," very clearly meaning me. I don't recall the exact amount he stated, and I didn't understand what he meant. I felt uncomfortable, but I was desperate for work so I had to finish the job, I couldn't leave. Once I had finished the jobs, the client then asked me to come in to his flat, and proposed what I can only describe as a fraud scheme. He would approve the legitimate work that I had done. But, he stated that, some time in the next few days he would offer me other jobs on the app, the first one being next Friday, from 8AM-2PM, at $60/hr (So far that has not happened, to be clear). He stated that I would not come to his address and do any work. So the job would exist on paper, but never take place, and once I received money from the invoice, I would withdraw half of the money in cash and give it to him in person. He referred to this as "splitting it 50-50." He had it all written down in a notebook, with my name at the top of the page, and the start day, hourly rate and so forth. He was slightly disappointed to find out I didn't drive at all (although that is in my account profile), as he was planning to charge for kms as well. I remember some distinct features about this; for example, after my name, he had put an exclamation mark with a tiny circle instead of a dot. I found that odd for what I knew was clearly the blueprint of fraud. Before he even ran me through the whole plan, I had my doubts. I was tired and wanted to leave, so I acted as though I'd like to speak about it over the phone or come back another day. The only reason I stayed was because, as I said, I've had trouble finding work and I was hopeful he might have other, legitimate work for me. Once I was in the apartment, I just decided to act interested until I could leave. Eventually, I said I'd be open to it, just so that I could leave as soon as I could.

I'm concerned about how to proceed, as the client lists several mental health issues and may be making a decision or proposal without fully considering the ramifications of his actions. To propose this to me, on my first job, after only meeting him once before, seems like the behaviour of a person not considering the risks or results of their actions.
I'm going to speak to Mable's customer helpline on Monday morning. I have no interest in taking part in fraudulent behaviour. Does anyone have any further advice on how to proceed please?

I'm a participant and just had my plan go in for review. My plan is for a physical condition, but I have psychosocial as secondary. My support coordinator wrote a progress review and a section caught my eye, about "crises avoided". It said that no points of crisis had been identified. Only issue is, there's been two balked and one unsuccessful attempt at suicide during my plan.

I don't see a point in hiding these sorts of details from my NDIS providers, and my OT's report for example covered self harm risk, but even that was worded vaguely and in the past tense. It occurred to me that I usually answer questions as they're put to me, and I've only been asked about the self harm once, last year. I have no clue if she is aware that's an ongoing problem. I've never been asked about suicidality or attempts. And it just hasn't occurred to me to volunteer that information because there's not many circumstances where one does volunteer it, and outside of my psychiatrist's office I don't know how one is meant to flag it.

I hadn't even really considered it part of the NDIS purview until I read the report, I kind of thought everything was about my physical disability and if it wasn't putting me in the wheelchair they didn't really have it in their scope to think about. But it confused me to see a section about averting crisis be listed in the negative given what the last year has looked like for me. So I'm curious now about what the system in that kind of situation actually is, especially given it might come up again in the future.

My main questions really are:

1. Should my OT and support coordinator have had that information in one/both of their reports?
2. If yes, how are they meant to get it? I wouldn't think it's reliable to always expect participants to tell providers outright when that happens, both because participants may feel uncomfortable and providers probably shouldn't rely solely on participant word for incident reporting, right?
3. If no, is there another way these reports define "crisis" that excludes crises not directly related to a participant's primary disability?
4. In the future, is there a way this information is supposed to get to an OT who may not be paying attention to that aspect of health since it isn't related to primary disability?

Hopefully someone can provide an answer.

I was told in a conversation recently that a support provider subcontracted a 'fitness coach' to set up a program for the participant and run personalised classes. This then turned into group fitness classes and some 1 on 1 classes at the participants home. The support provider did not attend the sessions and was not involved in the planning or any classes.

The support provider charged to the participants ndis plan. The fitness coach charged the support provider.

I suggested that the support provider should not be charging for something they're not providing and that the fitness coach should be offering a service agreement.

I also wonder where the liability sits if the participants were to get injured in any way.

Thoughts?

Is there a solid rule/law/guideline?

Thanks

Hi everyone,

I am becoming increasingly frustrated with my plan manager. She demands to know everything, including things that have nothing to do with my NDIS support or finances.

As an example, I just recently had a psychiatrist appointment and she expected to sit in on it.

Is that inappropriate?

When I declined her, she said " you're not hiding anything from me, are you?". She manages my NDIS finances ffs, she is not a support worker.

What do the people here think about this?

Cheers

I’m self managed and thought of maybe going private instead of using a platform. Permanent part time (not casual) is what I keep coming back to. Guaranteed hours, they get paid leave, and honestly the idea of one person who actually knows me and my routine and needs instead of a rotating cast sounds so much better.

But I keep wondering what I’m not seeing. Has anyone actually done this? For what it’s worth my core assistance with daily living is flexible and I am looking at roughly 15 hours per week plus hiring a private cleaner for 2 hours per week. Also I am very comfortable with keeping up with admin and finance 👍

My six year old daughter has just been diagnosed with Level 2 and Level 3 Autism. I know the Federal Government has announced the removal of children with ‘mild to moderate’ Autism from the NDIS. But given the Level 2/3 diagnosis I am still going to apply.
As a first step, I emailed the Local Area Coordinator for the NDIS today - no response. I rang them to confirm they had received my email. The guy who answered the phone had no idea what he was doing, couldn’t grasp the concept that I had sent an email, couldn’t find it, didn’t even know how to look. He spoke really slowly dragging everything out. I’m a working single parent and carer who is always thinly stretched and short of time. Can I just put in an NDIS application without the LAC? I just had a terrible vision of potential incompetence and endless time-wasting by the LAC. Can I just do it myself?

Not exactly a vent, more a puzzled enquiry. My LAC has sent me a letter detailing a community connection plan. It all looks like what we talked about at our meeting, and I have no problem with it.

What’s odd is that it quotes an NDIS number. I have yet to hear from the NDIA about my support plan. I’m assuming I’ve been accepted if I have a number, but I’ve been given no details. I’ve not had the SMS/Planner phone call other redditers have mentioned.

Who should I be chasing up? My LAC said my application is with the NDIS and it’s only been a few weeks since it was lodged, so I’m not unduly worried yet. Advice welcome!

EDIT: Thanks to those who responded. I have a clearer idea of what’s happening now.

hello i have asd and im 22 years old - i mostly struggle with socializing with others. my plan was approved and i recieve a lot more hours per week compared to the 2 i previously recieved. i feel wrong to complain about this when there are people much more deserving of hours but i feel confused about this and i don't know where else to talk about it. i really do struggle with asd but i still feel capable of holding a job in the future. though it feels like everyone around me expects less than that. i have a 5 year plan and my OT suggested in 5 years i start living with full time support. i want to hold a job and live alone and even i want to be self capable some day. i really want to get better at my socializing. when i first recieved the hours, i told my support worker i could use them to volunteer and she shut it down and said we should spend time doing other stuff instead. we mostly go to the grocery store and more, but when we go we go self checkout and interact with almost nobody - i don't feel like i'm improving in that aspect at all. i definitely feel better having a reason to go outside some days of the week - but i feel like i am not building on ways that would support my future.

another concern.
my previous plan manager mentioned helping me find someone who could help me with finding a job - and my support worker said she can do it instead since she is employed in that area. again, when we went to another meeting, my support worker asked about being the person who processes my payments when my plan manager already does that. i really do like and enjoy my support worker but i don't want everything to be her job - if that makes sense. especially when there are other people that are trained in that regard and who are apart of a company... i don't know how to explain it. i just do not want to be her guinea pig when she is interested in starting these things when there's other people who do it as their full-time job. i really am sorry if that sounds condescending.

continuing on,
recently my plan manager lost her job and they're looking for a new plan manager for me within that business. but my support worker knows another lady who has a self employed plan manager and she mentioned that i could change to her instead. i think just with everything combined im scared she will use it as a way to get more jobs and work from that plan manager. her boss has also spoken to me about seeking other support workers since she has all of my hours. by the way, i really do like her. i don't think she has bad intentions but relating to the topic - i feel like nobody wants me to get better. i know i need to put in a better effort at speaking or suggesting things but i feel like they want me to stay this way since they've mentioned i'm an easy case.

I am looking for any links to government organisations NDIA or VIc roads stating that support workers can not be the authorised drivers for L drivers. I see conflicting information and support companies doing this and would like the facts before I call them out please 🙏

A plan was recently issued to a participant. In the cover email, the NDIA states, for example, that Exercise Physiology funded "X hours per year".

The total funding amount appears to have been calculated by multiplying the applicable hourly rate by X hours. In practice, however, the Exercise Physiologist charges not only for the face-to-face session time, but also for travel. For example, a one-hour session may attract an additional 0.5 hours due to travel time.

In these circumstances, does the reference to "X hours per year" represent the number of hours of Exercise Physiology services that the participant can actually receive, or does it simply represent the value of funding available to be paid to the provider?

If provider travel is claimable from the same funding allocation, it would appear that the participant may receive fewer than X hours of Exercise Physiology services over the course of the year, as part of the funding would be consumed by travel charges rather than direct therapy time.

Hi Y'all,

Asking on behalf of a friend.

Im seeking an OT to complete an FCA + Home and Living assesment. We really need this to be done ASAP. She is drifting between Lakemba and Wolli Creek. 

The client will be a 30y/o transwoman whose primary diagnosis for the NDIS are ASD2 and ADHD.

She has other comorbidites that include:

- BPD

- DiD (multiple personalities)

- Social pragmatic communication disorder

- C-PTSD

- Major depressive disorder

- Generalised anxiety disorder

- and had Global development delay as a child. 

We need this done urgently as she is currently homeless, struggling to engage with in-community support services, and has recently been dealing with the Inpatient Mental health side of the hospital system, but apparently is at too much risk to be an inpatient, or just not acute enough to break through the systems bedlock. 

She has current funding just to get these two assesments completed, and then we have organised to have an urgent review to be able to apply for emergency access funding to get her back on her feet. 

The best we have found so far, is september appointments. If you have, or can make any openings sooner than this, please DM me. 

EDIT: this is a post seeking support in terms of an OT, I appreciate your other ideas, but theyre not what Im after.

I just had the NDIA call me today. Typical rude NDIA worker reviewing my plan. Got no idea of my situation.

She tried telling me that NDIS does not fund regular Physio appointments (I currently do 2x a week) have not had a single issue up until now.

She said NDIS do not fund that. Only exercise physiology and a Physio. Maybe fortnightly or monthly

Tried telling me also that NDIS won’t fund a waterproof microprocessor leg if I don’t do a lot of swimming or water activities. If I only use it 10% of the time.

She also tried telling me that my socks and liners for my prosthetic aren’t required. When they are literally for the microprocessor leg to protect it. And I still have $1,500 in my consumables which I have 6 months left.

Does anyone have any advice or input? Can I tell them I want someone else to look over this plan review before she does up my plan?

Text

Bill to restore human override to assessments passes Senate

 

The Coalition, the Greens and Independent Senator David Pocock have teamed up to pass a bill to restore human override to the Integrated Assessment Tool.

Anne Ruston addressing the Senate during debate on the Bill to restore human override for the IAT (taken from the Australian Parliament House Streaming Portal)

The government has lost a vote in the Senate on the passing of a bill to restore human override in aged care assessments.

The Coalition, the Australian Greens and Independent Senator David Pocock teamed up to pass the Aged Care Amendment (Restoring Human Override for Aged Care Needs Assessments) Bill 2026 introduced last week on behalf of Liberal senator Anne Ruston, Mr Pocock and Greens senator Penny Allman-Payne.

Earlier in the day, the government announced it will be creating an additional option for assessment organisations to seek a review of decisions made by the Integrated Assessment Tool – an algorithm that applies the Aged Care Rules to clinical notes made by human assessors to determine funding levels.

Mr Pocock told Australian Ageing Agenda: “The government has been forced by the Senate into announcing these changes today.”

“Through multiple inquiries, the Senate has heard consistent evidence that the algorithm has not been clinically validated and has been under-assessing the support older people need to stay at home safely and with dignity,” Mr Pocock told AAA.

“There is very little detail in what the minister has announced. It appears to be an eleventh-hour announcement, made only because the government knew it was about to lose a vote on the floor of the Senate.”

Mr Pocock told AAA he would “take the minister at his word that he wants to work with older Australians, clinicians and advocates to fix this,” but that if the change simply creates a new escalation pathway to the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing after the algorithm gets it wrong, he struggles to see how it will “materially address the concerns that have been raised.”

“I urge the minister to look carefully at the bill the Senate has passed today and seriously consider restoring clinicians’ ability to override decisions made by this unvalidated algorithm,” Mr Pocock told AAA.

“This is an important test for the Senate on the broader issue of human oversight over automated decision-making. We are yet to see the government implement the Robodebt Royal Commission’s recommendations of legislated guardrails for the use of algorithms in the public service and an independent expert body that can evaluate these algorithms and any automated decision making.”

Ms Penny Allman-Payne, Greens Older People Spokesperson, said: “Piece by piece, the parliament is forcing this Labor government to unwind its disastrous reforms, yet they keep pretending everything’s okay.”

“How can older Australians trust Labor when they still act like the system is working fine?” Ms Allman-Payne said.

“Minister Rae is clearly out of his depth and older people are paying for it, some with their lives.”

Peak body Ageing Australia has welcomed the decision to bring human oversight to the IAT.

Ageing Australia chief executive officer Tom Symondson said that it is important a machine or algorithm does not have the final say on how much support an older person with complex care needs requires.

“We were able to provide the government with over 150 examples of older people struggling with the system, thanks to help from our members,” Mr Symondson said.

“Every situation is different, and everyone’s needs are different. Allowing a System’s Governor to have the final say on assessments brings that much-needed human element back to the process. It’s people making decisions about people.”

“We thank the government and especially Minister for Aged Care and Seniors, Sam Rae, for listening to our concerns and acting. We also welcome the opportunity to be part of the design and the implementation of the changes.”

He also congratulated Senator Ruston for helping shine a light on the issue through her bill. “It’s wonderful to see the government and the opposition putting older people first.”

Speaking to ABC Radio National Breakfast Thursday morning prior to the bill passing, Mr Rae said human override in IAT outcomes would be made possible in certain circumstances.

“We’re creating an additional option here where, if in the assessment organisation’s clinical view the needs of the older person aren’t catered for through the tool, then they have this option to escalate that to the system governor,” Mr Rae told ABC Radio National Breakfast.

During Senate debate of the bill, Ms Allman-Payne said “every older person in this country has a right to have a human make the decision about their care needs and any tool that is used in that process should be simply that, a tool, not the decision maker.”

“The Labor Government has outsourced the decision-making for [older people’s] complex care needs to a computer algorithm with no ability for human override and that is unconscionable.”

She also flagged that the Greens did not vote for the Aged Care Rules, nor did the rules include notice that human override would not be possible in the case of the IAT making an incorrect assessment.

“The royal commission said that we needed a person-centred rights-based system. There is nothing person-centred in outsourcing the assessment of people’s care needs to a computer algorithm,” Ms Allman-Payne said.

Penny Allman-Payne addressing the Senate during debate on the bill to restore human override for the IAT (taken from the Australian Parliament House Streaming Portal)

Also speaking in the Senate, Mr Pocock said that while the government has said humans are involved in the assessment process, it is by way of inputting the data and then “we pay someone to rubber stamp whatever the algorithm says.”

“The person who’s rubber stamping can’t actually change the outcome – that’s not proper oversight and that needs to change,” he said.

David Pocock addressing the Senate during debate on the bill to restore human override for the IAT (taken from the Australian Parliament House Streaming Portal)

The IAT is currently under investigation by the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

Hi,

I'm signing up for a new SC and he's requesting I fill out a consent to share form. Because I want to make informed decisions, I called my LAC to ask what documents are a requirement for SC. He said they don't need the consent to share documents but they do need a request for service document and that they both serve a similar purpose.

The SC is responding saying that the LAC is wrong and that a consent to share form is required.

So what do you do when two people are saying the other person is wrong? Ask ~~ChatGPT~~ reddit of course!

This question does also extend to non SC roles. Who actually needs a consent to share document? And who's in the wrong between the onboarding SC and my LAC? Or are they somehow both correct?

TIA!

My plan is due to renew (hopefully) in November but I’m currently without a psychiatrist and the psychiatrist who put me on the NDIS put me on it with different diagnoses from what she discharged me from her care with. I’m desperately trying to find a new doctor and having a lot of trouble and worried about the differing diagnoses and if I’ll still qualify for assistance. However, if I have heard correctly, they’re going more on function rather than diagnosis? I definitely need to stay on this otherwise I will be housebound with no outside human contact and quite honestly I would have no reason to live. I guess this is a bit more of a vent because I’m so stressed out about finding a new psychiatrist in time for reports and assessments to be submitted. I’m distraught. Thanks for taking the time to read.

Text

Legislation update: Interim Senate Inquiry report and amendments to the Bill

Chris and Sara examine the recommendations from the interim report of the Senate Inquiry into the NDIS bill, the dissenting report, and the amendments secured by the Greens.

By Chris Coombes and Sara Gingold

Last Tuesday, while we were anxiously anticipating the final report of the Senate Inquiry into the ‘Securing NDIS for future generations’ bill, it was announced that the government had reached an agreement with the Greens to extend the Inquiry by 8 weeks. The Inquiry will now conclude on August 14, and the Greens secured key amendments to the bill (which we will discuss later in this article). In the meantime, the Senate Inquiry has published an interim report, and the results are… well… it’s hard to find words to do it justice. But this was the vibe of the reader experience:

The Inquiry reportedly received a whopping 4,000 submissions, despite being open for just over a fortnight. These included some pretty damning submissions from the government’s own Reform Advisory Committee, the Disability Discrimination Commissioner, Young Labor Left and the state and territory governments. There were also 3 days of hearings during which we heard well-considered, compelling and emotionally powerful evidence exploring the potential real-life consequences of this legislation. DSC has got its hands on exclusive, unseen footage from inside the Department of Health, Ageing and Disability on the week of the hearings, which you can find here.

Turns out the disability community is pretty good at rising to a challenge.

In this article, we’ll cover the interim report, the dissenting reports, the Greens’ amendments and what’s happening next. But if you want a refresher on what’s being proposed bill, DSC has previously covered the changes to Access and Planning and Registration, Fraud and Governance.

Interim report

The Senate Inquiry’s interim report made only 4 recommendations. Which is kind of remarkable given the scale of the evidence they received, but let’s not go there (at least not yet).

The recommendations were:

Recommendation 1: Create a roadmap that shows the timeline and consultation requirements for all reforms in the bill. If there’s one thing governments love, it’s a roadmap. So this recommendation is basically threatening the Department with a good time.

Recommendations 2: Amend the government’s explanation of the bill in the explanatory memorandum, to include ‘further clarification’ on:

how the proposed test of permanency will have regard to a person’s choice and autonomy

the ‘extensive consultation’ that will happen before implementation

the safeguards on automated decision making

how the Minister must have regard for the safety of participants when making support determinations, and what safeguards and monitoring will be in place

how critical supports will not be impacted by reductions in social and community participation and therapy budgets

how the reforms will be monitored in thin markets to ensure there aren’t unintended consequences

how employment support budgets won’t be impacted by changes to social and community participation funding.

This was the continuation of a theme from the government during the hearings- that people with disability are scared because they don’t properly understand the reforms. Actually, we’re scared cause we do. It’s like a niche corner of hell, listening to politicians with only a surface-level understanding of the NDIS lecture us on being misinformed.

Time to take some deep breaths and remind yourself that yelling at a computer screen doesn’t tend to produce results.

Recommendation 3: Is effectively the Commonwealth giving the middle finger to the states and territories: “The committee recommends that state and territory governments fulfil their commitments under the National Cabinet agreement to support the long-term sustainability of the NDIS, including through the delivery of the jointly agreed $10 billion investment in foundational supports outside of the Scheme.”

This comes after the states and territories’ joint submission to the Inquiry, urging the process to slow down and arguing they aren’t in a position to support all the people the government plans to remove from the NDIS.

Recommendation 4: Pass the bill in its current form.

And that’s it. You’ll notice that none of the recommendations changes the contents of the bill itself.

But, this Inquiry was led by the government so you can see why it has a very slight, almost undetectable, bias in favour of the government’s legislation.

The Greens and independent Senator David Pocock were not at all happy with this interim report. Both published dissenting reports.

The Greens’ report recommends withdrawing the bill. It raised concerns about the amount of power the bill gives the Minister, and argued that plan funding should continue to be determined on an individualised basis. The Greens also said that nobody should be removed from the NDIS until foundational supports are in place. The report suggested the bill’s proposed changes to eligibility requirements be rewritten to ensure people aren’t forced to undergo unwanted medical treatments and that testing functional capacity considers individual circumstances. The report also recommended removing the stricter definition of parental responsibility and putting in place greater transparency and safeguards for automated decision-making. The Greens argued that the bill should include more measures to target fraud and regulate provider conduct.

Senator Pocock recommended that the inquiry into the legislation be extended. He was not impressed by provisions in the bill that allow ‘indiscriminate’ cuts to social and community participation budgets and recommended that any reduction to that funding be made on an individualised basis. He recommended the government undertake a gender analysis of the impact of the bill. His report also suggested the government implement the recommendations of the Robodebt Royal Commission, before implementing another automated decision making process.

Greens amendments

On Tuesday 23rd June, the Greens secured an 8-week extension to the Inquiry in exchange for support on Labor’s tax reforms.

The Greens also secured the following amendments to the bill:

Support determinations can only apply to social, civil and community participation and improved daily living skills.

Cuts to social and community participation can’t affect the funding people use to manage their daily health or to get to work. It’s not clear how this will be implemented in practice, or how the government will determine the proportion of a person’s social and community participation budget that goes towards those purposes. Initial wording in media releases suggested the carve-out would include support to attend medical appointments. But the wording in the amendments is 'disability related health supports'

People will not be required to undergo restrictive practices, such as forced medication, to demonstrate they have tried all appropriate treatments and are eligible for the NDIS.

Treatments that people must undergo before being eligible for the NDIS must be available through Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme or the public health system.

The government must make public a decision-making framework for automated decisions before these processes are implemented.

The Minister can only make transitional rules that last for 6 months, rather than the 12 months in the initial legislation. This is to reduce the Minister's executive power and ensure that rules are put before parliament.

You can find the Greens' amendments here: Amendments.

What’s next?

The Inquiry has been extended to the 14th of August, and the bill can’t be passed before then. NDIS Minister Mark Butler has previously said a 12 month delay to NDIS reforms would cost 17 billion dollars. But Treasury modelling shows the bill is only projected to save the government $2bn in the first year.

The Senate Inquiry has reopened submissions. Click here to make a submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026- Community Affairs Legislation Committee.

This is a complex piece of legislation, and hopefully, the longer inquiry gives the government time to thoroughly explore the impacts across all parts of the community. It means more time to hear from witnesses and to communicate the impact of the changes to the public. We’ll have to wait and see whether the extension will result in any substantial changes to the bill itself.

The bill needs support from the cross-bench or the liberal party to get through the Senate. The Greens are calling for the bill to be scrapped altogether. The LNP has noted community concern about the timeline and extent of the powers, but has not ruled out supporting the bill.

If you want to follow the Inquiry, read the Interim report or some incredible submissions, check out the Inquiry’s website.