The NDIS Bill has passed the Senate. Our community is exhausted — and the work is not over.
Status note: This article reflects the position as at the morning of 19 August 2026. The Senate has passed the amended Bill, but it is not yet law. Because the Senate made further amendments, the Bill must return to the House of Representatives and then receive Royal Assent.
Last night, the Senate passed the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.
Today, I am exhausted.
I am exhausted by the pace and scale of change. I am exhausted by the amount of unpaid labour our disability community has again poured into reading legislation, writing submissions, attending hearings, sharing deeply personal evidence and explaining — over and over — what happens when policy designed in Canberra meets real life.
I also sit in two spaces at once. Through The Inclusive Movement and my broader professional work, I support participants, families and providers to understand and navigate the NDIS. I am also an autistic person and a parent of 3 children with disability. My family will be directly affected by the decisions being made.
This is not an abstract debate for me. It is not just legislation, budget modelling or political language about “sustainability”. It reaches into our homes, our children’s development, our capacity to work, our relationships, our safety and our ability to participate in community life.
Many people in our community will be feeling frightened, angry, flat, confused or simply too tired to absorb another update today. That is understandable. So let us slow this down and separate three things: what has actually happened, what has changed, and what remains deeply concerning.
First: what has actually passed?
The Bill was introduced on 14 May 2026. It passed the House of Representatives on 2 July after 30 amendments were agreed. On 18 August, the Senate passed it by 30 votes to 12 after agreeing to a further 32 government amendments.
Because the Senate changed the Bill, it must return to the House of Representatives so the House can decide whether to accept those amendments. If the House agrees, the Bill will then go to the Governor-General for Royal Assent. Only then will it become an Act and begin taking legal effect.
So, as at the time of writing:
the Bill has passed the Senate;
it has not yet received Royal Assent;
it is not yet law; and
your current NDIS plan does not change today simply because of last night’s vote.
This distinction matters. There are already many posts saying the Bill has “passed Parliament” or that everyone’s funding has changed overnight. That is not the current legal position.
The Parliament of Australia Bill page records the formal progress of the Bill.
What does the Bill do?
The government describes the Bill as necessary to improve integrity and place the NDIS on a more sustainable footing. It is expected to reduce projected NDIS expenditure by approximately $37.8 billion over four years.
There are legitimate parts of the reform agenda that many of us support. Fraud, exploitation, conflicts of interest and unsafe provider practices must be addressed. Participants deserve quality services, transparent pricing and genuine safeguards.
But this Bill is not only a fraud Bill.
It makes structural changes to who can access the NDIS, how needs are assessed, how budgets are calculated, what supports can be funded, how plans are renewed, how decisions can be automated, how some services are commissioned and how quickly funding can be reduced across groups of participants.
The major changes include:
1. New eligibility assessments from 2028
From 1 January 2028, access will be determined through a new standardised assessment of functional capacity. Current participants will then be progressively reassessed against the new access criteria over three years.
The government says people with permanent and significant disability will remain eligible. However, the assessment method and thresholds are still being developed. The uncertainty is significant, particularly for people with fluctuating, episodic, psychosocial or neurodevelopmental disability and for people whose support needs are strongly shaped by their environment.
Government modelling presented during the inquiry projected that approximately 240,000 existing participants may leave the NDIS by 2031, while a further 110,000 people who might otherwise have entered may be diverted to other systems. Officials described these as high-level assumptions because the assessment thresholds and process are not yet finalised. Importantly, the modelling could not be broken down by state, territory, regional or remote location.
2. Changes for young children
From 1 January 2028, children aged eight and under with developmental delay and/or autism and assessed as having low to moderate support needs are intended to receive support through Thriving Kids rather than the NDIS. Children with permanent and significant disability, and children with substantially reduced functional capacity or high support needs, are intended to remain eligible.
Children already on the NDIS before 1 January 2028 will initially continue to be considered under the earlier criteria, but they may be reassessed under the new functional-capacity criteria once they turn nine.
The promise is that Thriving Kids and other foundational supports will be fully operating before these access changes begin. The critical question is whether those services will actually be available, accessible, culturally safe and adequate in every community — not merely announced on a national timeline.
3. Reduced allocations for participation and capacity-building supports
From 1 October 2026, the government intends to progressively reset budget allocations as existing plans are renewed or reassessed:
social, civic and community participation allocations will be reduced by 50%; and
capacity-building daily activity allocations will be reduced by 10%.
The government notes that this will not necessarily equal a 50% or 10% reduction in what every individual currently spends, because some participants have unspent allocations. However, for people who use their funding — particularly those who need one-to-one assistance to leave home, communicate, regulate, travel safely or participate — the effect may be substantial.
Critical daily living supports, including personal care, in-home support, home and vehicle modifications, personal mobility equipment, transport, relevant consumables and Specialist Disability Accommodation, are not intended to be reduced through this reset.
4. Ministerial “support determinations”
The Bill gives the NDIS Minister power to make a support determination reducing allocations for specified support categories across groups of existing plans. The government’s stated first use is the participation and capacity-building reset described above.
This remains one of the most concerning features of the Bill. Individual reasonable-and-necessary decisions have traditionally been based on a person’s circumstances. Group-level reductions risk treating support as interchangeable even when people’s lives, environments, risks and informal-support capacity are not.
5. New planning, plan-renewal and reassessment arrangements
The Bill introduces tighter grounds for unscheduled reassessments. Plans will have legislated end dates, and unspent funds will not roll over into a renewed plan. From April 2027, participants will begin transitioning to new framework planning, in which a support-needs assessment will inform the total budget.
It also narrows the connection between the impairment through which a person accesses the NDIS and the supports the Scheme will fund. This creates concern for people with multiple, interacting disabilities and needs that cannot be cleanly separated into one diagnostic box.
6. Greater automation and centralised commissioning
The Bill allows defined administrative actions to be automated, including aspects of claims and payments. The government says automated actions will require human oversight and that participants will retain review rights.
Over time, plan management will move to an approved panel, and support coordination will be replaced by a directly commissioned support coordination and connection service. These reforms may create consistency and stronger oversight, but they may also reduce choice and disrupt trusted relationships — risks that are amplified in thin regional and remote markets.
7. Stronger fraud and integrity measures
The Senate amendments add offences and penalties relating to kickbacks, inducements, deception, false or misleading information, intentional destruction of records and abuse of position by a participant nominee. They also strengthen whistleblower protections and regulatory powers.
These protections are important. Participants should never be treated as sales opportunities, steered toward providers through gifts or kickbacks, exploited by nominees, or placed at risk by fraudulent businesses.
What changed because people spoke up?
The Bill that passed the Senate is not the Bill first introduced in May. The government says the amendments followed feedback from people with disability, families, advocates, organisations and other parliamentarians.
Some of the most important changes include:
clearer safeguards before a plan can be suspended because a participant is considered “not contactable”, including multiple contact attempts using the person’s preferred method;
a narrower explanation of “all appropriate treatment”, including that restrictive practices do not count as treatment and that the Bill does not force a person to undergo a particular intervention;
publication and oversight requirements for automated administrative actions;
an independent review in 2029 that must consider participant outcomes, appeal rights, provider viability, thin markets and interaction with foundational supports;
removal of the requirement that a change in living, education, work or informal supports must be “unanticipated” before an unscheduled reassessment can be requested;
a deemed refusal after 90 days if the NDIA has not decided an unscheduled reassessment request, allowing the participant to access review rights;
clearer recognition that parental responsibility does not include the additional care a child needs because of disability compared with a child of a similar age without disability;
a requirement to consider the risk of harm to informal supports, family relationships and informal networks if NDIS support is not funded;
the ability to use ordinary aids such as glasses, walking sticks and hearing aids during a functional-capacity assessment, and age-appropriate assistance for children;
debt-recovery safeguards, a higher low-value debt-waiver threshold and the opportunity to provide alternative evidence when a record is unavailable;
indexation provisions intended to preserve the purchasing power of new framework plans; and
a plan-variation pathway for people requiring continuous 24-hour care, with some high-intensity, complex behaviour, customised technology and hearing supports excluded from support determinations.
These are meaningful amendments. They may prevent harm, preserve review pathways and offer protection to some participants and families.
They also did not appear from nowhere.
More than 4,500 submissions were made during the inquiry. Disabled people, families, advocates and organisations spent weeks translating complex legal language into its real-world consequences. People disclosed deeply personal experiences, again, in the hope that decision-makers would understand what was at stake.
We should recognise the changes that advocacy helped secure. We should also be honest: the amendments do not remove the Bill’s central architecture or its largest risks.
What does this mean for participants and families?
For some participants, little may change immediately. For others, the impact may begin at their next plan renewal. The deeper eligibility changes are scheduled for 2028.
But the emotional impact is already here.
Participants are wondering whether they will remain eligible, whether the evidence they have will be enough, whether a standardised tool will understand their disability, and whether support that currently enables them to leave home or engage with community will still be funded.
Families are wondering what will happen if those supports are reduced. Who absorbs the additional care? Who gives up work? Who manages the appointments, school refusal, personal care, transport, regulation, safety and overnight supervision? What happens to siblings, relationships and the health of carers when “informal support” is treated as an endlessly renewable resource?
The Senate amendments requiring consideration of harm to families and informal networks are welcome. But wording in legislation will only matter if it changes decisions in practice.
Social and community participation is also not an optional extra. For many people, it is the support that makes it possible to attend an appointment, maintain relationships, volunteer, study, work, exercise, communicate, practise skills, stay regulated or simply be part of the world beyond their front door. Cutting participation can increase isolation and move costs elsewhere — into families, health systems, crisis services and hospitals.
The regional and remote reality
Here in the Pilbara, we cannot discuss these reforms as though every participant has a long list of providers, therapists, advocates and community programs from which to choose.
Regional and remote communities already experience thin markets, workforce shortages, long waitlists, high travel costs and gaps in allied health, psychosocial support, respite and inclusive community activities. The National Rural Health Alliance warned that many parts of the Bill assume service markets that do not exist outside major cities and may shift unmet need onto carers and hospitals.
When government information suggests that people use lower-cost group programs, we must ask: What group? Where? Run by whom? Is it accessible? Is it culturally safe? Can the person get there?
When families are told a child will receive help through a mainstream or foundational-support system, we must ask whether that service exists in Karratha, Newman, Tom Price, Port Hedland, Onslow, Roebourne and remote communities — with a workforce able to deliver it.
When access depends on having undertaken publicly funded treatment, we must recognise that “publicly funded” does not mean locally available or available within a reasonable timeframe.
For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, the implementation of these reforms must be Aboriginal-led and culturally safe. For regional communities, support must be commissioned at the actual cost of regional delivery and developed with local people. A national program is not equitable if access depends on living near a metropolitan service market.
We need co-design, not consultation fatigue. We need reform built with our community, not around us.
What happens next?
The immediate parliamentary steps are:
The House of Representatives considers the Senate amendments.
If the House agrees, the Bill goes to the Governor-General for Royal Assent.
Some provisions begin seven days after Royal Assent, while others are introduced progressively through to 2030.
Key proposed dates include:
Seven days after Royal Assent: tighter unscheduled-reassessment rules, new record-keeping requirements, stronger compliance powers and ministerial responsibility for pricing begin.
1 October 2026: participation and capacity-building allocations begin to be reset as plans are renewed or reassessed; the phased Thriving Kids rollout begins.
1 December 2026: the claim period reduces to 90 days after service delivery.
1 February 2027: new plan-renewal arrangements begin and unspent funding no longer rolls into the renewed plan.
1 April 2027: transition to new framework planning begins.
1 October 2027: the approved panel of plan managers begins, with a transition period.
1 January 2028: new access assessments begin for applicants and existing participants start being reassessed over three years; Thriving Kids is intended to be fully operational nationally.
1 July 2028: the commissioned support coordination and connection service begins.
31 December 2030: transition to new framework plans is scheduled to be complete.
The government’s implementation timeline will need to be watched closely. Much of the real impact will depend on rules, instruments, assessment thresholds, commissioning decisions and operational guidance that are still being designed.
What should participants and families do now?
There is no need to stop using your current plan or cancel existing supports because of the Senate vote.
For now:
continue to use your plan in line with your current goals and funding;
keep clear records of services, invoices, claims and the outcomes your supports enable;
document changes in functional capacity, living arrangements, education, work and informal-support availability;
note your plan reassessment or expiry date;
pay attention to official NDIA correspondence and confirm your preferred contact details; and
seek individual advocacy or legal advice if the NDIA makes a decision that affects your access, plan or supports.
This article provides general information, not individual legal or NDIS advice. The detail will continue to change as the Bill completes the parliamentary process and supporting rules are developed.
Today, it is okay to be tired
I do not want to end this with another demand that disabled people and families immediately mobilise, write one more submission or find more energy to educate decision-makers.
Today, it is okay to feel heavy. It is okay to be angry. It is okay to step away from the news, protect your capacity and come back when you can.
Our community has already done an extraordinary amount of work. The amendments show that speaking up has had an impact, even though too many serious concerns remain.
When we are ready, the next stage will be implementation: making sure the promised safeguards work in real life; that no one is transitioned away from the NDIS before genuine alternatives exist; that families are not treated as an unlimited substitute for funded support; and that regional and remote communities are not left behind.
The NDIS does need to be sustainable. But sustainability must mean more than reducing a budget line. It must mean sustaining people — their safety, dignity, autonomy, relationships, participation and place in community.
That is the measure we will keep returning to…
