.png)
The Australian Government has introduced the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, proposing major changes to how the NDIS determines eligibility, assesses support needs, funds therapy, reviews plans, and decides what supports participants can access.
The Bill has been referred to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, with submissions due 29 May 2026 and a report required by 16 June 2026, an extraordinarily short timeframe for reforms of this scale.
AAPi is currently reviewing the legislation and preparing a submission. We strongly encourage members, providers, participants, and families to consider making submissions as well.
While the Government describes these reforms as measures to improve sustainability and consistency within the NDIS, many proposed changes represent a significant shift in how disability, support needs, treatment, and access are understood.
Key concerns emerging from the proposed reforms
1. Significant new Ministerial powers with limited oversight
The legislation would provide increased powers enabling broad decisions about support categories and funding, including the ability to reduce supports across participant plans.
AAPi is concerned about reforms that may prioritise fiscal targets over participant outcomes.
Questions remain around:
- independent oversight;
- transparency;
- safeguards;
- accountability where supports are reduced.
2. Participants may increasingly need to prove they have exhausted treatment options before accessing disability supports
One of the most concerning themes within the reforms is the stronger expectation that participants demonstrate:
- treatments have been attempted;
- interventions have been pursued;
- impairment cannot be sufficiently improved;
- other systems cannot reasonably respond.
For psychologists, this raises important concerns. Many disabilities, neurodevelopmental conditions and psychosocial presentations may improve with treatment without eliminating disability or support need. Improvement does not equal recovery.
AAPi is concerned that the reforms risk creating a de facto expectation that people prove they have exhausted all reasonable treatment pathways before disability supports become available.
Questions remain:
- What counts as a reasonable treatment pathway?
- What counts as “enough” treatment?
- How long must people wait?
- What if services are unavailable?
- What if treatment improves functioning but disability remains?
- What if waitlists are years long?
Participants should not become trapped in cycles of attempting treatment while disability supports remain inaccessible.
The risk is that people fall between systems: too disabled for mainstream supports but not disabled enough for the NDIS.
3. Eligibility may increasingly depend on access to other systems
The Bill strengthens links between NDIS access and whether support may be available elsewhere, including health, education, aged care and other mainstream systems.
AAPi is concerned that this assumes alternative systems are adequately resourced when many Australians already struggle to access timely care.
Availability on paper is not the same as genuine access.
Questions remain around:
- workforce shortages;
- affordability barriers;
- regional access issues;
waiting periods;
- service availability.
Participants should not lose access to disability supports because another service could , in theory, respond.
4. Existing NDIS participants may also face reassessment under new rules
Importantly, these reforms are relevant not only to new participants.
Current participants may progressively be reassessed under new eligibility and planning frameworks in the coming years.
This may create uncertainty for people already receiving support and for providers supporting long-term participants.
AAPi is concerned that participants who have built supports around existing eligibility settings may face increased insecurity.
5. Psychologists and providers may lose the ability to initiate reassessments
The proposed reforms appear to restrict who can request plan reassessments.
Providers may no longer be able to initiate reassessments despite observing:
- deterioration in functioning;
- increased risk;
- trauma escalation;
- changing support needs;
- reduced participation;
- emerging concerns.
Psychologists are often among the first to identify meaningful decline. Restricting reassessment pathways risks delaying access to needed supports.
6. Higher thresholds for reassessment may reduce responsiveness
The reforms also appear to raise reassessment thresholds, with a stronger focus on significant and ongoing change.
AAPi is concerned that this may reduce flexibility during periods of changing need.
7. Greater reliance on peer-reviewed evidence may disadvantage disability supports
The legislation introduces stronger weighting toward peer-reviewed evidence when determining funded supports.
Individual outcomes and clinician evidence may carry less weight.
This raises concerns because:
- disability populations are heterogeneous;
- evidence bases vary considerably;
- some interventions are difficult to study;
- participant-specific improvements may not fit traditional evidence hierarchies.
AAPi is concerned that this risk reduces the recognition of clinical judgement and participant experience.
8. Increased expectations on families and informal supports
The reforms strengthen consideration of informal supports, including family and carers.
AAPi is concerned that this may increase expectations that families absorb support responsibilities previously funded through the NDIS.
For some participants, this may mean greater reliance on:
- parents;
- partners;
- siblings;
- unpaid carers;
- informal support networks.
Families already under significant pressure should not become the safety net for system reductions.
9. Increased automation of administrative actions and decision-making
The legislation expands opportunities for automated administrative processes within the NDIS.
While automation may improve efficiency, questions remain around:
- transparency;
- algorithmic bias;
- safeguards;
- review rights;
- consideration of complexity and context.
Disability, psychosocial functioning and support needs are inherently nuanced. AAPi is concerned that significant decisions affecting access to support should remain open to meaningful human oversight and challenge.
10. More standardised planning and assessments may reduce individualised support
Future planning reforms appear likely to rely increasingly on structured assessments and standardised approaches to budgeting and support allocation.
AAPi is concerned that standardisation risks reducing recognition of:
- complexity;
- context;
- psychosocial factors;
- lived experience;
- clinician insight.
Consistency is important, but disability support must remain individualised.
11. Mainstream and foundational supports remain underdeveloped
AAPi remains concerned that access may tighten before alternative supports are adequately available. Without strong foundational systems, the risk of unmet needs increases.
What does this mean for psychologists?
Psychologists may see impacts across:
- therapy funding;
- participant eligibility;
- reassessment processes;
- evidence requirements;
- psychosocial disability access;
- service demand;
- support planning;
- participants falling between systems.
Many of these changes may not be immediately visible but could significantly alter access over the coming years.
AAPi will be making a submission, and we encourage members to do the same
The consultation timeframe is extremely short.
Submissions do not need to be lengthy. Valuable examples include:
- impacts of therapy reductions;
- examples where treatment improved functioning but disability remained;
- experiences of clients struggling to access mainstream supports;
- concerns about reassessments;
- workforce implications;
- participant stories (de-identified);
- impacts of requiring families to absorb more support.
Submit to the Senate inquiry here:
Make a submission to the Senate Inquiry
We recognise that many psychologists, participants and families are feeling anxious about the pace and scale of current disability reforms. AAPi will continue providing updates and opportunities for members to contribute to advocacy as reforms progress.
AAPi will continue analysing the legislation, preparing our submission, and advocating to ensure participant outcomes, psychologist expertise, and equitable access remain central to future reforms.