The government’s own advisors warn the bill could cause material harm to people with disability and shift the NDIS away from its founding principles.

The NDIS Reform Advisory Committee submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee is unusually significant because of the RAC’s role. Established as part of the Government’s response to the 2023 NDIS Review, it advises government on implementation progress, risks, and is meant to include people with disability in any reforms.

The majority of members are people with disability, NDIS participants, or family members of participants, appointed by the NDIS Minister.

The submission was authored by co-chairs El Gibbs and Dougie Herd, with input from all RAC members and their endorsement. It says the Bill should be redrafted in genuine partnership with the disability community.

The RAC says community concern about the Bill is “clear, consistent and near-uniform”. It says people with disability, families and disability organisations have responded with shock, fear and concern that the NDIS and its intergovernmental framework are being partially dismantled.

The submission argues the Bill would cut or reduce supports across participant plans, rather than assess people according to their individual circumstances, support needs and goals. It pays particular attention to proposed reductions in social and community participation and capacity building supports.

The RAC says these cuts disregard real, individualised need for reasonable and necessary supports. It argues they would be imposed across designated categories through a new power held by a single Commonwealth Minister, without adequate safeguards or merit review.

The committee also warns the Bill relies on non-public data in several areas, and says some proposed powers appear inconsistent with public evidence, the NDIS Review and the RAC’s own expertise.

A major part of the submission concerns Australia’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

The RAC says the Bill raises serious questions about the rights framework underpinning the NDIS, including rights to participation, independent living and inclusion in community life. It notes that the NDIS Act itself includes an object of giving effect to Australia’s obligations under the Convention.

The committee is particularly critical of the process used to develop the Bill. It says that, as far as it could ascertain, no Disability Representative Organisation was consulted on the content of Minister Mark Butler’s National Press Club speech, the Budget measures, or any draft of the Bill. The RAC itself says it was not engaged in developing the Bill’s provisions.

The submission says this conflicts with the Convention’s requirement that governments closely consult and actively involve people with disability, including through representative organisations, when developing laws and policies that affect them.

It also criticises the parliamentary timetable. The Bill was introduced on 14 May 2026, submissions were due by 1 June, the Senate committee is due to report on 16 June, and the Government is aiming for Royal Assent by 30 June. The RAC says this is too compressed for the most substantial changes to the NDIS Act since 2013.

The RAC argues the Bill misrepresents the original intent of the NDIS.

It returns to the 2011 Productivity Commission report and the 2012 parliamentary debate establishing the Scheme. It says the NDIS was designed to replace an underfunded, fragmented and crisis-driven system with a national, individualised, rights-based system of support.

The committee accepts that financial sustainability has always been part of the NDIS. But it says sustainability was intended to apply to the Scheme as a whole, not to operate as a constraint on each participant’s plan.

The RAC is especially concerned that Schedule 1 of the Bill would shift sustainability from the level of Scheme design and governance onto individual plans. It says this changes the core test from what a participant needs to what is consistent with affordability and comparison to other participants.

The submission says proposed changes to the objects and principles of the Act, the repeal of existing participant-directed planning principles, and the insertion of new sustainability principles would weaken choice, control, flexibility and individualised support.

The RAC says the Bill also inverts the NDIS Review.

The Government has relied on the Review to justify reform. But the RAC argues the Review recommended a staged transition in which foundational supports, mainstream services and the NDIS were built together.

The submission says access changes and budget-setting changes should occur only after foundational supports are available. It says the Bill does the reverse.

The RAC points to proposed social and community participation cuts commencing on 1 October 2026, when foundational supports for adults would not yet exist. It also cites proposed cuts to Capacity Building Daily Activities, reassessments of existing participants, and the removal of about 160,000 participants by 2030. The RAC says these changes would proceed before the necessary alternatives are in place.

A central criticism is that the Bill concentrates too much power in the Commonwealth Minister.

The RAC says the original NDIS Act created a federated joint venture involving the Commonwealth, states and territories, an independent NDIA and the disability community. Rule-making required intergovernmental engagement. Pricing was handled by the NDIA Board through an annual pricing review. Individual support decisions were made through participant-directed planning.

The submission says the Bill changes this architecture. It identifies four major concentrations of power: a ministerial power to reduce funding across support categories; a ministerial pricing determination power; automation provisions allowing computer programs to contribute to the CEO’s “state of mind”; and a Henry VIII clause allowing the Minister to modify the operation of the NDIS Act by legislative instrument.

The RAC says this displaces joint stewardship with Commonwealth ministerial control. It also says the Bill does not fix longstanding operational problems in the NDIA, but instead transfers some powers away from the Agency while leaving its capacity problems unresolved.

The RAC raises detailed concerns about each schedule.

On access and assessment, it says the proposed functional capacity assessment removes consideration of a person’s environment and individual circumstances. It says this conflicts with best practice and risks particular harm to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with disability, people with intellectual disability, people without informal supports and women.

On reassessments, the RAC says tighter limits may leave people without vital supports at times of crisis. It also disputes the way unscheduled reassessments have been presented as a cost problem.

On provider regulation, the RAC supports action against exploitation, over-servicing, over-billing and “sharp practices”. But it says registration alone will not guarantee quality or stop fraud. It also warns against imposing large civil penalties on people with disability and families for administrative breaches.

On pricing and automation, the RAC says NDIS pricing should not sit with a single Minister. It also says automation in human services must proceed slowly, with safeguards, oversight, public reporting, appeal rights and human decision-making.

The RAC makes ten recommendations.

It says the Bill should not be passed in its current form. It calls for whole-of-government cost accounting before further reform proceeds, including likely cost shifts to hospitals, income support, mental health services, housing and justice systems.

It wants access changes and budget reductions legally tied to the prior availability of foundational supports. It also calls for removal of the ministerial power to reduce funding across support categories, removal of the Henry VIII clause, limits on ministerial pricing powers, changes to sustainability principles, removal of the parental presumption, changes to the evidence hierarchy, and an extended parliamentary process.

The submission’s overall message is direct: reform is necessary, but it should be done with people with disability, not to them. The RAC says the current Bill does not meet that test.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Id dicta repellendus ea omnis odit et modi similique ut odit adipisci et aperiam deserunt est nihil atque nam sapiente illum? Est accusantium error et dolor libero eos magni vero et odit voluptates et ullam consequatur ex exercitationem harum. Et reprehenderit voluptatem a quae quia.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Id dicta repellendus ea omnis odit et modi similique ut odit adipisci et aperiam deserunt est nihil atque nam sapiente illum?

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Id dicta repellendus ea omnis odit et modi similique ut odit adipisci et aperiam deserunt est nihil atque nam sapiente illum? Est accusantium error et dolor libero eos magni vero et odit voluptates et ullam consequatur ex exercitationem harum. Et reprehenderit voluptatem a quae quia.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Id dicta repellendus ea omnis odit et modi similique ut odit adipisci et aperiam deserunt est nihil atque nam sapiente illum? Est accusantium error et dolor libero eos magni vero et odit voluptates et ullam consequatur ex exercitationem harum. Et reprehenderit voluptatem a quae quia.

Est rerum sunt eum nisi dolores est velit voluptatem non exercitationem consequatur id Quis ipsa. Sed autem fugit eos consequuntur maxime est corrupti laboriosam ea totam amet.