Are NDIS changes set to do more harm than good?

by Sandi Miller
10th August 2026

Pictured: Natalie Rinehart with her therapy dog Kai

THE FEDERAL Government is currently considering the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, which, if passed, will come into effect in stages over the next two years.
The Government says the changes will protect the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) for people with permanent and significant disability, and for future generations who will rely on it.
A statement from the Minister for the NDIS, Mark Butler, said over the past 13 years, the NDIS has become an entrenched and beloved national institution.

“It has changed lives — and changed our country — for the better.
However, costs are continuing to rise rapidly, participants are too often not getting quality supports, and the NDIS has become a target for ‘shonks’ and fraudsters.”

Mr Butler said the changes are designed to address two issues.
Firstly, the NDIS is currently growing at a rate that was unforeseen when it was established in 2013.
He said that if left unchecked, this would put the long-term sustainability of the NDIS at risk.

“These reforms are about saving the NDIS itself.
Because if we act now, we can safeguard and strengthen it, so that it serves the Australians it was created to help.”

Secondly, he says over time the NDIS has become the target for fraudulent activity, impacting the scheme as a whole.
Fraud has a direct and devastating impact on the lives of participants and their families, leading to lower quality services, exploitation, and harm.
These changes see reforms into who can receive NDIS funding, and how their needs are assessed and re-assessed, and removes the ability to roll unspent funds into the next funding cycle.
The changes also determine who can provide services under the scheme, adds caps to some categories of claims, allows funding for some categories of services to be reduced across the board, and allows for streamlined administrative measures, such as having AI assess claims.

Concerns about changes to the scheme

Recent Treasury modelling revealed more than 240,000 people will be forced to exit the scheme over the next four years as part of the plan to cut spending by $35 billion over a decade.
Meanwhile, a Senate inquiry has heard concerns from across the disability sector after receiving more than 4,000 public submissions in just over a fortnight, including a submission from the state and territory governments who say they will be forced to pick up the pieces for those who fall through the widened cracks.
The States’ submission said, “significant projected participant exits” by 2031 have not been “accompanied by clearly defined alternative supports”, and that all jurisdictions shared “a collective responsibility” for the sustainability of the NDIS.

“The pace of reform — focused heavily on expenditure constraint, without a clearly defined broader ecosystem and with limited consultation — creates a significant risk of fragmented service delivery.
There is a significant risk that people with disability will end up in hospitals or other settings that are inappropriate and unable to meet their needs, or have no access to services at all,”
the submission said.

The inquiry has been extended until August 14.
Mr Butler appeared recently on the ABC’s Insiders program and was asked whether people would die as a result of the bill.
The Minister’s response: “No, they won’t.”
Yet it is understood deaths have already taken place because of cutbacks to support that will only worsen dramatically as hundreds of thousands of disabled people are thrown off the scheme.
The Senate inquiry was told about the case of “Lee”, an NDIS participant who died after her 24-hour care was reduced to just eight hours.
Warrandyte-based counsellor Natalie Rinehart told the Diary she believed there will “undoubtedly” be deaths due to these changes.

“When vulnerable young people lose access to the providers who have helped them navigate a world that was never designed with them in mind, there will be consequences.
Some of those consequences will be devastating”.

Ms Rinehart is a counsellor who works primarily with neurodivergent young people, with around a quarter of her clients receiving NDIS funding.
She says these changes are a blunt instrument being used in a delicate environment.

“The NDIS was built on the principle of ‘Choice and Control.’
Today, that promise feels hollow.
It has become: ‘fit your disability into this small administrative box and receive support in the prescribed way’.
It tells disabled people that they don’t get to decide who understands them, who has earned their trust, or who helps them build a meaningful life.
Quite frankly, I find that offensive.”

Ms Rinehart said over the years she has watched extraordinary young people do extraordinary things.

“I’ve seen them recover from burnout, return to school, find employment, make friends, experience their first healthy relationship, discover hobbies, develop confidence, and find a sense of identity, purpose, and belonging.
These are not small achievements.
They are life-changing.”

She said the tragedy is that the NDIS is now removing the very supports that made those outcomes possible.
NDIS clients are also in constant fear that if for some reason they are out of touch when the NDIS comes calling, they are at risk of being cut off.
One of Ms Rineheart’s NDIS clients shared her story about the NDIS attempting to contact her on a “long dead” email address, with no communications logged in her MyGov mailbox, and with only one attempt at a phone call, which rang out as she was trying to get to the phone.

“They never rang back, and now I have been given a $1 plan.”

For her, this means no help showering, no maintenance of her wheelchair, no support for shopping, or toileting.
She said there was no follow-up, no consultation, just a $1 plan.
Many of the changes have been prompted by widespread fraud in the system, which some say points to a lack of oversight by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA), which manages the scheme.
However, measures put in place to control fraud are having unintended consequences for legitimate providers who may not fit neatly into the NDIS box.
The changes also mean that someone like Natalie, who is a highly respected counsellor working with vulnerable teenagers, is being stripped of the ability to work with NDIS clients, because her practice does not fit within the NDIS’ parameters, and she cannot afford the $15,000 it will cost to be registered as an NDIS provider — “Because I am a counsellor, not a psychologist”.

“I could get my master’s in counselling, but why would I do that?
I have got a firing practice where only 25 per cent of my clients are on the NDIS, with a waitlist of over 50 people.
So, this is not about me as a financial commodity; it is about taking care of these young people, because sometimes, coming to see me (and my therapy dog) each week is the only reason they leave the house.
I have people coming from as far away as Frankston or Docklands.
I have people coming from a long way away because they have heard I do things differently and that it works.”

Ms Rinehart said one of her clients, with complex needs and an NDIS plan, was recently told by the NDIA they would no longer fund her treatment with Ms Rinehart because she is not registered as a provider under the Scheme.

“This is someone I have been working with for about three years.
When I first started seeing her, she was in complete meltdown, unable to study or work,  and now she has her first job in the education sector.
But then she gets this call from the NDIS who says, ‘you can’t see Nat anymore’, and she said ‘but Nat is the one who has helped me the most’.
She said all the stress in her life is because the NDIS texts her to say, ‘we will call you sometime this week, and you had better take the call’.
So now she has decided to step back from the NDIS and get out because it is just too traumatic.
That is the part I cannot reconcile.
How am I supposed to sit in front of these families and explain that this is fair?
How do I tell them this is reasonable or proportionate?
Because from where I sit, supporting these young people every single day, it is none of those things.”