From “clarity” to compliance: how recent NDIS reforms are shifting pressure onto households

Australia’s disability support system is in the middle of its biggest rebuild since the NDIS began — driven by government promises of a “better, fairer, more sustainable” scheme, and mounting concern about costs, fraud, and uneven outcomes.

But on the ground, many people with disability and families describe the reforms as adding a new layer of uncertainty and workload — at the same time as workforce shortages, service gaps and cost-of-living pressures continue.

The result is that “sustainability” is being felt at household level as administrative burden, fear of losing supports, and delays in getting urgent help.

This piece breaks down how the reforms translate into pressure — and who carries it.

1) New “NDIS supports” definition and lists: clarity, but more policing of everyday life

Since 3 October 2024, the law has included a new definition of what counts as an “NDIS support”, backed by lists describing what funding can and can’t be spent on. The government frames this as clarity and consistency.

How this can increase pressure

• More anxiety and self-censorship: Participants and families are more likely to second-guess purchases (“Will this be rejected?”), even for items that are arguably disability-related.

• More disputes at the edges: The hardest cases are not obvious “no’s” — they’re borderline supports (especially where disability intersects with health, education, housing, or parenting). That ambiguity often becomes a stressor inside families, not just a policy debate.

• More admin and paperwork: People who self-manage (and many plan-managed participants too) can face extra checking, explaining, and documenting — a hidden labour that typically falls on participants and unpaid carers.

The Department of Health and Aged Care explicitly notes the government has released lists of what participants “can and cannot spend” funding on, and that the National Disability Insurance Agency may work with people if they buy items that are not considered NDIS supports.

That “work with you” framing still implies risk — and when people already live close to the margin, risk creates pressure.

2) New planning model from mid-2026: change fatigue, plus fear of losing control

The National Disability Insurance Agency says that from mid-2026 the planning process will begin shifting to “new framework planning” to be fairer, more consistent and easier.

How this can increase pressure

• Transition uncertainty: When rules change, people worry about what happens at their next plan reassessment. Families often respond by stockpiling evidence, paying for reports, or reducing supports “just in case” — all of which increases stress.

• Higher stakes for documentation: The reforms include steps like confirming/recording impairment information (including for people who entered earlier) and issuing impairment notices for new access requests from 1 January 2025. In practice, this can mean more effort proving what many already live with every day.

• Reduced sense of agency: Reporting around the new planning model has raised concerns about what happens if plan budgets are set through more standardised systems and participants can’t easily challenge the total amount. Even if the intent is consistency, losing the feeling of “I can get this fixed” is a major stressor — especially for people with complex, fluctuating, or poorly understood disability-related needs.

  
  

3) Reviews and appeals: when “accountability” feels like a closed door

One of the most destabilising pressures isn’t just what decisions are made — it’s whether people believe they can challenge them.

News reporting about Senate estimates has flagged that under the new system, most participants may not be able to externally appeal the total funding amount in the same way as before, with review bodies potentially limited in directly changing funding decisions.

How this can increase pressure

• More conflict inside households: When supports shrink or become uncertain, families often end up renegotiating safety, work, schooling, transport, and care — without a clear “fix” path.

• More burnout for advocates and carers: If people must push harder to be heard, the workload shifts to those with the least capacity to fight: participants, parents, and unpaid carers.

• More inequity: Those who can afford advocacy, legal support, or extra clinical reports tend to do better. Those who can’t are more likely to go without.

4) Provider reforms and mandatory registration: better safeguards, but short-term disruption risk

The NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission has confirmed mandatory registration will start from 1 July 2026 for supported independent living (SIL) providers and platform providers, following an announcement by Jenny McAllister in December 2025.

How this can increase pressure

• Service continuity fear: If some providers exit rather than register, participants may face gaps — particularly in thin markets or for high-support needs.

• More coordination burden: Changing providers is not a simple “swap”: it involves onboarding, care plans, behaviour supports, rostering, compatibility, and trust — again, usually carried by families.

• Short-term instability: Even good reforms can create turbulence during implementation, especially where workforce shortages already exist.

Safeguards matter. But safeguards that reduce supply — even temporarily — can raise risk and stress for participants who rely on daily supports to live safely.

5) “Foundational supports” and shifting responsibilities: people get caught between systems

A major driver of reform is a new division of responsibility: what the NDIS funds versus what mainstream and state systems should provide. This is central to the “future of the NDIS” framing coming out of National Cabinet, including recent health-and-disability funding negotiations.

A key flashpoint is “Thriving Kids” — a program discussed publicly as a way to support some children (including those with mild-to-moderate autism) outside the NDIS, which has reportedly been delayed as jurisdictions work through implementation.

How this can increase pressure

• System ping-pong: When a support is “not NDIS” but the alternative isn’t ready or accessible, families face a cliff-edge.

• Uneven geography: State capacity varies. A child or adult may have better access in one location than another, increasing inequity.

• More gatekeeping: The more systems involved, the more assessments and referrals — and the more opportunities for people to fall through gaps.

6) Growth targets as lived experience: “sustainability” can translate into tighter decisions

Recent intergovernmental reporting notes efforts to bring annual scheme growth down (figures around 5–6% have been publicly discussed in the context of reforms).

Even if governments insist people won’t lose “reasonable and necessary” supports, cost control can still show up as:

• narrower interpretations of what’s disability-related,

• more frequent requests for evidence,

• smaller or more standardised budgets,

• delayed decisions,

• and greater scrutiny on spending.

This isn’t always a formal “cut”. Often it’s a thousand tiny friction points that cumulatively raise stress and reduce quality of life.

Who is most exposed to the pressure

Across the reform package, the heaviest pressure tends to fall on:

• People with complex support needs (especially where health, behaviour support, housing, or justice systems intersect)

• Families doing high-intensity care (particularly single parents and ageing carers)

• People in regional and outer-suburban areas with thinner provider markets

• Participants who self-manage (more flexibility, but also more compliance/admin exposure)

• People with fluctuating or hard-to-document disability (higher proof burden)

  
  

What would reduce pressure without abandoning reform goals

Reform doesn’t have to mean harm — but implementation choices matter. Pressure drops when systems build in:

• Clear, accessible guidance (in plain language, with real-world examples)

• Fast escalation pathways when someone is at risk of losing essential supports

• Genuine continuity protections during provider registration transitions

• Independent, usable review rights people can trust

• Foundational supports that are real on day one, not “promised later”

• Workforce investment so “choice and control” exists beyond paperwork