The Community Affairs Legislation Committee has received an extension to deliver its final report following the inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.
The Committee is due to deliver its final report on Friday, 19 June.1
Members of the Queensland Law Society Health and Disability Law, Human Rights and Public Law and Elder Law Committees and members with lived experience contributed to a QLS submission.
QLS supports measures which effectively target fraudulent activity and mitigate risks of exploitation and harm to people with disability, however, given the complexities and human rights impacts associated with the NDIS reform proposals, QLS strongly recommends further consultation on the Bill.
QLS Health and Disability Committee Deputy Chair Andrea de Smidt said: “The time for people with disability, advocates and community members to review and digest this wide-reaching Bill was extremely short. There are real risks that the Bill in its current form will cause significant harm.”
The Bill, introduced on 14 May 2026, with submissions due by 1 June 2026, allowed just over two weeks for stakeholder consultation on a scheme which currently supports about 760,000 children and adults with disability.
The Law Council of Australia (LCA) clearly articulates in its Best Practice Legislative Development checklist2 that if the proposed legislation makes significant changes to law/and or policy, an exposure draft bill should be sent to stakeholders for feedback. The consultation should also account for input through this process before legislation is introduced.
Earlier this month, the LCA joined several national peak bodies in calling for the government to extend the Senate inquiry timeframe “to allow genuinely accessible hearings, engagement and consultation with the disability community”.3 The LCA also made a submission about the Bill which closely reflected the QLS submission.
The lack of public consultation on a draft Bill is a significant shortcoming of the government’s consultation process.
In addition to supporting calls for further consultation, QLS holds reservations with the ministerial discretion to reduce funding for groups of supports under the Bill.
The practical effect of the proposal is that where a ministerial support determination is made to reduce funding for specified groups of supports, there is no requirement to consider the individual’s financial capacity or other means to meet any gap caused by the determination.
Fiona Yeang, member of the QLS Disability and Accessibility Network, said: “The proposal significantly risks undermining equitable access to essential supports, including those that facilitate community participation.”
Ms de Smidt added: “QLS holds serious reservations in relation to the breadth of ministerial discretion. The mechanisms are artificial and arbitrary and will have enormous impacts on individuals who are already ‘making do’ under an existing plan.”
QLS considers that additional statutory criteria should be added to the current drafting in the Bill to require the Minister to have regard to the effects of any determination on an individual or individuals and that there be clear, timely and accessible avenues for review of these decisions.
The Bill also seeks to tighten the threshold for permanence. Under the Bill, an impairment or impairments are not permanent or likely to be permanent unless the person has undertaken all appropriate treatment. Treatment may be appropriate regardless of the person’s financial circumstances and geographical location.
QLS suggests further consultation is critical in understanding any unintended impacts on people living in remote and regional parts of the state, where additional or compounding barriers may limit access to certain treatment as well as medical and other reports.
What’s next?
The Parliamentary Committee is due to provide its report this Friday.
It is understood that more than 4000 submissions have been provided to the inquiry on the Bill to date.4 As at the date of publication, almost 1000 submissions have been published on the Committee website.5
QLS strongly recommends consultation and co-design with people with disability, disability organisations and other key stakeholders.
As noted by the Disability Royal Commission, “Co-design includes each aspect of the design of services, systems, policies, laws and research, and entails developing proposed approaches and alternatives and identifying preferred solutions.”6
The calls for additional time from people with disability and disability advocates7 highlights the critical importance of co-design in the creation of good law.
QLS will review the Committee recommendations and the government’s response over coming days.
For further information about the Parliamentary process, see the inquiry page “National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – Parliament of Australia”.
Proctor has also published this perspective from Niti Prakash, Lawyer, advocate and parent who asks: What kind of scheme does Australia want NDIS to be?
Footnotes
1 https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=b244744c-af1a-49f3-8d78-79e805c366fb
2 Best Practice Legislative Development Checklist – Law Council of Australia
3 Joint statement: NDIS reforms risk real harm without proper consultation | National Legal Aid
4 State and territory disability ministers lash federal government’s NDIS changes – ABC News
5 Submissions – Parliament of Australia
6 First Progress Report at p 16.
7 See for example: Submission of Queensland Independent Disability Advocacy Network (QIDAN); Submission of People with Disability Australia.
Share this article