A stack of paper representing the NDIS reforms.

The Federal government’s NDIS reforms have passed Parliament, after the states agreed to several co-governance changes to the scheme.

The changes include:

  • an agreement to introduce faster timeframes for approving NDIS rules
  • a new dispute resolution approach to escalate issues to First Ministers
  • and a move from unanimous to majority First Ministers’ support for any rules with significant impacts for people with disability and governments.

The reform bill then passed Federal Parliament on Thursday.

NDIS Minister Bill Shorten and the states said the agreed changes would limit the scheme’s growth to eight per cent.

Concerns remain

But the disability community remains concerned about the impact of the changes on their NDIS supports.

People with Disability Australia (PWDA) president Marayke Jonkers said the new changes will severely restrict access to the NDIS and supports people with disability rely on.

“We are deeply disappointed with the outcome. These reforms will make it harder for people with disability to participate in our schools, workplaces, and communities,” she said.

She pointed to elements of the legislation that enable the introduction of strict transitional support lists that do not fully recognise the different and cost-effective ways people with disability access support, and said a lack of clarity on what the future now looks like for people with disability is “deeply concerning”.

PWDA is also concerned about the exclusion of people with disability and their representative organisations from the legislative process, and the increased powers given to the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) in relation to debt recovery and penalties for participants.

The government has promised to consult the disability community after the bill passes on things like needs assessments and what supports participants can use their plan for.

Prior to the bill’s passing, peak bodies including Physical Disability Australia had called on the Senate to vote against the bill due to “grave concerns about the constitutional and human rights implications”.