WeRise · Policy platform
Disability and the NDIS
The human story
Why Disability and the NDIS matters
A fair NDIS matters – but accessible homes, services, work and community life matter to every person with disability.
Australia has made an important promise through the NDIS: people with significant and permanent disability should have access to supports that build capacity, increase independence and strengthen community connection. But a fair disability policy cannot stop at an NDIS plan. Disability affects 5.5 million Australians, or 21.4% of the population, while 782,013 people were active NDIS participants at the end of June 2026. The difference between those figures is the policy challenge: most people with disability rely principally on accessible universal systems, family support, income support, community services and their own resources – not the NDIS.
The current system is failing too many people before, outside and alongside the NDIS. In 2018, only 48% of Australians aged 15–64 with disability were employed, compared with 80% of people without disability. Employment is not merely an income measure. It shapes housing security, social connection, confidence, future savings and control over everyday choices. Yet disability employment policy is often treated as secondary to service provision, even though exclusion from work can produce lifelong financial and social consequences.
The policy case is therefore not “more NDIS” or “less NDIS.” It is a better NDIS within a more inclusive Australia. Public funds should buy autonomy, safety, opportunity and participation – not merely service transactions. That requires joint Commonwealth–state accountability, sustained investment in foundational supports and mainstream reform that reduces the need for people to prove their hardship repeatedly before receiving ordinary access to community life.
The practical case
Disability and the NDIS: the findings to notice
People and everyday life
Who Disability and the NDIS affects
The gains are greatest for people locked out of ordinary life – and the responsibility belongs to the whole community.
The direct beneficiaries are people with disability across the life course: children navigating early development and school; young people moving into work, study and independent living; adults requiring personal assistance, accessible housing or psychosocial support; and older people who acquire disability or encounter the NDIS–aged-care boundary. In 2022, 5.5 million Australians had disability. The NDIS served 782,013 active participants by June 2026. This means a disability policy focused solely on participants would exclude the overwhelming majority of people whose inclusion depends primarily on mainstream systems.
Case study
A 24-year-old autistic woman in regional Queensland is able to work part time but cannot reliably travel to work because local transport is inaccessible and she receives little help to navigate employment adjustments. She may not meet NDIS access requirements, yet the absence of accessible transport, a responsive employer-service system and local disability navigation constrains her independence. The appropriate response is not to force an NDIS application; it is to make transport, employment services and community supports work.
The direction of change
What better Disability and the NDIS could look like
Keep individual support strong, make mainstream systems accessible, and hold every level of government accountable.
Australia should retain the NDIS as a national entitlement-based system for people with permanent and significant disability, while redesigning the surrounding disability ecosystem so that the scheme is not forced to substitute for public services that should already be accessible. At June 2026, the NDIS had 782,013 active participants. The scheme should continue to provide individually tailored supports, including personal assistance, assistive technology, therapy where evidence supports it, home modifications, transport-related supports and home-and-living assistance where reasonable and necessary. But its operational model should be simpler, more transparent and more participant-led.
First, the Commonwealth should legislate and fund a national foundational-supports framework with states and territories. The NDIS Review recommended jointly designed, funded and commissioned foundational supports, including navigation, advocacy, psychosocial supports, early supports for children, aids and equipment outside the NDIS, support for families and transitions for young people. These supports should be available without forcing people to meet NDIS eligibility thresholds or repeatedly prove permanent impairment.
Second, NDIS administration should move toward fair, timely and transparent decisions. This requires accessible evidence requirements, independent information and navigation, functional assessment processes that are co-designed and independently evaluated, clear review and appeal rights, and limits on avoidable reassessment. Budget flexibility should expand where it is safe and consistent with safeguards, so participants can use funds to pursue their goals rather than merely purchase predetermined line items.
Costs and choices
The trade-offs behind Disability and the NDIS
The cost of disability support must be judged across the whole system – families, health, housing, employment and public services – not only the NDIS ledger.
The NDIS is a large and growing public program. Australian Government budget papers estimate NDIS expenditure of $53.778 billion in 2026–27, $56.125 billion in 2027–28, $55.082 billion in 2028–29, $55.599 billion in 2029–30 and $56.239 billion in 2030–31. These are forward budget estimates, not actual outturns, and should not be used to claim a settled long-term cost path.
Read the complete costs and trade-offsFollow the evidence
Read further on Disability and the NDIS
- ABS SDAC 2022, released 2024. Keep reference year; do not imply 2026 prevalence.
- AIHW People with disability 2024, Employment. Population aged 15–64; reference 2018. Newer edition exists; compare before claiming current rate.
- NDIS statistics as at 30 June 2026. Recover quarterly report Table D.1 for stable archival citation; distinguish participant count from all people with disability.
Disability & the NDIS sits within a wider set of WeRise policies.
- Foundations of Dignity: more WeRise policies in this pillar
- WeRise: all 29 policies across seven pillars
Key findings
- 5.5 million AustraliansMore than one in five Australians had disability in 2022, making disability inclusion a mainstream national responsibility – not a niche service issue. Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics · Disability, Ageing and Carers, Australia: Summary of Findings · 2024
- 48% vs 80%Only 48% of Australians aged 15–64 with disability were employed in 2018, compared with 80% of people without disability. Source: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare · People with Disability in Australia 2024 · 2024
- 63%Nearly two in three people with disability aged 15 and over experienced barriers to social and community participation in 2022. Source: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare · Australia’s Disability Strategy 2021–2031 Outcomes Framework: Third Annual Report · 2025
- $53.8 billionNDIS expenditure is budgeted at $53.778 billion in 2026–27, making better outcomes, fairer administration and system-wide inclusion financially as well as morally necessary. Source: Australian Government · Budget Paper No. 1, Statement 6: Expenses and Net Capital Investment · 2026
Part 01
The Case for Change
Why Disability & the NDIS matters
Independence is public infrastructure
A fair NDIS matters – but accessible homes, services, work and community life matter to every person with disability.
Australia has made an important promise through the NDIS: people with significant and permanent disability should have access to supports that build capacity, increase independence and strengthen community connection. But a fair disability policy cannot stop at an NDIS plan. Disability affects 5.5 million Australians, or 21.4% of the population, while 782,013 people were active NDIS participants at the end of June 2026. The difference between those figures is the policy challenge: most people with disability rely principally on accessible universal systems, family support, income support, community services and their own resources – not the NDIS.
The current system is failing too many people before, outside and alongside the NDIS. In 2018, only 48% of Australians aged 15–64 with disability were employed, compared with 80% of people without disability. Employment is not merely an income measure. It shapes housing security, social connection, confidence, future savings and control over everyday choices. Yet disability employment policy is often treated as secondary to service provision, even though exclusion from work can produce lifelong financial and social consequences.
Housing illustrates the same issue. In 2022, 26% of people with disability reported difficulty accessing buildings or facilities, while 63% reported barriers to participating in social and community activities. Accessible and adaptable housing, secure tenancies, reliable transport and inclusive local infrastructure determine whether an NDIS-funded support worker can translate into real independence. Where homes are inaccessible or rentals unaffordable, support hours alone may not enable a person to choose where, with whom or how they live.
Safety and rights must be treated as core outcomes. Women with disability reported higher recent rates of physical violence, sexual violence, emotional abuse by a partner and economic abuse than women without disability in 2021–22. The Disability Royal Commission found the response must go beyond provider regulation to include rights protection, accessible reporting, independent advocacy, adult safeguarding, community visitor schemes, supported decision-making and inclusive mainstream institutions.
The NDIS itself needs reform that increases – not erodes – participant power. This means transparent access decisions, timely reviews and appeals, independent navigation, accessible information, person-led planning, flexible support use within clear safeguards, published provider-quality information and pricing models that reward outcomes rather than volume. It also means separating housing ownership and support provision wherever practicable, so a person can change provider without losing their home or being forced into an arrangement chosen for administrative convenience.
The policy case is therefore not “more NDIS” or “less NDIS.” It is a better NDIS within a more inclusive Australia. Public funds should buy autonomy, safety, opportunity and participation – not merely service transactions. That requires joint Commonwealth–state accountability, sustained investment in foundational supports and mainstream reform that reduces the need for people to prove their hardship repeatedly before receiving ordinary access to community life.
Part 02
Evidence and Experience
Disability & the NDIS: what other countries show
What other systems teach us
Sweden · England · New Zealand · Germany
No international system can be transplanted directly into Australia. Jurisdictions differ in taxation, health systems, local-government responsibilities, labour markets and disability-rights architecture. The useful comparison is therefore not “which country has solved disability?” but which design features consistently improve choice, independence, accountability and service quality.
Sweden demonstrates the importance of statutory personal assistance and community-living supports; England provides mature evidence on personal budgets, direct payments and outcome reporting; New Zealand’s Enabling Good Lives model tests flexible, person-led funding with navigation; and Germany offers a legislated personal-budget mechanism, though recent evaluation highlights implementation complexity. Together, these cases support participant control, independent guidance, outcome measurement and strong public stewardship – but caution against assuming that a cash budget alone creates inclusion.
Sweden · LSS Act operating since 1994; latest official statistics reported for 1 October 2024
Statutory services under the Act concerning Support and Service for Persons with Certain Functional Impairments (LSS), including municipal personal assistance for defined “basic needs”; people requiring more than 20 hours a week of basic-needs assistance may be eligible for national assistance allowance. 81,000 people had at least one municipal LSS service on 1 October 2024. Personal-assistance recipients funded solely through the national social-insurance system are not included in the municipal register and represent about two-thirds of all people receiving personal assistance.
- 81,000 people received at least one implemented, municipality-decided LSS service on 1 October 2024.
- The recorded total number of LSS interventions was 121,300 on 1 October 2024.
- Municipal personal-assistance recipients increased from 3,600 in 2010 to 5,300 in 2020, a 47% increase.
- The municipal personal-assistance series declined after 2020, but it excludes national assistance-allowance recipients.
- Eligibility focuses on extensive and permanent disability-related support needs, including breathing, personal hygiene, meals, dressing and communication.
Sweden shows the value of a statutory route to personal assistance and community participation, but its split municipal/national funding arrangements also demonstrate why administrative boundaries must be clear to users. Australia should examine rights-based personal-assistance principles while avoiding fragmented eligibility, reporting and payment systems.
England · Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework, 2024–25
Local-authority adult social care uses personal budgets, with direct payments allowing eligible adults to take some or all of their budget as cash to arrange support. In 2024–25, 24.5% of people drawing on long-term adult social care support received direct payments.
- 65.1% of people using long-term care and support reported satisfaction with services in 2024–25.
- 77.3% reported that they had control over their daily life.
- 24.5% received direct payments, with substantial regional variation from 19.8% in the North East to 33.6% in the East Midlands.
- 45.4% reported having as much social contact as they would like.
- 77.1% of adults required no further ongoing support immediately after short-term services designed to maximise independence.
England’s framework is valuable because it measures lived outcomes – control, satisfaction, social contact and independence – rather than only service volume. The mixed results also show that direct payments are not sufficient by themselves; participants need accessible information, care-market capacity and meaningful choice.
New Zealand · Enabling Good Lives implementation and reporting, 2024–25
Enabling Good Lives (EGL) combines person-led planning, an EGL connector and flexible personalised budgets, including Personal Budgets, Early Investment and Immediate Resourcing. The Ministry of Social Development reported that 55,982 eligible people accessed disability support services in 2024–25. It also reported EGL approaches available to 98% of eligible ORS-verified students aged 14 and over in the Christchurch demonstration, and EGL budgets/support available to 99% of eligible people who submitted an EGL proposal to Mana Whaikaha.
- 55,982 eligible people accessed disability support services in 2024–25, exceeding the stated 50,000 target.
- EGL approach availability reached 98% of eligible ORS-verified students aged 14+ in the Christchurch demonstration.
- EGL budgets and support were available to 99% of eligible people submitting an EGL proposal to Mana Whaikaha.
- The model combines flexible budgets with local connection and planning, rather than treating funding as a stand-alone entitlement.
- National expansion has been paused after administrative and funding changes, limiting the strength of conclusions about scalability.
New Zealand supports the NDIS Review’s case for combining flexible funding with independent navigation and local community connection. Its pause also warns that transformation cannot be sustained without stable governance, clear fiscal commitments and trustworthy implementation.
Germany · Personal Budget evaluation published 2026
Germany’s Personal Budget enables eligible people to receive a budget to purchase and arrange rehabilitation and participation supports rather than receiving services only in kind; detailed payment amounts vary by assessed need and responsible payer. A national evaluation was published in March 2026; the available official summary confirms a legal analysis and interviews with people with disability, representative organisations, rehabilitation providers, payers and experts, but does not publish a verified participant count in the summary.
- The 2026 evaluation examined legal design and interviews with disabled people, representative organisations, professionals, providers, payers and experts.
- The model’s central principle is user-directed purchasing rather than automatic provider-delivered services.
- Payment amounts are individually determined rather than a universal flat payment.
- The available official summary does not provide outcome figures sufficient to claim a measured national effect on independence or expenditure.
- Germany is therefore a useful design comparison, but not yet a strong causal-evidence case for Australia.
Germany reinforces the importance of legislated rights to a personalised budget, but it should not be cited as proof that personal budgets automatically improve outcomes. Australia should prioritise independent evaluation, participant protections and administrative simplicity when expanding flexibility.
Part 03
Costs and Trade-offs
The cost of Disability & the NDIS
Sustainability means value, not retreat
The cost of disability support must be judged across the whole system – families, health, housing, employment and public services – not only the NDIS ledger.
The NDIS is a large and growing public program. Australian Government budget papers estimate NDIS expenditure of $53.778 billion in 2026–27, $56.125 billion in 2027–28, $55.082 billion in 2028–29, $55.599 billion in 2029–30 and $56.239 billion in 2030–31. These are forward budget estimates, not actual outturns, and should not be used to claim a settled long-term cost path.
The fiscal question is real, but a narrow expenditure target is an inadequate policy objective. Gross NDIS spending must be weighed against benefits that are partly measurable – such as reduced unmet need, service continuity, participation and potentially stronger employment – and partly not easily monetised, including safety, autonomy, dignity and family wellbeing. The Productivity Commission concluded that the NDIS could substantially improve wellbeing if implemented well, while warning that poor planning, workforce shortages and unclear system interfaces undermine both outcomes and sustainability.
The 2026–27 Budget says measures will support a new framework-planning approach from April 2027 and projects a $37.8 billion reduction in NDIS payment growth over four years. That is a reduction relative to a previous projected growth path, not a $37.8 billion cut from existing participant supports. Its realised effect depends on implementation, transition safeguards, legal settings and whether foundational and mainstream supports are built in parallel.
The Budget also provides $1.7 billion over five years from 2025–26 to support people with disability and improve NDIS support quality. No primary source located for this dossier quantifies the net fiscal effect of a full WeRise reform package; a credible net-cost estimate requires modelled options and should not be invented.
LEDGER
| Item | Amount | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Baseline NDIS expenditure estimate, 2026–27 | -$53.778 billion | Forward estimate for NDIS expenditure including Commonwealth and state contributions and relevant departmental program costs. |
| Government disability and NDIS support-quality package, five years from 2025–26 | -$1.7 billion | Budget measure intended to support people with disability and improve quality of NDIS supports; not a complete foundational-supports cost. |
| Projected reduction in NDIS payment growth over four years | +$37.8 billion | Budgeted reduction against a previous growth projection; not a direct saving already realised and subject to reform delivery. |
| NDIS expenditure estimate, 2029–30 | -$55.599 billion | Forward estimate; provides context for the intended moderated expenditure path. |
| Avoided-cost effect of better accessible housing, inclusive education, employment and foundational supports | Not quantified | A national primary-source model isolating the fiscal effect of the proposed integrated reform package was not located. Do not estimate without formal costing. |
| Net cost estimate of the full WeRise package | Not yet costed | Requires a defined policy package, implementation phasing, Commonwealth–state cost split and independent fiscal modelling. |
The strongest objections to Disability & the NDIS
The strongest objection is fiscal: the NDIS is already a very large program, and expanding foundational supports, advocacy, navigation, accessible housing and workforce capacity may increase public expenditure before any savings materialise.
This is correct. The 2026–27 Budget estimates NDIS expenditure at $53.778 billion. A whole-of-system reform cannot be assumed to pay for itself. The evidence-based response is not to promise costless reform, but to distinguish immediate investment from longer-term avoided costs, require independent costings, phase implementation, publish outcomes and prevent “savings” that simply transfer care to families, hospitals, homelessness services or state systems.
A second objection is that wider flexibility could increase fraud, waste or unsafe purchasing.
The risk is genuine in any large individualised funding system. The NDIS Review did not recommend abandoning oversight; it proposed a trust-based model paired with risk-proportionate provider regulation, improved data infrastructure, stronger market monitoring and better quality safeguards. A sound approach is to target scrutiny at high-risk transactions, conflicts of interest, restrictive practices, provider conduct and exploitation rather than impose universal administrative burdens that make ordinary support harder to access.
A third objection is that national standards may override individual choice, including choices about special schools, Australian Disability Enterprises, group homes or provider models.
The Royal Commission documented genuine disagreement among commissioners about whether and how quickly segregated settings should be phased out, even while agreeing that mainstream systems require major reform and inclusive options must expand. The policy response should not erase this disagreement. It should protect current residents and workers, prohibit coercion, invest in genuinely viable alternatives, strengthen rights and safeguards in existing settings, and ensure that “choice” is informed, supported and unconstrained by the absence of alternatives.
A fourth objection is administrative feasibility.
Australia has repeatedly created strategies and reviews without delivering reliable implementation across federal, state and local systems. The Productivity Commission found the earlier National Disability Agreement ineffective, and the NDIS Review itself requires extensive coordination. This is a serious warning. Reform needs statutory duties, funded intergovernmental agreements, transparent outcome measures, named accountable agencies, independent evaluation, public progress reporting and consequences for failure – not another aspirational strategy alone.
A fifth objection is that evidence on some interventions remains incomplete.
For example, the net fiscal effect of foundational supports, the optimum approach to functional assessment, the best home-and-living model for every cohort, and the effectiveness of particular employment interventions are not settled by a single high-quality Australian evidence base. The NDIS Review itself recommended an Evidence Committee, a Disability Research and Evaluation Fund and stronger data infrastructure. The appropriate response is disciplined policy experimentation: co-design, pilot, evaluate, publish results and adjust. It is not paralysis, but neither is it certainty where evidence is limited.
Part 04
The Australian Design
How Disability & the NDIS would work in Australia
A disability system built around ordinary life
Keep individual support strong, make mainstream systems accessible, and hold every level of government accountable.
Australia should retain the NDIS as a national entitlement-based system for people with permanent and significant disability, while redesigning the surrounding disability ecosystem so that the scheme is not forced to substitute for public services that should already be accessible. At June 2026, the NDIS had 782,013 active participants. The scheme should continue to provide individually tailored supports, including personal assistance, assistive technology, therapy where evidence supports it, home modifications, transport-related supports and home-and-living assistance where reasonable and necessary. But its operational model should be simpler, more transparent and more participant-led.
First, the Commonwealth should legislate and fund a national foundational-supports framework with states and territories. The NDIS Review recommended jointly designed, funded and commissioned foundational supports, including navigation, advocacy, psychosocial supports, early supports for children, aids and equipment outside the NDIS, support for families and transitions for young people. These supports should be available without forcing people to meet NDIS eligibility thresholds or repeatedly prove permanent impairment.
Second, NDIS administration should move toward fair, timely and transparent decisions. This requires accessible evidence requirements, independent information and navigation, functional assessment processes that are co-designed and independently evaluated, clear review and appeal rights, and limits on avoidable reassessment. Budget flexibility should expand where it is safe and consistent with safeguards, so participants can use funds to pursue their goals rather than merely purchase predetermined line items.
Third, participant power must be strengthened in markets where provider control is high. The NDIS Review recommended housing-and-living navigators, trial arrangements at key life stages, separation of Specialist Disability Accommodation and living-support providers, provider-quality information and more active market stewardship. Australia should also establish a provider-of-last-resort framework for thin markets, particularly in rural, remote and First Nations communities, so choice does not collapse when a provider exits.
Fourth, mainstream inclusion needs enforceable targets and funding. States and territories should carry clear responsibility for inclusive education, accessible social housing, public transport, hospital discharge pathways, mental health care and justice-system accessibility. The Royal Commission recommended major reforms across education, employment and housing and recorded that mainstream systems are failing many people with disability. The Commonwealth should use national agreements, tied funding, disability impact assessments, public reporting and independent oversight to ensure that responsibility is not shifted back onto individual NDIS plans.
A realistic timeline is staged. In the first 12 months, establish co-design governance, publish responsibility protocols, protect existing participants through transition guarantees, expand independent advocacy and navigation, and begin provider-quality transparency. Over years 2–3, establish foundational supports through enforceable Commonwealth–state agreements, implement plan-process reform and begin housing-and-living separation safeguards. Over years 4–5, link funding to measurable outcomes in accessibility, employment, education, housing and safety. Reform should be tested locally, independently evaluated and scaled only where it improves outcomes without creating new barriers.
Part 05
People and Transition
Who Disability & the NDIS affects
Everyone has a stake in inclusion
The gains are greatest for people locked out of ordinary life – and the responsibility belongs to the whole community.
The direct beneficiaries are people with disability across the life course: children navigating early development and school; young people moving into work, study and independent living; adults requiring personal assistance, accessible housing or psychosocial support; and older people who acquire disability or encounter the NDIS–aged-care boundary. In 2022, 5.5 million Australians had disability. The NDIS served 782,013 active participants by June 2026. This means a disability policy focused solely on participants would exclude the overwhelming majority of people whose inclusion depends primarily on mainstream systems.
People with significant disability who use the NDIS stand to benefit from more consistent access decisions, easier navigation, better plan quality, transparent provider performance and stronger safeguards. People outside the NDIS stand to benefit from foundational supports, accessible community services, better access to aids and equipment, stronger advocacy and mainstream systems that no longer treat disability adjustments as exceptional. Families and unpaid carers benefit when responsibility is not silently transferred into the home.
Case study
A 24-year-old autistic woman in regional Queensland is able to work part time but cannot reliably travel to work because local transport is inaccessible and she receives little help to navigate employment adjustments. She may not meet NDIS access requirements, yet the absence of accessible transport, a responsive employer-service system and local disability navigation constrains her independence. The appropriate response is not to force an NDIS application; it is to make transport, employment services and community supports work.
Case study
A 48-year-old man with acquired brain injury receives NDIS-funded daily living support and lives in a provider-linked group arrangement. He fears changing support providers because his provider also influences his housing security. Housing-and-living navigation, separation between accommodation and support provision, tenancy protection, independent advocacy and a wider supply of accessible homes would turn nominal choice into practical choice.
Women with disability have particular safety stakes. In 2021–22, 4.0% of women with disability reported sexual violence in the preceding two years, compared with 2.5% of women without disability; 4.6% reported economic abuse by a partner, compared with 2.4%. People with cognitive disability, people in congregate settings, First Nations people with disability, people in remote communities and people with psychosocial disability may face compounded barriers to information, decision-making support, complaint mechanisms and safe service access.
Opposition or caution will come from different directions. Some governments may oppose reforms that increase their mainstream-service obligations. Some providers may resist transparent outcome reporting, pricing reform, separation of housing and support functions, or stronger registration and compliance obligations. Some disability advocates will reasonably oppose reform if it appears to restrict eligibility or reduce flexibility before foundational supports exist. Those concerns are legitimate: implementation must guarantee continuity of support, co-design, accessible transition processes and independent oversight.
Part 06
Related policies
Disability & the NDIS sits within a wider set of WeRise policies.
- Foundations of Dignity: more WeRise policies in this pillar
- WeRise: all 29 policies across seven pillars
Notes
Sources and Supporting Documents
- ABS SDAC 2022, released 2024. Keep reference year; do not imply 2026 prevalence.
- AIHW People with disability 2024, Employment. Population aged 15–64; reference 2018. Newer edition exists; compare before claiming current rate.
- NDIS statistics as at 30 June 2026. Recover quarterly report Table D.1 for stable archival citation; distinguish participant count from all people with disability.
Further source mapping and verification of the international comparisons and budget assumptions are in progress.
Record
Revision History
26 October 2026: Fred approved publication of this initial discussion draft. Primary source links recovered; detailed research, source mapping and verification remain in progress. This is a policy direction, not a fully costed or adopted implementation package.
Specific proposals
Making Disability and the NDIS practical
The direction set out in this policy is the starting point. This is where individual measures can be developed so people can examine what would change, who would benefit and how it could work.
As each measure develops, its evidence, delivery arrangements, costs and open questions will be set out alongside it. The areas below come from the existing policy; they are starting points for detailed proposals, not final costed commitments.
Keep individual support strong, make mainstream systems accessible, and hold every level of government accountable.
Australia should retain the NDIS as a national entitlement-based system for people with permanent and significant disability, while redesigning the surrounding disability ecosystem so that the scheme is not forced to substitute for public services that should already be accessible. At June 2026, the NDIS had 782,013 active participants. The scheme should continue to provide individually tailored supports, including personal assistance, assistive technology, therapy where evidence supports it, home modifications, transport-related supports and home-and-living assistance where reasonable and necessary. But its operational model should be simpler, more transparent and more participant-led.
First, the Commonwealth should legislate and fund a national foundational-supports framework with states and territories. The NDIS Review recommended jointly designed, funded and commissioned foundational supports, including navigation, advocacy, psychosocial supports, early supports for children, aids and equipment outside the NDIS, support for families and transitions for young people. These supports should be available without forcing people to meet NDIS eligibility thresholds or repeatedly prove permanent impairment.