NDIS bill’s human rights compatibility statement assessed as “inadequate”

A new NDIS bill is moving through parliament fast, with no modelling, no released plan, and no way for anyone outside government to check what it will do to people’s supports.

What’s in the bill

The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 was introduced to the House of Representatives on 14 May 2026. It’s the third round of NDIS reform legislation, aiming to slow the scheme’s growth, tighten eligibility, bring in a standardised assessment for new participants, and crack down on fraud.

We spoke with Rosemary Kayess, Disability Discrimination Commissioner at the Australian Human Rights Commission, about what’s at stake.

A one-size-fits-all test worries advocates

The bill’s standardised functional capacity assessment runs against a core idea the scheme was built on, Kayess says.

“You need to be able to base support around the unique circumstances of the individual,” she says.

Standardising that “might give greater consistency, but they really do risk undermining individualised decision-making,” raising questions of fairness, transparency and safeguards.

The government hasn’t shown its work

Kayess says the bill’s statement of compatibility, the document meant to show the changes don’t breach human rights, was assessed as highly inadequate. There’s also no published rollout plan, and no modelling showing what the changes will mean in practice.

“We’ve got no sight of those components,” she says. “We’ve just got a bill that, on face value, could have some quite significant cumulative impacts.”

Where parliament is up to

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights reviewed the bill’s statement of compatibility, publishing its findings in Report 7 on 16 June 2026. The Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee is separately running its own inquiry, with a final report due 14 August 2026.

Kayess wants something more lasting too: an independent monitoring mechanism, required under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, to let people outside government check what the scheme is achieving. The NDIS has never had one.

Who ends up paying

The bill is framed around sustainability. Kayess doesn’t accept that framing at face value.

“It obscures the human rights impacts,” she says.

Asked directly whether people living with disability are paying for budget repair, her answer was blunt: “Literally… through the rolling back of supports, their ability to participate in the community, and the narrowing of definitions.”

What happens next

None of this is settled. The Senate inquiry is still open, no modelling has been published, and there’s still no independent body checking whether the NDIS meets its human rights obligations, whichever way the bill lands.

For people relying on the scheme, that means decisions about their support are being made without the evidence to show what those decisions will cost them.