Last checked: 13 July 2026.
Public debate often describes the NDIS as being in crisis. A more useful explanation separates verified growth in participation and expenditure from the design problems identified by official reviews. It also separates laws already in force from changes that Parliament has not yet passed.
This article provides general information only. Scheme-wide figures cannot predict what will happen to an individual person’s access, plan or funding.
The short answer: pressure has more than one cause
The NDIS is supporting substantially more people than the original 2011 full-scheme estimate, while Scheme expenses have continued to grow. These are genuine demand and financial sustainability pressures. They are not, by themselves, proof that participants are receiving support they do not need or that one disability group has caused the pressure.
There is also a system-design issue. The NDIS was intended to sit inside a wider disability support ecosystem. The independent NDIS Review’s final report found that accessible foundational supports and inclusive mainstream services had not developed as intended, while responsibilities across systems remained unclear. This can leave people relying more heavily on the NDIS and can make the scheme harder to navigate.
What the participation figures show
The Productivity Commission’s 2011 inquiry estimated that, when the proposed scheme was fully operational, around 410,000 people would receive scheme funding support. At 31 March 2026, the NDIA’s latest quarterly report recorded 774,456 participants with approved NDIS plans.
That comparison shows that the scheme is supporting substantially more people than the original estimate. It is not a like-for-like test of whether the scheme is working properly. The figures come from different stages of the NDIS, use different assumptions and do not measure the needs, outcomes or circumstances of any one participant.
The NDIA’s March 2026 actuarial supplement records autism as the primary disability for 338,099 active participants. “Primary disability” is an administrative grouping. It is not a complete clinical profile, a measure of support intensity or an explanation for why the number has changed.
These data can describe the participant mix. They cannot establish that greater identification of autism, gaps in other services, access decisions or any single policy is the sole cause of growth. A causal claim needs evidence beyond a headline percentage.
What the financial figures show
The NDIA Annual Financial Sustainability Report 2024-2025 records that Scheme expenses on an accrual basis were $46.3 billion in 2024-25. It states that projected Scheme expenses on an accrual basis are $50.7 billion in 2025-26. The first figure is an actual result. The second is an actuarial projection based on assumptions that can change.
Those totals matter for government budgeting, but they do not show whether a particular participant’s plan is too high, too low or appropriate. The latest quarterly report also notes that individual plan budgets can vary significantly. Scheme costs reflect several moving parts, including participant numbers, the types and intensity of support required, prices, utilisation and how services are delivered.
Calling a projected total “unsustainable” is a policy judgement about future funding, growth and priorities. The projection is evidence; the political conclusion drawn from it is an argument that should be identified as such.
Why system design matters as much as demand
The original scheme design did not make the NDIS responsible for every disability-related need. Individually funded NDIS supports were meant to operate alongside health, education, housing, transport, community services and other supports.
The independent NDIS Review found three relevant design pressures:
accessible and affordable supports outside individual NDIS budgets were not widely available enough
the boundary between the NDIS and mainstream systems was often unclear or poorly coordinated
unclear tests for reasonable and necessary supports contributed to inconsistent planning decisions and disputes
These findings do not mean every problem has one cause or one solution. They do show why participant growth cannot be understood only as a question of individual demand. When the surrounding system has gaps, the NDIS carries pressure that its original design expected to be shared.
What the figures cannot prove
National totals are useful for monitoring the scheme, but they cannot answer every question raised in public debate. On their own, they cannot prove:
why a particular disability group has grown
whether one person meets the access requirements
whether an individual plan is adequate or excessive
how much growth is connected to fraud or non-compliance
what social or economic value a participant’s supports produce
Those questions require different evidence. Participant data should not be used as a shortcut for judging a person’s disability, support needs or integrity.
What changed under the 2024 law
The main amendments in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act 2024 commenced on 3 October 2024. Changes beginning then included the new definition and transitional lists of NDIS supports. The Act also created the legal framework for later changes such as new framework planning and support needs assessments.
Not every mechanism enabled by that Act started immediately. The NDIS summary of the 2024 legislation distinguishes provisions already operating from parts that depend on further design, rules or implementation. That distinction matters when reading claims that a future planning model is already deciding every plan.
What is still proposed in the 2026 Bill
The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 is a separate package. It was read a third time in the House of Representatives on 2 July 2026. As at 13 July 2026, the Senate committee inquiry was continuing, with its final report due on 14 August 2026. The Bill had not passed the Senate or received Royal Assent, so it had not completed Parliament or become law.
The Bill proposes further changes concerning access, planning, reasonable and necessary supports, reassessments, fraud controls and administration. The Parliamentary Library’s preliminary Bills Digest, published 25 May 2026, explains the Bill as introduced and issues raised about it. It predates the House amendments agreed on 1 July 2026 and the later third reading, so the bill progress record is the source for the Bill’s current parliamentary status.
A Bill is not an Act. Proposed measures should not be described as current rules unless and until Parliament passes them, they receive Royal Assent and the relevant provisions commence. A policy announcement or scheme-wide projection does not decide an individual participant’s plan.
A balanced reading of the pressure
Several things can be true at once. Participation and expenditure have grown. Governments need to plan for the scheme’s long-term funding. Participants and families also need fair access, consistent decisions and supports that produce real outcomes. Gaps outside the NDIS can increase pressure inside it.
The strongest explanation therefore avoids two extremes. It does not dismiss financial sustainability concerns, and it does not treat participants as the problem. It asks which pressures are supported by data, which are caused by system design, which are still disputed and which proposed responses are not yet law.
What scheme-wide change means for an individual participant
National figures cannot tell you whether your access, plan or funding will change. Use your current approved plan and written NDIA information as the starting point. For a decision about access or funding, ask your NDIS contact or the NDIA what rule and evidence apply to your circumstances. If you need help challenging a decision, seek an independent advocate or legal service with the appropriate role.
HORIZONS Support Network’s limited role
HORIZONS Support Network is a non-registered support-worker provider for self-managed and plan-managed participants only. We do not support NDIA-managed participants. We provide practical support-worker services in Brisbane when they fit a participant’s current approved plan and service agreement, including daily personal activities, independent living skills, social and community participation and Short Term Respite.
We do not provide Supported Independent Living (SIL), clinical services, Support Coordination, plan management, advocacy or legal advice. We cannot decide, protect or maximise NDIS funding, and we cannot guarantee access, plan amounts, review results or other outcomes. We can discuss whether our support-worker role fits a participant’s current goals and arrangements.
Official sources
Productivity Commission: Disability Care and Support inquiry report
Independent NDIS Review: Working together to deliver the NDIS
Federal Register of Legislation: Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1 Act 2024
Parliament of Australia: Bill progress record for 2 July 2026
Parliament of Australia: Senate inquiry into the Future Generations Bill 2026
