Schedule 1, Part 3

The support has to come from the impairment

From 27 August 2026 a funded support must arise directly from an impairment, not merely in connection with the person's disability, and the qualifying impairment must still exist when the statement of supports is approved.

What does the provision require?

Paragraph 34(1)(aa) previously asked whether a support was associated with a disability arising from an impairment. The amendment inserts the word directly, so the causal chain has to be short enough to show. The note to subsection 34(1) is replaced to fix the time at which the disability requirements or the early intervention requirements must be met: the moment the CEO decides to approve the statement of participant supports.

The Part also repeals subsection 32K(3A) and removes a note from subsection 32L(6), which had qualified how the needs assessment interacted with the funding method. The application provision makes the new test apply to a statement approved on or after commencement, and to any review decision made after commencement even where the original decision came earlier.

Why does it matter to an insurer or a provider?

Directness is the test an insurer's recovery argument usually turns on. Where a support responds to a housing problem, a family breakdown or a need that another system should meet, the new wording gives the Agency a cleaner basis to refuse it, and gives the insurer a cleaner basis to argue that the NDIS is not the proper funder. The time rule matters as much: a person whose impairment has resolved before the statement is approved does not qualify, so a claim file that shows recovery before approval is now decisive.

What did the amendment change?

One word, directly, plus a note that fixes the qualifying time at approval rather than at some earlier point. The repeal of subsection 32K(3A) removes a qualification on how the funding method applies to a needs assessment.

Suggested evidence

These are the publisher's control suggestions, not statutory requirements. The provision's own requirement is above; an auditor or regulator decides what is sufficient.

The statement of participant supports and its approval date
The impairment evidence that was current on the approval date
The reasoning that connects the support to that impairment, not to the person's circumstances generally
Where another system could meet the need, the record of why it was not used
Any review decision and the date it was made

What should be done before the date?

Re-read any file where the support answers a social or housing need and test the direct link
Check the impairment evidence date against the approval date
Add the directness question to the underwriting questionnaire for provider liability

What the text does not say

The text does not say how long a causal chain may be before it stops being direct. It does not define the evidence that proves directness. The application provision does not reopen a statement approved before commencement unless a review decision is made after it.

Where this sits

section 34(1)(aa), amended by item 31 in Schedule 1, Part 3, Strengthen link between an impairment and need for support (items 28 to 33). Read the official text at https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2026A00066/latest/text. The record was read on 21 October 2026.

Not legal advice; does not certify. This page is a reading of the provision in our own words, not a reproduction of it, and not advice on your own facts.