Schedule 1, Part 6
The support test, the evidence order and the value for money rule
From 1 February 2027 a support must not be one that another scheme or government service should provide, value for money is tested against comparable lower cost supports, and effectiveness is judged in a fixed order that puts published peer reviewed research first.
What does the provision require?
The Part adds two things to the support test. First, a new paragraph 34(1)(g) excludes a support that another scheme, or a government service system already in place, is better placed to provide or fund, or by a government service system or systems already in place. Second, subsections 34(1A) to (1K) set out how three of the existing criteria are applied.
On value for money, the CEO must ask whether similar supports can be bought for less and whether one of them would be better value. For equipment and modifications, the CEO must compare purchase and lease, may prefer purchase even where a lease is cheaper, and must presume that a lease is the value for money option where the participant's situation is likely to shift in the short term. On effectiveness, the CEO must weigh, in this order: published peer reviewed generalisable research, then evidence of effectiveness for this participant, then the participant's own outcomes from using the support. Limited research can be enough to refuse a support even where there is individual evidence. On family support for a child, the Act presumes parents provide substantial care and support, defines what that includes, and stops the CEO being satisfied under paragraph 34(1)(e) where the main purpose is to reduce parental burden, improve household efficiency or put a parent's preference into effect. That test sits under the family support criterion, not under value for money.
Why does it matter to an insurer or a provider?
This is the part of the Act that most directly changes what an insurer will be asked to pay for. The other scheme exclusion gives the Agency an explicit basis to refuse a support that a compensation scheme should fund, which is the argument an insurer wants made. The value for money rules reset the price benchmark for equipment, and the lease presumption is a direct challenge to a purchase claim. The evidence hierarchy tells a provider exactly what file it needs before a contested support survives review.
What did the amendment change?
The objects of the Act now describe supports as NDIS supports rather than reasonable and necessary supports, and add financial sustainability to the object. New section 17B sets sustainability principles, including that participants meet day to day living costs and that funding is used efficiently and distributed equitably. A new paragraph 34(1)(g) and the detail in subsections (1A) to (1K) are new. A variation may no longer duplicate a support already in the plan.
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 support description and the price, with a comparable lower cost alternative where one exists
- For equipment, the purchase and lease quotes and the expected life of the item
- The research relied on, with its citation, and the participant specific evidence
- The outcomes record from the previous plan, if the support was used before
- For a child, the care and support the family provides and why the support is additional to it
- The record showing that no other scheme or government service should fund the support
What should be done before the date?
- Rebuild the evidence pack for the highest value supports to match the four level hierarchy
- Ask whether a compensation scheme or government service should fund the support before the NDIS does
- Test every equipment claim against the lease presumption
- Review any support whose main purpose is household efficiency or parental relief
What the text does not say
The text does not define another scheme or existing government service systems. It does not say how short term is measured for the lease presumption. It does not set the evidence standard for a peer reviewed study beyond the words published, peer reviewed and generalisable.
Where this sits
sections 17B, 34(1)(g) and 34(1A) to (1K), inserted by items 65 to 74 in Schedule 1, Part 6, Reasonable and necessary supports (items 60 to 76). 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.