Schedule 1, Part 4
When a Minister can cut a group of supports
From 1 October 2026 the Minister may cut funding for two named groups of supports by a percentage, and a plan can end up funding a support below its actual cost without any change to the text of the plan.
What does the provision require?
New section 34A lets the Minister determine, by legislative instrument, a percentage reduction for a group of supports and the class of plans it applies to. Only two groups can be reduced: assistance with social, economic and community participation, and improved daily living skills. The determination may name an excluded subgroup, which the note says will include employment supports and disability related health supports, and may name a subclass of plans for the exclusion.
The effect is arithmetic. The funding component amount in each affected plan is taken to be the reduced amount, the reduction is spread across funding periods so the proportion between periods does not change, and the total funding amount is reduced by the same dollars. The determination does not alter the text of a plan. The Act states that it operates even where the result is that funding is less than the cost of the support, or less than the cost of all supports in the plan together. New section 47B gives a high support needs participant 90 days to ask for a variation, and the CEO 21 days to decide whether the person is in that class.
Why does it matter to an insurer or a provider?
A revenue cut that does not appear on the face of the plan is a direct underwriting problem. A provider can be paid less than its cost of delivery while every document it holds says the funding was approved. For an insurer, the exposure sits in management liability and in business interruption: the insured may not see the reduction until a claim is reconciled, and the 90 day variation window is short. The Act's own statement that funding may fall below cost is the clearest signal that margin pressure is intended.
What did the amendment change?
There was no equivalent power to reduce funding for a group of supports across a class of plans. The Act creates it, limits it to two groups, and adds a variation route for participants with high support needs. It also adds reviewable decisions to the table in section 99 for the high support needs question and the variation decision.
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 determination and its commencement day
- The class of plans and any excluded subgroup it names
- The plan's funding component amounts before and after the reduction
- The reconciliation showing the dollars removed and the periods affected
- For a high support needs participant, the variation request and the 21 day decision
- The copy of any varied plan, which must reach the participant inside 7 days after the variation takes effect
What should be done before the date?
- Model the revenue effect of a reduction on the insured's two largest support groups
- Add a policy condition question about funding determined below cost
- Diarise the 90 day variation window where a participant is likely to qualify as high support needs
What the text does not say
The text does not set the percentage, the class of participants or the excluded subgroups; those are left to the instrument. It does not define high support needs participant in the Act itself; the class is set by a determination, with a note describing the broad idea of continuous 24 hour care.
Where this sits
section 34A and section 47B, inserted by items 34 and 34A in Schedule 1, Part 4, Support determinations (items 34 to 34G). 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.