The whole scorecard
Every figure is the share of tasks completed within the guaranteed timeframe in the quarter ending 30 June 2026, with the task count beside it so the small measures are visible as small.
| Measure | Timeframe | Tasks | Within time |
|---|---|---|---|
| PSG 7: approve an Early Childhood Approach plan after an access decision | 56 days | 8,010 | 99.8% |
| PSG 10 and 16: provide a copy of the plan after approval or amendment | 7 days | 64,041 | 99.4% |
| PSG 17b: enact the outcome of a reviewable decision | 28 days | 3,082 | 98.9% |
| PSG 19: cancel a participant-requested nominee | 14 days | 430 | 98.8% |
| PSG 9: hold a plan implementation meeting once the offer is accepted | 28 days | 31,708 | 98.0% |
| PSG 6: approve a plan after an access decision | 56 days | 8,886 | 96.5% |
| PSG 2: make an access decision or request more information | 21 days | 23,473 | 95.7% |
| PSG 1: explain a previous decision on request | 28 days | 1,990 | 95.5% |
| PSG 20: cancel a CEO-initiated nominee | 14 days | 1,462 | 94.8% |
| PSG 18: implement a tribunal decision to amend a plan | 28 days | 1,073 | 89.9% |
| PSG 8: offer a plan implementation meeting after approval | 7 days | 69,168 | 88.8% |
| PSG 13: complete a reassessment once the request is accepted | 28 days | 32,815 | 85.8% |
| PSG 4: make an access decision after more information is provided | 14 days | 1,840 | 79.2% |
| PSG 17a: complete an internal review of a reviewable decision | 60 days | 19,299 | 48.5% |
| PSG 11: begin facilitating a scheduled plan reassessment before it falls due | 56 days ahead | 9,558 | 44.8% |
| PSG 14: amend a plan after information triggers the amendment process | 28 days | 29,309 | 44.3% |
| PSG 12: decide whether to undertake a participant-requested reassessment | 21 days | 14,232 | 32.1% |
The front door, rebuilt
Two measures have moved further and faster than anything else on this list.
| Quarter | PSG 2, access decision in 21 days | PSG 6, plan approved in 56 days |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2024 | 19.4% | 48.9% |
| Dec 2024 | 14.6% | 80.8% |
| Mar 2025 | 9.4% | 86.1% |
| Jun 2025 | 47.2% | 93.9% |
| Sep 2025 | 90.6% | 95.7% |
| Dec 2025 | 92.1% | 96.7% |
| Mar 2026 | 82.2% | 96.1% |
| Jun 2026 | 95.7% | 96.5% |
In the March 2025 quarter the agency met the 21-day access deadline for fewer than one request in ten, across 39,268 of them. Five quarters later it met it for more than nineteen in twenty. That is a real operational turnaround and it should be said plainly: whatever the NDIA did there, it worked, and it worked at scale.
Two things temper it. Access request volume fell over the same period, from 39,268 in the March 2025 quarter to 23,473 in the June 2026 quarter, so the improving figure is being measured against a smaller queue. And the series is not monotonic: it dropped to 82.2 per cent in the March 2026 quarter before recovering.
The four measures that do not move
Set against that, four measures sit below half, and none of them is improving in the way access did.
| Quarter | PSG 11 | PSG 12 | PSG 14 | PSG 17a |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 2024 | 59.5% | 29.3% | 51.7% | 58.6% |
| Dec 2024 | 50.6% | 23.3% | 43.2% | 65.8% |
| Mar 2025 | 64.4% | 22.1% | 39.0% | 48.7% |
| Jun 2025 | 62.4% | 26.3% | 44.7% | 75.2% |
| Sep 2025 | 50.7% | 26.3% | 43.9% | 69.7% |
| Dec 2025 | 52.7% | 30.7% | 44.2% | 43.9% |
| Mar 2026 | 47.3% | 28.7% | 39.5% | 33.5% |
| Jun 2026 | 44.8% | 32.1% | 44.3% | 48.5% |
PSG 12, deciding whether to even undertake a reassessment a participant has asked for, has not once reached a third of cases in eight quarters. Its best quarter is the most recent, at 32.1 per cent.
PSG 14, amending a plan within 28 days of receiving the information that triggers the amendment, sits at 44.3 per cent, and has not beaten its September 2024 figure of 51.7 per cent since. Over the same eight quarters its volume nearly tripled, from 10,027 tasks to 29,309.
PSG 11, starting a scheduled reassessment at least 56 days before it falls due, carries the clearest downward trend on the scorecard: 59.5 per cent in the September 2024 quarter, 44.8 per cent in the June 2026 quarter, and below 53 per cent in each of the last four.
PSG 17a, completing an internal review of a decision within 60 days, is the most volatile: 75.2 per cent in the June 2025 quarter, 33.5 per cent in March 2026, 48.5 per cent now. Its volume has almost doubled across the series, from 9,928 to 19,299 tasks. This is the pathway a participant uses when they disagree with a decision, and fewer than half of those reviews are finished inside the legislated period.
Our reading, offered as a view
Two processes on this list carry an identical 21-day standard. One is the agency deciding whether to let someone in. The other is the agency deciding whether to look again at the plan of someone already in. The first is met 95.7 per cent of the time and the second 32.1 per cent, and that gap is not explained by the deadline being harder, because it is the same deadline.
What the data will not tell you is why, and we are not going to invent a reason. Access performance is externally visible, politically salient and has been the subject of sustained attention; plan amendments and internal reviews are the part of the scheme a participant only meets after they are already in it. Whether that difference in attention explains the difference in performance is a question for the agency, not something this table can settle. What the table does settle is that the difference exists, that it is large, and that three of the four worst measures involve changing or reviewing an existing plan.
For a participant, the practical reading is narrower and more useful. If you are applying, the published timeframes now broadly describe what happens. If you are asking for a plan to be changed or a decision to be reviewed, the legislated timeframe is closer to a best case than an expectation, and the agency’s own numbers say so.
Methodology
Every figure was read by us from the NDIA’s Supplement E (National) for Q4 2025-26, downloaded on 17 August 2026, Tables E.53 to E.69. Percentages are as published in the file, rounded to one decimal place; task counts are as published. Nothing here is estimated or interpolated by us, and no figure comes from the narrative report or a summary.
The series lengths differ and the tables say so. PSG 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 17a are published across eight quarters from September 2024. PSG 1, 9, 10 and 16, 17b, 18, 19 and 20 are published across four quarters from September 2025 only, so no longer trend is available for those and none is claimed here.
What we have not established. The supplement reports whether a task was completed within its timeframe, not how far past it the late ones ran, so nothing here describes how long a participant actually waits when a deadline is missed. The measures are national; the state and territory supplements would allow a jurisdictional cut and we have not done one. We have not put these figures to the NDIA, and we would publish a response.
Primary sources
- NDIA, Supplement E National 2025-26 Q4 (XLSX, downloaded 17 August 2026 from the quarterly report supplements page): Tables E.53 to E.69, the Participant Service Guarantee performance measures, the source of every percentage and task count above.
- The Scheme Brief, NDIS plans in very remote Australia are 57 per cent spent against 75 in the cities (17 August 2026): the same Q4 2025-26 release, and how to reach it.
Something here wrong or out of date? Tell us and we will check it against the sources above and log the outcome.