Submission 105 — Ms Kate Chaney MP — NDIS Future Generations Bill | External submission

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 105

FEDERAL MEMBER FOR CURTIN Kate Chaney MP

Submission to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee Inquiry into the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Kate Chaney MP Federal Member for Curtin

27 May 2026

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 105

The NDIS is one of Australia’s most important social reforms. When it works well, it changes lives, enabling people with disability to live with dignity, independence and genuine inclusion in their communities. It also allows carers to work, contribute and participate in public life. The economic and social case for a well-functioning NDIS is beyond dispute.

Following the announcement on 22 April 2026 of significant changes to the NDIS, now reflected in the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, I heard immediately from Curtin constituents who were anxious about what these changes would mean for them and the national commitment made more than a decade ago to the dignity and inclusion of people with disability.

To give my community a genuine voice in shaping these reforms, I convened a community workshop on 4 May 2026, complemented by an online survey and detailed written submissions. Together, these channels drew responses from participants, carers and family members, occupational therapists, speech pathologists, physiotherapists, plan managers, support coordinators, providers and advocates who live and work in the electorate.

What I heard was not a rejection of reform. Most people explicitly acknowledged the need for a sustainable NDIS. What they are asking for with urgency and consistency is that reform is designed carefully, implemented with genuine co-design, and directed at the real drivers of cost growth rather than at participants themselves.

This submission addresses the four substantive reform schedules of the Bill and puts forward 22 practical recommendations for the Committee’s consideration. I have identified points of convergence across the community responses and included representative quotes attributed by first name only.

On behalf of my community, I urge the Committee not just to receive these views, but to act on them. The test for this Bill should be whether it delivers a more sustainable, fairer and better-functioning NDIS without removing the genuine support that people with disability need to live full lives.

Kate Chaney MP Federal Member for Curtin

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 105

Contents

Summary of Recommendations ………………………………………………………………… 4

Overarching Themes from the Community ………………………………………………….. 6

Schedule 1 — Access and Planning Measures ……………………………………………… 7

Functional Capacity Assessment …………………………………………………………………. 7

Social and Community Participation Funding ………………………………………………….. 9

Plan Renewals and Unspent Funds ……………………………………………………………… 10

Reasonable and Necessary Support ……………………………………………………………. 10

Schedule 2 — Fraud Measures ………………………………………………………………… 11

Provider Registration ………………………………………………………………………………… 11

Digital Payment System and Integrity Measures …………………………………………….. 11

Plan Management Commissioning ……………………………………………………………… 12

Schedule 3 — Governance arrangements ………………………………………………….. 13

Pricing and Allied Health Sustainability ………………………………………………………… 13

Automated Decision-Making ……………………………………………………………………… 13

Schedule 4 — New Framework Planning ……………………………………………………. 15

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 105

Summary of Recommendations

On behalf of the Curtin electorate, I ask the Committee to recommend:

Functional Assessment

The functional assessment tool must be co-designed with people with lived experience, disability researchers and allied health clinicians.
Different tools or assessment pathways should be available for different disability types and age groups. A single standardised tool cannot adequately capture the diversity of presentations across the scheme.
Human professional judgement must be retained as an override mechanism; algorithmic outputs should inform, not determine, eligibility and planning decisions.
Clear, accessible and timely appeal rights must be established and resourced before the new eligibility framework commences. Social and Community Participation
The Ministerial determination reducing SCCP and CBDA funding should not proceed until robust alternative supports are demonstrably operational and delivering genuine community inclusion, not group segregation.
The $200 million Inclusive Communities Program must be co-designed with people with disability and grounded in evidence about what genuine community inclusion requires.
Participants with complex needs must be protected from blanket funding reductions, with safeguards for participants whose participation funding is essential to maintain health and prevent crisis. Plan Renewals
The Government should introduce a structured mechanism for participants to voluntarily return unspent funds, rather than relying solely on automatic non- carry-over, to avoid perverse incentives to overspend at year-end. Fraud and Integrity
Mandatory registration must be risk-tiered: higher requirements for high-risk closed settings; lighter-touch requirements for allied health professionals already regulated through AHPRA.
Registration processes must be accessible, timely and proportionate to provider type; onerous requirements will drive high-quality small providers out of the sector.
Pricing should be differentiated to reflect the overhead costs of registration.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 105

Any new digital payment or fraud detection system must be robustly tested and phased before full rollout, with accessible dispute mechanisms for participants and providers.
An independent NDIS complaints body should be established with clear investigative powers and transparent public reporting on outcomes. Plan Management
The panel model must be designed to preserve participant choice, with a sufficient number of panel providers and the ability to change providers mid- plan.
Panel selection criteria must accommodate small specialist providers, weighted on disability expertise and client satisfaction, not only administrative capacity.
Self-management must be preserved as a viable pathway for participants with the capacity and desire to self-manage.
Payment processing timeframes under the new system must be monitored and publicly reported. Governance and Pricing
The Annual Pricing Review must explicitly address the gap between NDIS allied health rates and market rates, and the Government’s plan to close it. Automated Decision Making
The Bill should explicitly delineate which decisions may be automated and which require human determination, and the scope of automation not to be expandable by subordinate legislation without further parliamentary scrutiny.
Any automated decision should be subject to a government-wide mandatory framework that includes transparency requirements, human accountability and oversight for high-risk decisions, review rights and strong independent oversight.

New Framework Planning 21. New framework planning rules must be published in draft and subject to genuine consultation before commencement. 22. The support needs assessment framework must provide for input from a participant’s existing treating team, not rely solely on NDIA-commissioned assessments.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 105

Overarching Themes from the Community

Before addressing the specific schedules of the Bill, it is important to convey three consistent themes that ran through virtually every piece of community feedback received.

Sustainability must be pursued through efficiency, not exclusion

Respondents broadly accepted that the NDIS must be financially sustainable. They did not accept that sustainability requires removing people from the scheme who genuinely need support. Their consistent view was that savings should be pursued through eliminating fraud, reducing bureaucratic overhead, improving the quality of initial planning decisions, and addressing provider overcharging, not by tightening eligibility for participants with real and permanent support needs.

Reform must not cost-shift to other systems

Multiple respondents including clinicians, advocates, and parents with direct experience in the justice and health systems stressed that reducing NDIS supports does not eliminate need. It transfers cost to hospitals, schools, mental health services, aged care, and the justice system, often at far greater cost to the public.

“It is false economy to short-change those with disabilities. People with disabilities and their families have already paid, and are continuing to pay daily.” Bianca, constituent

The Committee should weigh the long-term avoided costs of early intervention, community participation, and individualised support against short-term savings when assessing the Bill’s provisions.

Co-design must be genuine, not performative

There is deep scepticism across the community about the quality of co-design accompanying these reforms. The speed at which changes are proposed to be implemented, combined with the limited detail available on key aspects of the Bill, has eroded trust. Many respondents noted that co-design processes in recent years have too often meant consultation after decisions were made, rather than genuine participation in design.

The Government has committed to further consultation on key elements, including the functional assessment tool. That consultation must be substantive and must have genuine capacity to shape outcomes, not simply validate decisions already made.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 105

Schedule 1 — Access and Planning Measures

Functional Capacity Assessment

The Bill establishes the legislative framework for eligibility based on substantially reduced functional capacity, with detailed thresholds and assessment processes to be developed through a Technical Advisory Group and community engagement in the second half of 2026, commencing for new participants from 1 January 2028.

This is among the most consequential elements of the Bill, and the one that generated the most community feedback. The concerns are significant and consistent.

Design and validity concerns

A strong theme across both the workshop and survey responses was scepticism about whether any standardised assessment tool can adequately capture the full diversity and complexity of disability. Particular concerns were raised about:

• Episodic and fluctuating conditions, where functional capacity varies significantly from day to day and a snapshot assessment may not reflect genuine support needs; • Invisible disabilities and masking, particularly for autistic individuals who have developed strategies to appear more capable than they are in assessment settings; • Rare and complex conditions, where assessors may lack the specialised knowledge to correctly assess functional need; and • Children, where different tools and different frameworks are needed for different developmental stages.

“Functional capacity assessment will measure presentation more than true functional capacity, particularly in high-masking individuals. Many can appear articulate, compliant and capable in a structured setting.” Samantha, carer

“It is only a tool. It should aid human decision making, not overrule it.” Irena, carer

Assessor competency

Multiple respondents, particularly allied health professionals, raised serious concerns about the training and experience required to conduct meaningful functional capacity assessments. They noted that while occupational therapists undertake four years of professional training, the I-CAN assessment tool used for needs assessment requires only approximately six weeks of training. Respondents questioned whether assessors with similarly limited preparation could adequately capture the nuanced and complex

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 105

presentations that characterise many NDIS participants’ disabilities, and warned that under-qualified assessment risks systematically under-identifying need, with potentially serious consequences for vulnerable people’s access to support.

“Assessments need to be executed by highly qualified, experienced and independent assessors. A six-week training course would not be effective to assess the wide range of complex conditions.” Michelle, carer

Algorithmic decision-making and Robodebt

The prospect of algorithmically generated plans with limited human override capacity was raised repeatedly and with genuine alarm. The Robodebt scandal was cited specifically and frequently. My community does not trust that a government automated assessment system will get this right, and they have evidence-based reasons not to.

“We have already seen in Robodebt what can happen when inadequate human oversight of algorithmically driven processes is in place. It is now happening in aged care assessments, and we are about to see it in disability.” Alan, disability advocate

Appeal rights

A significant number of respondents raised the absence of clear, accessible appeal mechanisms as a critical gap. Where a standardised tool generates an outcome that does not reflect a person’s genuine support needs, there must be a robust, timely and affordable pathway to challenge that outcome. Respondents noted that existing Administrative Review Tribunal processes are already costly, slow and adversarial.

Recommendations

The functional assessment tool must be co-designed with people with lived experience, disability researchers, and clinicians from the relevant allied health professions. This is a non-negotiable condition for my community’s confidence in the framework.
Different tools or assessment pathways should be available for different disability types and age groups. A single standardised tool cannot adequately capture the diversity of presentations across the scheme.
Human professional judgement must be retained as an override mechanism. Algorithmic outputs should inform, not determine, eligibility and planning decisions.
Clear, accessible and timely appeal rights must be established and resourced before the new eligibility framework commences.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 105

Social and Community Participation Funding

The Bill enables Ministerial determinations to reduce funding for groups of supports. The initial determination plans to cut social, civic and community participation (SCCP) funding by 50 per cent and capacity building daily activities (CBDA) by 10 per cent across old framework plans.

This aspect of the Bill generated a particularly strong response from participants in the community engagement process. The concerns expressed were not about discretionary spending but whether people with disability are entitled to live a full life.

“Community participation is very important to someone who is non-verbal and in a wheelchair. How else can she make contact with the rest of humanity? Community inclusion used to be a fundamental principle of the NDIS. What happened?” David and Leonie, carers, Floreat

The community engagement process also surfaced an important practical concern: the $200 million Inclusive Communities Program proposed as a partial replacement for individual SCCP funding was widely viewed as a step backwards toward segregated, group-based models that the NDIS was designed to move beyond. Respondents with direct experience of pre-NDIS group programs described them as ‘glorified babysitting’ with limited genuine community inclusion.

“The proposed Inclusive Communities Program reeks of discrimination and segregation. It would result in corralling disabled people together into groups where they can only mix amongst themselves.” Bianca, constituent

The Bill anticipates cuts to SCCP and CBDA funding commencing from October 2026. While a National Agreement on Foundational Supports has been signed by all governments, and most jurisdictions have now signed bilateral agreements for Thriving Kids, implementation plans are not yet confirmed, services have not commenced, and no funding has flowed. My community asks the Committee to note their deep concern about this sequencing: cutting established supports before replacement services are demonstrably operational.

Recommendations

The Ministerial determination reducing SCCP and CBDA funding should not proceed until robust alternative support arrangements are in place and demonstrated to deliver genuine community inclusion, not group segregation.
The $200 million Inclusive Communities Program must be co-designed with people with disability and grounded in evidence about what genuine community inclusion requires.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 105

Participants with complex needs must be protected from blanket funding reductions, with safeguards for participants whose participation funding is required to maintain health and prevent crisis.

Plan Renewals and Unspent Funds

The Bill introduces legislated end dates for plans, with unspent funds from a plan not carried over on renewal. Several respondents raised concerns that the automatic non- carry-over of unspent funds could perversely incentivise participants to ‘use up’ their plans at year end, even where the spending does not reflect genuine need.

Recommendation

The Government should consider a structured mechanism allowing participants to voluntarily return unspent funds, rather than relying solely on automatic non- carry-over. This would provide savings without perverse incentives.

Reasonable and Necessary Support

The Bill adds Scheme sustainability and equity in the provision of supports across participants as factors that NDIA delegates must have regard to, and enables ministerial determinations on maximum amounts, frequency and staffing ratios.

Serious concern was raised about what this means in practice for participants with highly individualised, complex needs. The Committee should satisfy itself that the legislative framework provides adequate flexibility for complex cases and does not produce rigid caps that are unsuitable for high-need individuals.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 105

Schedule 2 — Fraud Measures

My community strongly supports action on fraud. There was no ambiguity on this point. The frustration expressed was not with the goal of fraud prevention but with two specific concerns: whether the measures are appropriately targeted; and whether the administrative burden falls on the right people.

Provider Registration

Expanded mandatory registration for providers delivering supports in high-risk settings, including group homes, was broadly welcomed. However, a strong thread through both the workshop and survey responses was concern that blanket mandatory registration could drive small, high-quality independent providers out of the scheme, leaving participants with only large corporate providers.

Allied health professionals in particular noted that they are already regulated through the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and meet professional standards. Additional registration layers can cost upwards of $10,000 and may not improve quality or safety while making independent practice financially unviable.

“What mandatory registration looks like needs to be achievable for people or you will lose good people from the system.” Workshop participant

“Allied health professionals are already highly regulated through AHPRA and Speech Pathology Australia. Additional layers of registration disproportionately impact small providers without necessarily improving quality or safety.” Rachel, speech pathologist

Recommendations

Mandatory registration requirements should be risk-tiered: higher requirements for high-risk, closed settings; lighter-touch requirements for allied health professionals already regulated through AHPRA.
Registration processes must be accessible, timely and proportionate to provider type. Onerous processes will drive high-quality small providers out of the sector.
Pricing should be differentiated to reflect the overhead costs of registration.

Digital Payment System and Integrity Measures

The community broadly supported better integrity measures, including requirements to retain records and the 90-day claims period. However, concern was expressed about the design and implementation of any new digital payment system, with Robodebt cited explicitly in relation to automated fraud detection.

“The proposed new payment system is concerning. While the intent is positive, government delivery in this space has historically been poor.” Steve, provider

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 105

Recommendations

Any new digital payment or fraud detection system must be subject to robust testing and phased implementation before full rollout, with clearly accessible processes for participants and providers to dispute automated decisions.
An independent NDIS complaints body should be established, with clear powers to investigate fraud reports and transparent reporting on outcomes.

Plan Management Commissioning

The Bill enables the Government to commission a panel of plan management providers, replacing the current open market of over 1,400 plan managers. This was a highly contested aspect of the Bill in the community engagement.

The strongest feedback I received was that the panel model risks eliminating choice and control, consolidating the market in favour of large providers, and removing the small, specialist plan managers most valued by complex participants.

“The change will mean choice and control go out the window. We will end up with just the big end of town on the panel.” Workshop participant

“Plan managers are not the problem. They are not driving reassessments or plan inflation. I have 1,000 clients in WA and have only requested a plan reassessment once.” Workshop participant, plan manager

Recommendations

The panel model should be designed to preserve participant choice, including a sufficient number of panel providers and the ability to change providers mid- plan.
The panel selection process must accommodate small, specialist providers. Criteria should include demonstrated disability expertise and client satisfaction, not only administrative capacity.
Self-management must be preserved as a viable pathway for participants with the capacity and desire to manage their own plans.
Payment processing timeframes under the new system must be monitored and publicly reported.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 105

Schedule 3 — Governance arrangements

Pricing and Allied Health Sustainability

The Bill makes the Minister the decision-maker on NDIS pricing, which is welcome in principle. However, my community raised a related concern not addressed by this provision: allied health provider rates have been frozen for seven years or have declined in real terms, while all other costs have risen. Occupational therapists working in the NDIS receive approximately 80% of current market rates. More than half of occupational therapists working in the NDIS are reportedly considering leaving the sector.

“NDIA need to provide certainty and consistency to NDIS allied health providers particularly related to remuneration rates, as this directly impacts service quality and health outcomes for NDIS participants.” Angela, occupational therapist

Recommendation

The Annual Pricing Review must explicitly address the sustainability of allied health provider rates. The Committee should seek information from the Minister on the current gap between NDIS allied health rates and market rates and the Government’s plan to address it.

Automated Decision-Making

The Bill enables automation of specific administrative actions. In principle, automation of genuinely administrative functions is sensible. The community supports this where it reduces administrative burden on participants and providers. However, the Committee should satisfy itself that the legislation clearly delineates which decisions can be automated and which require human determination, and that override and appeal mechanisms are robust.

I have separately engaged with my community and a range of experts on the use of automated decision-making in government, more broadly. There is widespread concern about the use of automation, particularly on the back of the Robodebt scandal. A strong legislative framework that enshrines transparency, human accountability, review rights and independent oversight is essential to build community trust and unlock the opportunities for efficiency that automation could provide.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 105

Recommendations

The Bill should explicitly delineate which decisions may be automated and which require human determination, and the scope of automation not to be expandable by subordinate legislation without further parliamentary scrutiny.
Any automated decision should be subject to a government-wide mandatory framework that includes transparency requirements, human accountability and oversight for high-risk decisions, review rights and strong independent oversight.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 105

Schedule 4 — New Framework Planning

The rollout of new framework planning from 1 April 2027 represents a fundamental redesign of how participant supports are assessed and funded. The key concerns raised in community engagement were:

• Support needs assessments carried out only by NDIA staff or contractors remove the established relationship between a participant and their long-term allied health team, which is often the most reliable source of evidence about genuine support needs • The rollout timeline is ambitious given the complexity of changes and the NDIA’s capacity to implement them well • The ability for rules to incorporate official NDIA website documents by reference and update them over time creates significant uncertainty about what rules apply at any given time.

Recommendations

The new framework planning rules must be published in draft and subject to genuine consultation before commencement.
The support needs assessment framework should provide for clinician input from a participant’s existing treatment and therapy team, not rely solely on NDIA-commissioned assessments conducted without that context.